Hansard, 1965-12-16

Order. I understand there are a number of Business Motions to be moved. Mr Barker.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission and with the general assent of the House, may I move, That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, this Assembly do adjourn at 6.30 p.m. today.

Does the House give its general assent to the Minister? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, this Assembly do adjourn at 6.30 p.m. today.

2.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to move, That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order 23, and notwithstanding the Orders of the Assembly on 13th December this year that the under-mentioned Bills be read a Second time on the first available sitting day in January 1966, the undermentioned Bills be read instead a Second time on the first available sitting day after 21st December, 1965:-

Does the House give its general assent to the motion being moved by the Minister for Law? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order 23, and notwithstanding the Orders of the Assembly on 13th December this year that the undermentioned Bills be read a Second time on the first available sitting day in January 1966, the undermentioned Bills be read instead a Second time on the first available sitting day after 21st December, 1965:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to seek the general assent of the Assembly to move the following motion:- That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order 23, and notwithstanding the Orders of the Assembly on 13th December, 1965, that the undermentioned Bills be read a Second time on the first available sitting day in January 1966, the undermentioned Bills be read instead a Second time on the first available sitting day after 21st December, 1965:-

Does the House give its general assent that the motion he moved? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order 23, and notwithstanding the Orders of the Assembly on 13th December, 1965, that the undermentioned Bills be read a Second time on the first available sitting day in January 1966, the undermentioned Bills be read instead a Second time on the first available sitting day after 21st December, 1965:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to seek the general assent of the Assembly under Standing Order 98 to move the following motion:- That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order 23, and notwithstanding the Orders of the Assembly on 13th December, 1965, that the undermentioned Bills be read a Second time on the first available sitting day in January 1966, the undermentioned Bills be read instead a Second time on the first available sitting day after 21st December, 1965:-

Does the House give its general assent to the Minister for Labour as requested by him? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order 23, and notwithstanding the Orders of the Assembly on 13th December, 1965, that the undermentioned Bills be read a Second time on the first available sitting day in January 1966, the undermentioned Bills be read instead a Second time on the first available sitting day after 21st December, 1965:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to seek the general assent of the Assembly to move the following motion:- That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order 23, and notwithstanding the Orders of the Assembly on 13th December, 1965, that the under-mentioned Bills be read a Second time on the first available sitting day in January 1966, the undermentioned Bills be read instead a Second time on the first available sitting day after 21st December, 1965:-

Is there general assent of the House that the motion moved by the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs be allowed? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order 23, and notwithstanding the Orders of the Assembly on 13th December, 1965, that the undermentioned Bills be read a Second time on the first available sitting day in January 1966, the undermentioned Bills be read instead a Second time on the first available sitting day after 21st December, 1965:-

2.37 p.m. Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14th December, 1965], `That the following Address in reply to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara be agreed to:- "We, the Legislative Assembly of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present Session of this Assembly.".'. - [The Prime Minister]. Question again proposed.

At the close of yesterday's sitting. the Minister for Labour was holding the House. He now has the Floor. Mr Jek. 2.39 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia has suggested that Singapore should go its own way and should not interfere with the affairs of Malaysia. This we will gladly do if they would also keep to their own word. But what happened was that when our Prime Minister talked about political eunuchs in the Federal Cabinet or the Sultans and their multiplicity of wives, they immediately sent us a protest note through diplomatic channels complaining that we were interfering with their internal affairs. When we announced our intention to resume barter trade with Indonesia, they stepped in and objected to the scheme, giving the flimsiest reasons for their objection. Is this not a blatant interference with our internal affairs? They claimed that resumption of trade with Indonesia, even though on a small scale, would jeopardise the security of Malaysia. But everybody knows that their own traders are carrying on barter trade in Tawau, Pulau Ketam -

Order. I have allowed the Minister to continue in the vein that he has because I thought that it was relevant that the House should understand the circumstances which led to the separation of Singapore from Malaysia up to the 9th of August. Events subsequent to that date which concern the Federation of Malaysia are matters which should not he touched upon by this Assembly. But if they are matters subsequent to the 9th of August which arc relevant to Singapore and which have been mentioned by the Ministers in the Federation, then those matters may he touched upon and no other. I hope I have made myself quite clear to the House, because I am going to be very strict about this from now on.

On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister mentioned in his speech just now the exchanges of diplomatic notes between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. He was referring to this exchange and the circumstances under which this protest was put forward. So I think it would he quite relevant if, in the process of explaining the events which took place after the 9th of August, matters which are relevant to the events are brought up in the speech. I would very much he obliged, Mr Speaker, if you could he a little generous in your interpretation of what should be debated on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech.

Mr Deputy Prime Minister, as I have said in my ruling. I consider that any events subsequent to the 9th of August touched upon by Ministers of the Federation pertinent to Singapore may be touched upon by Members in this House. I would request Members of this House, while they are so doing, to use temperate language and not intemperate language, because if it is intemperate, I shall rule it out of order, not on the basis of subject matter but on the basis of language.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful for your ruling. If their traders can have barter trade with the Indonesians in Malaysian territories, then why cannot we trade with Indonesia in Pulau Senang, which is 12 miles away from our main island? This, I think, is like the case of the Chinese proverb which says that high officials are allowed to set fire to a town, but the common people are not allowed even to light a lamp in their own house. If they are so concerned about the security of Malaysia and the security of Singapore, then it should he their duty to help Singapore to industrialise, because a contented people will not so easily fall into the hands of the Communists. But instead of doing this, they clamp down on trade between Singapore and the Peninsula. Every sane person knows that by denying access of their markets to our manufacturers, there can be only one consequence - the slowing down of our industrialisation programme. This would create conditions most favourable for a Communist take-over in Singapore. If, as a result of their foolish measures, the people in Singapore lose hope in a democratic government and turn to the Communists, then what will be left of Malaysia's security and defence? Everyone knows that the defence of Malaysia rests on the British bases in Singapore. Can Malaysia be defended with a Communist base in Singapore? Finally, I would like to come to the question of the payroll tax which was also mentioned by the Member for Bras Basah. This tax was foolishly imposed by the then Federal Minister for Finance. It has the ill-effect of discouraging employers from employing more labourers that we have in surplus. When we were in Malaysia, we opposed it strongly in Parliament. But since this has already been imposed on us and since they have been collecting it for about a year, we do not intend to stop it yet. Instead, we intend to use it solely for the benefit of the workers. We intend to set aside the revenue collected under this head to form a fund for the social security of the workers. We will set up a committee to put up recommendations for the implementation of the scheme. As what we have done in all our major labour legislation and policies, the N.T.U.C. will be the first we would approach for their views and suggestions on the scheme. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to second the motion on the debate.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Address in reply to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on the 8th of December. We are now a free and independent State and, therefore, we have to work harder to fight for the bright future of our citizens. All the citizens of Singapore have shown their determination to make Singapore a State that would be successful and prosperous. It is only the members and leaders of the Barisan Sosialis who hope that Singapore would face destruction so that it would be possible for them to make use of the opportunity for their own ends. That is why we see there is not a single one of them present in this House. This is a clear indication that they are truly out for the destruction of the interests of Singapore. Singapore, as a State that believes in democratic socialism, is facing all sorts of enemies. We face threats from the Communists and the pro-Communists, as represented by the Barisan Sosialis. We are also facing intimidation from reactionary elements as represented by conservative forces in U.M.N.O., the M.C.A. and the M.I.C. Apart from that, we are also faced with intimidation from the remnants of the colonialists who carry out their evil machinations which help towards the achievement of the ends of those two forces mentioned earlier. They hope that Singapore would fail in its effort to survive, and they work hard to damage the economy of the State. These are the people who often shout out the slogan that Singapore will not survive without the cooperation of others, particularly Malaysia. Our State has no desire to he an enemy of anyone, particularly of our neighbour, Malaysia. In fact, the desire of the Government of Singapore is to maintain co-operation with them, particularly in the economic and commercial fields. But a matter which must be duly considered is that if economic co-operation is to be maintained with Malaysia, we do not wish any Party, particularly the conservative reactionaries of the Right, to imagine that, without co-operation with Malaysia, Singapore will fall. Singapore can survive on its own. Mr Speaker, we have often heard U.M.N.O. leaders in Singapore saying that for Singapore to be an industrialised State, it must depend upon raw materials from Malaya. What they mean to say is, how is Singapore to become an industrialised State without raw materials such as tin, rubber and other raw materials? I wish to say to them that for us to industrialise, raw materials are not important. Take, for instance, Japan. It does not have iron ore or rubber. Nevertheless, it is highly industrialised and produces motor-cars and other manufactured goods for their people, and these goods are exported to the people of Malaysia. Malaysia, on the other hand, which has raw materials such as rubber and tin, is not producing motor-cars and exporting them. It is not industrialising. A Singapore without raw materials need not necessarily mean that it cannot industrialise. On the other hand, although a country has raw materials, it is not necessarily an industrialised country. So all the talk that to he an industrialised State, the State must have raw materials, is not exactly true. Singapore will prosper with its industrialisation. Daily we see industrialists from foreign countries coming here to observe what is going on in Jurong. Our people have been going to Japan and industrialists from Japan have all said that our economy is stable and they are keen to come and build factories here. Our country will prosper. I call upon all the citizens of Singapore to unite solidly behind the Government, to work hard and be realistic in their attitude. By the will of God, we will succeed. The Government of Singapore will defend the rights of the people, irrespective of race, language or religion. It will defend the welfare and interests of the various races of Singapore. All these things will be written in the new Constitution of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Malays in Singapore need not fear that the P.A.P. Government will not look after their interests and welfare. The Government is grateful for the confidence that they have placed in it in the last general elections. The fact that the Malays in Singapore voted for members of the P.A.P. is an indication that they have full confidence in the P.A.P. Government. We will not betray their confidence placed in us. We will defend and protect the interests and welfare of them all. In the multi-racial society of Singapore, the Malays have a part to play. Let us all, irrespective of race, work hard to make Singapore a prosperous and happy country. The P.A.P. Government is working hard in order to bring about a society which is happy and harmonious because it is by this means that our people will be able to live happily and in peace. That is the reason why, while we were in Malaysia, we fought for such a society through the call for a Malaysian Malaysia. But because of that, we were evicted from Malaysia. We must never forget the two years that we were in Malaysia, and we believe that they in Malaysia will not forget that too. The boycott of the Barisan Sosialis of this House clearly shows that they have denied their belief in democracy, and that all their fight in the past has shown that they do not care for the future of the country. Their absence from this House shows that they have no belief and no confidence whatever in the system of democracy and they are working very hard to destroy it. The people of Singapore must be well aware of these actions of the Barisan Sosialis, because the Barisan Sosialis are working very hard to destroy this democratic system. We know that they have now been rejected by the people of Singapore and so are all their pro-Communist supporters. They, like U.M.N.O. and the M.C.A., have no political capital that they could show to the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, the Barisan Sosialis is a Party known for its skill in shouting slogans, but they are barren in political ideas. The slogans are all empty ones. In the Hong Lim by-election five months ago, the people of that constituency rejected those slogans. The Barisan Sosialis people are now rejected both by their former supporters and the people of this State. We know of the split that has taken place within the ranks of the Barisan Sosialis. They have all along been dependent for their inspiration on the Communists of Indonesia. They are now like chickens. They are now in the process of perishing. They are looking for help from outside in order to maintain their stand. They say that Malaysia is a neo-colonialist plot. They had wished earlier that Singapore would not have merged with Malaysia. Now that Singapore is no longer merged with Malaysia, this still does not seem to fulfi1 their desires. They say that the independence that we have achieved is phoney. What then are their true wishes? Merger is phoney and independence is phoney! What they wish is to destroy Singapore so that it will perish. This is their evil intention towards Singapore. We must beware of this all the tune and stop the evil intent of the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion of the Prime Minister expressing the thanks of this House to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for delivering the speech on the opening day of this Session. The whole speech conveys a sense of confidence both in the present and in the future, and the concrete and effective steps to be taken in the solution of problems which confront the country. As it is now well known and in fact accepted by all our fellow member nations of the United Nations Organisation but disputed by a few Barisan Sosialis Members who spit in the face of their own electors, Singapore is an independent and sovereign country. So we meet today under very different circumstances from the past. We meet as the First Parliament of an independent and sovereign Republic of Singapore. I am proud of the fact; Honourable Members here present are proud of the fact; and I am sure the great majority of our fellow-citizens of Singapore share our pride in the fact. At the beginning of the last Session, 21 guns did not boom out in salute when His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara arrived at this Chamber to deliver his Speech, but eight days ago, they boomed in recognition of our President. Things have changed - changed dramatically. We are now masters of our own destiny. We did not seek this status. We did not separate from those we still feel are members of our common Malaysian family. We were separated from them. This we accept. But we are an adult member of the family and can - and will - survive on our own. We live in our own houses but also in the Malaysian compound, not from any decisions of men, but because of the compulsions of history, geography and sociology. And for our own homeland, we have full and final responsibility. Our problems are not easy and we have not all the time in the world to solve them. But as the Prime Minister said, we define our problems, the better to face them, and we face our problems, in order to find better and quicker solutions. We know that, though we must take the initiative and responsibility, we need the co-operation of others, our new neighbours, our Afro-Asian friends, our fellow members of the Commonwealth, the new friends made by our three Ministers on their recent journey of goodwill and the people of the American continent - in fact, wherever friendship is. But for the first time, it is our opportunity and responsibility to strive for the greatest advantage for our people. We are on test as a people and this is the greatest test we have ever faced in the success story of our history. And this time it is a democratic test - a test of all of us, of our capacity to hold together and to work together in the spirit of a more just and equal society, more equal not only in what we get from Singapore but in what we give to it. I am glad that His Excellency has fully brought Out this point clearly in his Speech. What he has said could bear repetition here, for our people must fully realise their responsibilities. I quote "Our survival as a people, depends upon our patience and resolution... upon our perseverance." In other words, these are the qualities needed to bring about a tolerant, just and equal society, multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious. We have set our sights high. The ideas and aspirations may not be new, but we are pioneers in seeking to build them into the laws and way of life of one of the most varied communities in the world today. Every effort of every citizen must be deliberately directed to achieve these ideals we have set ourselves. If we cast our eyes around us and take an objective look at our neighbours, their trials and tribulations, we can be certain that our policy is right. Our leaders have done everything for the realisation of this policy. We have learnt from history. We know that a tolerant, just and equal society, multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious, are the four pillars of wisdom on which our nation can be built. When we all fully realise this fact, and as a great majority already do, we shall have peace and harmony. Without peace and harmony in our country, we cannot proceed to the next stage seeking prosperity. After the experience of the last couple of years, I am confident that our people cannot fall prey to appeals of chauvinist and communal sentiments, but at the same time we must not belittle the craftiness and ingenuity and self-mesrnerising of our enemies. They are in our midst and they are constantly and obsessively on the lookout for opportunities to exploit for the advancement of their own power through their ideology. They are constantly on the lookout for opportunities to exploit the ignorant and ill-informed. I am confident, however, that no amount of communal terror and intimidation will ever bring our people to forsake the conviction that a tolerant, just and equal society, multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious, are the four pillars on which our nation shall he built. The means they use to gain power indicate the means they will use should they gain power to perpetuate their power, and there could he no greater contrast with the ideals our Government preaches and practises. As His Excellency has well said, "This House has gone through many a struggle, first against Colonialism, then Communism and then Communalism." Our people in their public as well as in their business and private life are much more experienced and discerning people. We are no fools. It is because of this very fact that our people have a discriminatory mind and have guts, patience and determination that other nations accept us and respect us. I remember that when the Deputy Prime Minister spoke at the Airport on his return from the success of his recent Goodwill Mission overseas, he said that it was because our people are solidly behind our nation's leaders that other people arc prepared to be friends with us and respect us. We are a peace-loving people and it cannot be said too often that we want to live in peace with our neighbours and indeed with the rest of the world. We want to prosper, and from our ideals and our interests we want our neighbours also to prosper. Let this be proclaimed from the roof-tops that it may be known to our neighbours as t was stated by our Foreign Minister in his key speech to the United Nations Assembly. Let us co-operate in all things for the benefit of our peoples, which is the purpose of politics. Let not our minds and thoughts be clouded and shrunk by jealousy and animosity. The interests of the peoples must come first. This is democracy. I sincerely hope that nothing, no ideology, no people, will stand in the way as this Government strides forward to bring peace and prosperity to our people. 3.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the opening of the First Session of the Singapore Parliament, exactly four months after the promulgation of Singapore as an independent and sovereign State, the Head of State, His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, remarked that: `When we last met in this Chamber, little did we foresee that in two years we would meet here again as a sovereign Legislature of an independent nation, a separate member of the Commonwealth and of the United Nations.' In fact, even in this very House, Mr Speaker, Sir, the atmosphere and the scene have changed. The seats in front of us, which were 90 per cent empty after the last general election in 1963, are now all completely unoccupied. And since last Monday we have missed the sight of eight tiny men in black trousers and white shirts, shuffling in and out of this Chamber shouting silly and sometimes insolent remarks whenever Government Members spoke. Although we are in no position to predict the length of their absence, there are indications that their boycott will go on at least for the whole of this Session. It is hard for us to understand what sort of people they are and what they really want. They talk of democracy, but when they are given the opportunities through the democratic parliamentary process to air their grievances face to face with us, they prefer to absent themselves, to shout morbid and empty slogans outside this Chamber to the effect that the Government is undemocratic and dictatorial. Since the 9th of August, the Barisan Sosialis has lost much of its ground support, not because of the so-called undemocratic and dictatorial attitude of the P.A.P. Government, but because of their puerile and stupid actions and utterances which are prejudicial to the interests of the people. At a time when we were working feverishly for the reunification of Singapore and Malaya in the establishment of Malaysia a few years ago, they worked in the opposite direction. They branded Malaysia as a neo-colonialist plot. They opposed merger to fight for an independent Singapore. Independence first, followed by merger at a later stage was their formula. And now that Singapore is no longer part of Malaysia but has become an independent and sovereign State, they say, "We do not want an independent Singapore because it is phoney independence and is a plot of the British colonialists and imperialists working hand in glove with their stooges." Mr Speaker, Sir, nobody can gainsay that Singapore's independence is genuine, to substantiate which there is more than ample testimony. We were admitted into the United Nations without any hitch. No African or Asian country opposed our application for membership of the Afro-Asian Conference which unfortunately failed to hold its meeting in Algiers. In fact, the United Nations as well as the Afro-Asian Conference accepted us with open arms. If our independence were phoney, as the Barisan Sosialis claimed, surely we would have been rebuffed by these two bodies. There is further proof of our State's legitimacy. And again, Mr Speaker, Sir, our mission led by the Deputy Prime Minister was well received and highly honoured by African, European and Asian countries. The countries they visited represented every shade of ideology from non-Communist to Communist countries. They not only accepted Singapore as an independent and sovereign State but also saw the presence of the British base in the correct perspective. They were convinced that the protective base here would not negate or detract from our independence. Against this background we can clearly understand that at this sitting, Members of the Barisan Sosialis have absented themselves because their attempts to hoodwink the people on the phoney independence myth have failed miserably. Their unfounded allegations that independence has loaded Singapore with acute and chaotic economic problems fall on deaf ears. The people of Singapore refuse to listen to such silly and childish remarks and will not allow themselves to follow a suicidal course like that of 1961 when the Barisan Sosialis created economic paralysis by launching strikes which resulted in the closure of many factories, unemployment among workers and transfer of capital across the Causeway. I suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Barisan Sosialis Gentlemen should have their heads examined; after all, they have plenty of free time in which to do this, for instead of fulfilling their parliamentary obligations as the Opposition here, they are now on a long holiday. Four months after our separation from Malaysia, Singapore is still very much alive and is in fact even more viable. As revealed by my colleague the Minister for Finance in his Budget Speech, there is every indication that Singapore will definitely survive and prosper in the years ahead. His "painless" Budget has been viewed by the people as an index of confidence in Singapore's economic future. As an encouraging first step, some overseas buyers have already made bulk purchases of our locally manufactured plywood, veneer and textiles. And now they are engaged in exploring the possibilities of introducing a wider range of locally manufactured products to the markets of their respective countries. The trend is that more and more overseas trade missions will visit Singapore, not only from the non-Communist countries but also from the European Communist countries. For example, Yugoslavia and Russia have expressed their desire of relations with us. We encourage relations like these on the basis of mutual benefit. It is our hope that economic relations will be the prelude to other and closer relations. This can be our contribution to international goodwill and understanding. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not without reasons that Singapore is the centre of communications and business in South-East Asia and has within the last 150 years developed into the fifth largest port in the world. This is due to a quirk of geography - that we are in the centre of world trade routes. But some people in the neighbouring territory refuse to accept this. To them, Singapore was and still is nothing more than a small fish which makes a tasty morsel. But two years of Malaysia made them realise that what they mistook for the ikan hilis was really the ikan lepu which, small though it be, is protected by a ring of poisonous spikes. So to save their own skin, they had perforce to spew out the ikan lepu. For during the two years we were in Malaysia, Sir, we amply demonstrated ourselves as a people not to be cowed into submission but willing and able to fight for principles and inalienable rights. We joined Malaysia in the sincere conviction that we could play our part in helping to create a multi-racial, equal and just society. We were willing to co-operate and offer whatever help we could in a common endeavour to improve the lot of the less privileged in the country. We offered the services of our experts to help them to build low-cost housing for the lower income groups, and so on. But our offers were flatly rejected. Instead, the Malaysian Government went around on the quiet to find out how we ran our efficient government machinery, how we could build low-cost houses, schools, clinics, hospitals and other social amenities. Openly, they expressed their envy of our achievements which could have given them inspiration to embark on similar projects but which were only regarded by them as posing a challenge to them. Three days after the Singapore general elections in 1963, U.M.N.O. members in Geylang Serai, led by their extremist leaders from Kuala Lumpur, burnt an effigy of the Prime Minister. This was to give expression to their frustration because their candidates were rejected by the people and all had lost their seats. From then on, the vicious propaganda that "the P.A.P. Chinese Government is suppressing the Malays" was echoed with monotonous regularity by the U.M.N.O. leaders in their speeches and in the Jawi Press. It was a systematic campaign. Social projects designed to benefit the Malays were distorted. Low-cost flats aimed at providing the Malays with modern facilities were decried on the fictitious ground that they were not suitable for Malays who prefer to stay only in kampong-type houses. Malay families were threatened into refusing occupation of these flats, described by the Utusan Melayu as "pigeon holes". The vicious propaganda went on, day in and day out. Their aim was to impede Singapore's social and economic headway. Under the influence of the extremists, the Malays refused to move out of their dilapidated houses to make way for modern flats. Urban development projects were held up. As part of the campaign to topple the Singapore Government, the extremists incited the Malays with communal slogans of one race, one language and one religion. This culminated in the two riots of July and September last year. Those two race riots would not have happened but for the determination of the extremists and racialists to force the people of Singapore into accepting Malay rule. In fact, the position was neatly summarised by an U.M.N.O. Backbencher when he said at the Second Session of the Malaysian Parliament, "The trouble with Singapore is that it is not accustomed to Malay rule." Even after our expulsion, the extremists would not leave us alone and blatantly interfered in our internal affairs by exploiting religious and language issues. Their attempts in the Jawi Press to create religious conflict in Singapore were foiled before any damage could be done. Then they switched over to language. During our Second National Language Month concluded recently, these Right-wing extremists, claiming to be "the anti-national language leaders", distributed literature denouncing Malay as the national language and demanding that Chinese be made the sole national language of the State. These pamphlets written in rornanised Malay were purported to have originated from Chinese language chauvinists. But their game was exposed and the pamphlets were traced to be the work of Malay extremists, their real intention being to create communal ill-feeling between the Malays and Chinese which might result in racial conflagration. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to echo the Prime Minister's suggestion that a more rational relationship between the Malaysian Government and the Singapore Government be ironed out at the conference table. As for the Malays in Singapore, I would appeal to them to steer clear of the communal blandishments of the Malay extremists. The real interest of the Malays lies in co-operating with the other communities in a concerted effort to achieve economic viability, step up the standard of living and create a more just and equal national multi-racial society in which every citizen irrespective of racial origin can make the most of the opportunities of life. 3.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, some four months ago when we were in Malaysia there were people, and I mean those in the minority group, who were becoming apprehensive about their future in Malaysia and whether they would be swallowed up as a result of a policy being adopted by certain mad men who unfortunately happened to be our neighbours. The policy, if pursued, would have spelt disaster not only for the minority group but also for the majority, for there is no way in our multi-racial society whereby one race can successfully dominate another except possibly by the use of force. There is no place for the communalists in this society of ours. A sigh of relief was heard on the 9th of August and there was even a certain amount of jubilation when we became independent or when independence was thrust upon us. But the happenings during the months preceding independence were still fresh in the minds of the people and there was still a certain amount of apprehension as to what their lot would be in independent Singapore. Unfortunately, we happen to have the same type of mad men here. This apprehension, I am glad to say, was speedily dispelled by the statements that the rights of the minority groups would be safeguarded by writing them into the Constitution. I am sure that there is no more doubt in the minds of those who doubt the sincerity of the Government. Now that they know that the rights of our citizens shall be equal, not only in law but also in practice, the creation of a tolerant, multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society is one which will take time, and we must spare no efforts in making this a reality in the shortest possible period of time. It is, therefore, heartening to note that those who exploit the situation by appealing to the racial and religious sentiments of the people would be dealt with. It is hoped that after a period of time and after we have succeeded in establishing a tolerant, multi-racial society that the leaders in Malaysia will accept the change, and in doing so pave the way for the coming together once again of the people who are, in fact, one. In his Speech, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara also dwelt on the question of defence, which is by no means a light burden that we have to bear now that we are independent. No self-respecting nation can forever depend on another for protection against its enemies or even for internal security. We are now faced with the necessity of raising an army and a volunteer force. This will be the acid test of the loyalty of the people to this country. This is the time when the traitors show themselves up. I am sure that we will not have to look for loyal citizens who will make the sacrifice to maintain their freedom and self-respect. Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of unemployment is another matter uppermost in our minds and of great concern to the Government. It has been estimated that the backlog of unemployment as at the end of 1965 is around 55,000, and will increase to 95,000 persons within a few years. As we can no longer depend entirely on the entrepot trade, dependence on our industries to provide jobs for those who will be entering the labour market will be increasing. The restrictive measures that have been introduced to restrict the influx of unskilled workers into Singapore to safeguard the interests of our citizens are, therefore, welcome. It is heartening to note, however, that the door has not been entirely closed to our people across the Causeway who are skilled workers. I am sure they will realise that these steps have been taken to ensure our survival and that the responsibility of finding jobs for their unemployed rests on the shoulders of their leaders. On our part, Mr Speaker, we urge the Government to look very closely at the number of jobs created by the establishment of industries. We are informed of the number of workers employed by firms already in production and of the level that will be reached when these firms achieve full production. Careful watch must be taken to ensure that these firms achieve full production in the shortest possible time and that employment becomes a fact and not just a promise. Here, the role of our trade union leaders and workers becomes more important. Not only will they have to exercise more restraint in their demands, but they should also cooperate with management to increase production and to ensure that their products are of the highest quality and of a price comparable to or even cheaper than the price for the same product produced elsewhere. The Government is playing its part in encouraging trade missions to visit Singapore. The workers must also play their part in raising the productivity and the standards of the goods they produce. The more we produce for export, the better our economy, which eventually will result in more jobs being created - jobs for the sons and daughters of the workers themselves. Self-interest, at this time when we are faced with the grave problem of survival, does not pay and I am confident that with wise leadership and the industry of the people, we shall succeed in maintaining and even improving our standard of living which we shall then be happy to share with our people in Malaya. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion to express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered at the opening of this Session. 3.42 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, the Barisan Sosialis have boycotted us this time. They think that this act might create an impression on the people of Singapore. That is their intention of boycotting the Parliament. But the people are politically sophisticated. They can see through the intention of the Barisan Sosialis. The boycott has somewhat increased our burden because we now have to consider their point of view in addition to our own point of view. Before any measure or legislation can be approved by this House, we have to consider the pros and cons from every angle. According to general speculation, the reasons for the Barisan boycott are, firstly, that they have nothing more worth while to offer to this House; they cannot make any more contributions to the people of Singapore. Secondly, the Chairman of their Party fears that their Members in this House may not want to obey his instructions when they speak, thus endangering his prestige and his leadership. Because his position has thus been threatened, he has ruled that these Barisan Members should not come to this Assembly. I will not criticise the Barisan Sosialis any further. There are, however, a few points to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. Members of the House are elected by the voters, and they should be responsible to the people and to speak on their behalf. The boycott of Parliament by the Barisan Sosialis has, in fact, been a betrayal of the trust of the people. They are shirking their responsibility, and they even go a step further by denouncing our independence and saying that it is a phoney independence. If they do not recognise independent Singapore, then I would like to ask them what kind of people they are. Are they citizens of Singapore or are they citizens of any other country? If they do not recognise Singapore, then Singapore can also legally denounce them. The Barisan Sosialis in their Party organ has also denounced the worth and value of democracy. This clearly goes to show that they are no longer going along the way of democracy to carry out their politics. They are forsaking the constitutional democratic line. What is the conclusion expected of this sort of action? It is an armed and bloody revolution. I would like all the people and the Barisan Sosialis to pay attention to what I am going to say. The Barisan are inspired by Jakarta and are directed by Peking. What are the views of Peking and Jakarta on Singapore? According to Peking news, Peking considers the Government led by Mr Lee Kuan Yew as a moderate Leftist Government. This would be an eye-opener to the Barisan Sosialis. Singapore's Government is recognised as a Left-wing moderate Government. There is a Chinese saying that everything that can be achieved in the year must be planned in spring. And everything pertaining to one's livelihood should be planned early in one's life. So this saying can be applied to our present situation. In other words, in the beginning of the year, in spring, we should plan for the whole year and we should also plan in the early morning for the whole day. In the same way, we should also have a long-term plan for the future of Singapore, just like every individual should have his own plan for his life. And the policy speech outlines the plan for Singapore for the coming year, which is a long-term plan not only for the coming year but also for a long time to come. Ever since 1959, when the P.A.P. came to power, it has been planning for the future and our plan is many years ahead. Our achievements have been beyond expectations in many fields. And even our neighbouring countries have recognised this. But, on the other hand, there are certain countries which have to incur a great deficit every year, millions of dollars, because of ill-planning and mal-administration. I do not really mean to be unkind to our neighbouring countries. Our non-aligned policy, as everybody knows, has already won us many friends, both from the West and also from the East. We have won many friends in Afro-Asian countries. We have established good relationships with Eastern European countries and also with Russia. Yugoslavia and Russia have promised to send a delegation to Singapore early next year. The Republic of China in the past two years did not buy our rubber but has now trade relationships with us. It has bought some rubber from us. From all sides, we are seeing a favourable response. They are keenly interested in our friendship. I have reason to believe that at the right time, many more will come with us and the Republic of China will recognise us. We are going ahead with our long-term plan. Singapore is a small country with an area of 224 square miles. We also have substantial revenues every year. But the expenditure on defence is quite large. We cannot afford to have a big army. Therefore, we have to build only a small army with the support of a voluntary people's defence corps. Sir, this will have to depend on the support of the people. Our people are very conscientious and will certainly live up to our expectations. When the Japanese invaded Malaya, they fought bravely against them. They are resolute and courageous enough to defend themselves for their own existence. The 10,000 volunteers in the people's defence corps can safely be said to be forthcoming. The people will keenly take up the challenge to join the army or the volunteers. In spite of the army or volunteer force that we may have, it is still too small to defend our country. That is why we need the protection and help of our friends. That explains the presence of British bases in Singapore. The bases in Cuba, however, are controlled by the United States of America, it is quite different from the British bases here, because they are here with the consent of our Government for our own protection. This has been recognised by the Afro-Asian countries which recognise that the existence of the bases in Singapore does not infringe on our territorial integrity and sovereignty. It is for our own defence at our own request. The Barisan Sosialis have called on the people not to join the volunteers or the army. They have also denounced the existence of the bases. But if a foreign country tries to invade us, what will they do? Do they want to hand over Singapore to them? They do not even want to see Singapore exist or survive. They call upon the people not to join the army or the volunteer force. As everybody knows, this House has allotted $10 million in this respect but we will have trebled this amount. The confrontation by Indonesia has not caused losses to us as expected. It is only $10 million which was spent in social aid for the unemployed. The existence of Singapore can be safeguarded through Government policies and many measures. Here I would like to stress that the people of Singapore will have to be on the alert and to depend on themselves. That is the basic spirit of the people of an independent country. I believe that we can rely upon ourselves. We should be self-reliant and we should be able to stand on our own feet for our survival. Then the people who are inseparable from us living in Malaysia will also try to emulate us. As I have said, planning for the year is in spring and the planning for the future of Singapore is now. So this is the time for us to plan for our future, and I hope everybody will live up to the duty expected of him. 3.59 pm

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has delivered the Speech on behalf of the Government and it is very encouraging to many of us. In it we can see very clearly for ourselves that a new nation has been born with all sovereignty and integrity. It has already got all the plans for our future. Just like some other newly independent countries in Afro-Asia, the people of Singapore are now in control of their own destiny and they can decide the future for themselves. But inevitably, with independence, we will meet with more difficulties and responsibilities. This is natural and we recognise this fact. We are a small country in South-East Asia and our destiny and fate are closely intertwined with the fate and destiny of the other peoples in the same region. Therefore, in the course of nation-building, the stability of our country must necessarily depend upon the establishment of a multi-racial society with equality for all. In the meantime, in the international field, we must make sure that we are not isolated. All these are factors that will ensure our survival. Mr Speaker, ever since we achieved independence, Singapore has smoothly and without any haste become the 117th member of the United Nations. This fact is undeniable. Nobody can dispute that at all. In the field of foreign affairs, we are adopting a policy of non-alignment and neutrality. That is why we have enhanced our reputation in the international arena and we have won a lot of friends and support, both in Afro-Asian countries and in Eastern European countries. Lately, the Goodwill Mission, led by the Deputy Prime Minister, were welcomed wherever they went. Everywhere they went they were well received too. Mr Speaker, the anti-nationalist elements in our midst, however, have turned round to say that the independence we have achieved is phoney. These remarks are totally unfounded, particularly in view of the fact that we have been admitted into the United Nations. This shows that we are truly independent and that we are not just independent in name. The United Nations is a very well respected international organisation, and it will not easily admit a country as a member if it has not achieved true independence. The remark of the Barisan Sosialis that ours is a phoney independence is intended to create a wrong impression in the minds of the Afro-Asian countries. But their schemes and intrigues have been exposed. They have been broken into pieces and this is very encouraging to us. There is one other thing we must note. Their boycott of the first Session of Parliament may be an indication that they have lost confidence in the system of parliamentary democracy. This may mark a change in their policy; a departure from the constitutional struggle in Parliament to a struggle by violence. That is why we must increase our vigilance against whatever move they may make or are making. Mr Speaker, we are faced with two great forces in our efforts towards nation-building. The first force, as has been said in the speech by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, is the force of communalism. The second force is Communism. We can see, and we understand very clearly, that the communal ultras have been and are still shouting the slogan of one race, one religion and one language. They have been doing this for the past two years. These ultras are trying to do all they can to indoctrinate the people of this nation with their ideology in order to split the people and break up national unity. At their instigation, some of our people have done foolish things in certain circumstances. But now the picture is entirely changed. Although we can say that they are, to a certain extent, well contained, the people must, nevertheless, be vigilant against the other broadsides these ultras may deliver at the people. We now come to the open front Communist organisations. Mr Speaker, ever since we achieved independence, these open-front organisations and elements have tried to undermine the stability and security of our nation. They tried to make Nanyang University an issue in order to create trouble in our society. So these Left-wing trade unions and the old boys' associations, together with a few pro-Communist elements in the university campus, attempted to describe the Wang Gung-Wu Report as a Government measure intended to anglicise Nanyang University. They say that this is the intention of the P.A.P. Government. They do so in order to create a feeling of resentment among the people against the Government. Mr Speaker, we can see that the main point in Professor Wang Gung-Wu's Report is that Nanyang University should have two systems, one system for general degrees and one system for honours degrees. This is something which Nanyang University has never had. The second point in the Report is to try to make Nanyang University a multi-lingual University so that it can be run on a sound basis. Some changes have been made in the courses of study. Certain recommendations have been made with a view to turning Nanyang University into a properly run and well managed institution of higher learning to meet the requirements of our society. The graduates of the University would then be able to meet the aspirations of the people with sympathy and understanding. In the new situation now that we are independent, we require more and more people with talent to participate in the work of nation-building. If after some reforms, Nanyang University is able to turn out more graduates to meet the requirements of our society, then it is to be recommended. How can it be said that this is a move to anglicise Nanyang University? After all, we have already decided and agreed that Nanyang University shall remain a University with Chinese as the medium of instruction. There is no dispute over this point. But some of the pro-Communist elements in Nanyang University resorted to vandalism by writing nonsense on walls all over the university campus. They even attempted to burn down the hostel in Nanyang University. They did so in the name of preserving Chinese education. They also attempted to boycott classes for the same reason. With the support of the pro-Communist trade unions and old boys' associations, they go round and paste slogans and posters at bus shelters and sometimes in the buses themselves. They want to create an impression among the people that the Government is doing harm to Nanyang University in the hope that they can whipp ill-feelings against the Government. But fortunately for us, they have not been successful in their attempts. This is because the people themselves have seen through the plot and intrigues and the puerile efforts of these anti-national elements. The people are no longer moved by them. Mr Speaker, these anti-national elements know that the moment Nanyang University is put on the right track they will lose a training ground for Communist cadres. That is why they are doing all they can to stop Nanyang University from getting on to the right track. Thus, they have to pretend to be the champions of Nanyang University and Chinese education so that they can do harm instead of good to Nanyang University. If they are really sincere in their so-called love for Nanyang University, then they should not write nonsense and slogans on the walls of buildings of Nanyang University. By so doing, they are in fact causing the University to spend more money. Mr Speaker, it is the policy and determination of the P.A.P. Government to establish a multi-racial nation. This is a necessity, rather an ideal, We must of necessity look after the interest of the minorities in our nation so that they will forever become part and parcel of the entire nation. In fact, safeguards for the minority groups will be written into the Constitution. This is in line with our policy of multi-lingualism and multi-racialism. We have already got the support of the people. Our policy has, in fact, achieved success in this field. We will go a step further by consolidating our strength. This will give us more confidence in order to achieve even greater success. This, of course, will have great repercussions on our neighbouring countries where feudalism is on the decline. It is inevitable that the emergence of a multi-racial society will come about. Generally speaking, our neighbouring country does not seem to like the emergence of a multi-racial society. They do not wish to see the success of our multi-racial policy. The question of the separation of Singapore from Malaysia was brought up in the Malaysian Parliament recently. On this particular occasion, the racialist ultras seemed to be rather unhappy about it. Even some of the Malaysian Ministers shared similar feelings with these ultras. Their performance came as no surprise to us, because we knew that they did not like the emergence of a multi-racial society. In their minds, they had the idea of suppressing us or even destroying us. In fact, they harboured this intention. Because of our determination and decision to establish a multi-racial society and our concerted effort to achieve such a goal, we are still able to survive. We shall strive further for our future survival. We must, however, make certain calculations about these people. What effect will they have on us if one day they assume power across the Causeway? We must, therefore, plan well ahead of time and have long-term policies against such an eventuality. In order to ensure that our multi-racial society will succeed, we must of necessity set up a multi-racial army and defence corps, because we must depend on our own strength to protect our society and nation. We must have well-trained armed forces to protect our own security and survival. This is one of the very basic principles we must have in mind. Mr Speaker, in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara delivered in this House on behalf of the Government, certain references have been made to our national development. I do not wish to make any further repetition, but I would like to bring out a few highlights on this matter to give my colleagues here a better and clearer picture. It is the policy of the Government to look after the interests of the various races, and this has been stressed over and over again in the past few years ever since we came to power. We want to set up a multi-racial society. We want to look after the interests of all the people, whether they live in the city or in the kampong. We do not care whether they are Chinese, Malays, Indians, Eurasians, or members of any other race. We give equality to all. We give the same treatment to all people, irrespective of the colour of their skin or creed. This is the basic policy of the Government. Mr Speaker, you can go to any kampong in Singapore and see there that the livelihood of the people is not very far below the standard of living enjoyed by the urban people. In fact, we can boast that public amenities and other facilities in our kampongs and rural areas are far better than some of those provided in the urban areas of other South-East Asian countries. So the work that we have done in raising the standard of living of the rural people, and apart from that of the city people, has met with great success. This success has been made possible by the Rural and Urban Services Consultative Committee. We have installed many standpipes and we have provided electricity to a great many kampongs. We have also built roads and jetties in some of the surrounding islands of Singapore during the period 1960-65. We have spent some $20 million in these projects and we have not wasted a single cent or effort. This year the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee has spent some $4 million on social amenities, $2 million of which was spent on providing electricity to some kampongs, so that the poor people in the rural areas can also enjoy modern facilities in our society. This has also enabled them to be free from having to pay for electricity provided by private generators where the supply is restricted to certain hours only. We have also provided standpipes in the rural areas so that the number of people dependent on well water is decreasing. Less and less people are drawing water from wells and more and more people are getting their supply of water from the taps. In fact, it is the policy of the Government to try to provide every home in the rural area with at least a water tap. We have built some 52 miles of roads in the kampong areas at a very high cost. The efforts of the Government are well appreciated by all the people in the 51 constituencies, including those represented by the Barisan Sosialis. In fact, we do not regard the constituents represented by the Barisan Sosialis as outcasts. We are paying just as much attention to them as to the other constituents. It is a matter for regret that the Barisan Sosialis are not here to speak on behalf of the people they represent. At any rate, as a responsible Government, we will do all we can through the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee to provide modern facilities to all the constituencies. We can give a few examples. In 1965 in the Choa Chu Kang constituency which was represented by the Barisan Sosialis, we spent some $290,000 on the construction of roads. In Bukit Panjang, we spent some $310,000 for the purposes of providing electricity and water. In Nee Soon, we spent about $260,000 for similar purposes. Mr Speaker, from all these figures and facts, you can see how much attention the Government is paying to these rural people. We can now understand the Barisan Sosialis for boycotting us because they are unable to refute these facts. Apart from shouting slogans in this House, they are also drawing $500 allowance each. They are actually wasting public funds. Mr Speaker, it is the intention and aim of the Government in its second Five-Year Plan to provide some 60,000 housing units, mainly in Toa Payoh. We are also going ahead with our urban reconstruction. Some people have been affected by the resettlement scheme. Since 1st January, 1964, the Government has provided new rates of compensation. These new rates have made our work of resettlement very much easier. Those people affected by this scheme are in every respect given assistance in securing alternative accommodation. In our reclamation scheme we also provide much assistance to those affected so as to reduce their hardships, or whatever their difficulties, to the very minimum. The Government's policy is enlightened. That is why the pro-Communist anti-nationals have not been able to instigate the people who have been affected by these schemes to go against the Government. So in order to look after their own interests and their welfare, the people must increase their vigilance. In fact, the Government have learnt a great deal over the past few years, and they now realise the importance of co-operating with the people; and in return we too respect them very much. This again shows that the people and the Government are now almost one in the intention and common effort to establish a better nation in which to live. The achievements in housing of the Government over the past five years have been great because of our able leadership. Our fame has spread abroad and has been recognised in Mr Lim Kim San, the former Minister for National Development, being awarded the Magsaysay prize. This is an encouragement to us and we shall continue to work harder for the interests of the people by trying to raise their standard of living both in the city and in the rural areas. We are now going through the Primary Production Department to give all forms of assistance to farmers. We have well-trained personnel and we have set up veterinary and other stations to assist the farmers in increasing their production. The total production of the rural areas amounts to some $200 million per year. We are now able to produce eggs not only for our own consumption but also for export. Only recently, in September this year, the Government held an agricultural show to let the world and our people know what achievements we have made in the rural areas through the Ministry of National Development. Some 300,000 people visited the show. This is a clear indication that great care has been taken of the rural people, particularly those engaged in farming. We have also met with recognition in respect of our economy. Mr Speaker, I support the motion. 4.27 p.m.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech delivered at the opening of this Session is a historical one. I consider myself privileged to express my views on this Motion of Thanks for his Speech. Singapore became independent at a rather unexpected moment. Several benefits are to be derived from this. Many of our problems were solved when our Goodwill Mission went to Afro-Asia under the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister. The question of bases in Singapore was explained by this Mission to friendly nations of Afro-Asia. This has met with great success. At the same time, there are many problems to be dealt with in connection with our survival. We need trade as well as industrial growth. Several plans have been announced to increase our trade and industry. We are now assured of our national survival. Our people must also have some assurance, for only then will we be able to get their full co-operation. Mr Speaker, Sir, since 1959 when the People's Action Party came to power, we have seen many changes and even tribulations. We have derived many lessons from this and our people are enjoying a high standard of living in South-East Asia. Even families of lower income group are today able to have television sets in their homes. The Members who spoke before me in this Chamber have praised the health service of Singapore. Of course, I do not disagree with them. In fact, even our political enemies are given first-class medical treatment! However, there are one or two things that I would like to point out. We may recall that there were some regulations for controlling cattle. But I do not think they have been carried out effectively, and I do hope that something will be done in my constituency. Mr Speaker, Sir, primary education is entirely free in Singapore. This is of tremendous benefit to poor families. But sometimes children of poor families have to travel great distances to their homes. Their parents have to incur quite heavy expenditure. Such families, therefore, do not derive the full benefit from primary education. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to say something about the special services of the Housing and Development Board in which I serve. In the first Five-Year Plan, 51,000 houses have been built and in the second Five-Year Plan, some 60,000 houses will be built; but I do wish to bring to your attention some of the shortcomings of this department. Because housing development has been progressing at such a rate, some traffic problems have been created. I do hope that these problems, which have arisen as a result of multi-storeyed fiat construction, will be solved. More car parking spaces and more playing fields have to be constructed. The Housing Board must improve its services to the people with the co-operation of other Ministries. For instance, the provision of public telephones has to be increased. The Ministry of Health could provide more and bigger markets in the housing estates, because many of the present markets are rather small. It has been announced that the new Television Studio will be ready by about the middle of next year. I hope there will be school television broadcasts. I wish to know whether and when school broadcasts will be introduced, and whether the Tamil programmes will be further improved. I also wish to say something on the public notice boards. Many spelling and grammatical errors in the Tamil language are found in these notices. The Tamil language has received official status, so this misspelling in the notices is not a good thing. I do hope that something will be done to rectify it. Could we now turn to the boycott of this Assembly by the Barisan Sosialis? As Members of this Assembly, there are many duties and responsibilities we have to discharge to the people. During an earlier phase, the Barisan Sosialis felt there should be more Assembly sittings. Assembly sittings appeared urgent and necessary to them. I have already spoken earlier about this. Now because of urgent Government business, we have met again in this Assembly. But we do not see them here today. They have boycotted this Session. But the people did not elect them so that they should boycott their Legislative Assembly. Moreover, we now know there is a split among the Barisan Sosialis. But this is entirely their concern. However this may be, it is unforgivable that they should have failed to turn up at this Assembly. As Members, they are receiving $500 allowance each; but if they had asked the Assembly to withhold this payment, then they would be worthy of praise. Finally, I wish to thank the Prime Minister for having given us the opportunity during this Session not only to praise the Government, but to criticise where necessary.

I think this is a convenient time to take the tea break. I shall suspend and resume the Chair at 5.15 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.38 p.m. until 5.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.15 p.m.

Debate resumed. 5.16 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, twice in the past twenty years has Singapore been separated from Malaya. On both occasions, they have been artificial separations, and on both occasions, for illogical reasons which some outside power had forced on the people of both territories, with one possible exception. In 1945, the British separated Singapore to retain its hold on the island as a strategic military base in the days when Britain could no longer hold on to India, Burma, Ceylon and Pakistan, and her other colonial possessions in the East were becoming untenable. In 1965 Singapore was separated after two years of merger because the Central Malaysian Government found that politically Singapore within Malaysia was a threat and a danger to her political position in Kuala Lumpur. The people of Malaysia, including Singapore, were told in August this year that we had to he evicted because of imminent racial strife. The official reason given was that it was a choice between separation or repression, and that if Singapore remained in Malaysia and neither course of action was taken, then there would have been a blood-bath all over the country. Here, it might not he altogether futile for us to dwell a little on the subject of separation, although now that we are a distinct and independent nation, so suddenly thrust upon us, it would fall upon the historian to write about the second severance of Singapore from mainland Malaya. Sir, the British in their three odd centuries of colonialism all over the world have the knack of leaving behind problems of their own creation which, even after they have been thrown out, proved in many cases to be problems which are not easy of solution. Whether it is in India, Pakistan, or Palestine, or Burma, Ceylon. Cyprus or Malaysia, the policy of divide-and-rule perpetrated by British colonialism has left in its wake serious political, economic and social problems which, long after they have gone, the people of these countries are saddled with through no fault of their own, except for the fact that they have the misfortune of being subjected to British colonialism. For us, it is no use crying over spilt milk, although we know that quite often the ex-colonial power makes pious pretensions of desiring to solve problems of their own making. The industrial revolution in Europe leading to the acquisition of colonies in Asia, Africa and South America belong to one era in the history of the world, and that era will not repeat itself. Hence there is no question of avoiding a second time what colonial powers have once committed. For better or for worse we have to face and solve these problems ourselves. The colonial powers in most cases have the habit of leaving behind not only economic and social problems hut also political inheritors of their ilk who quite often have an interest in wanting to perpetuate the economic and social hierarchy bequeathed by them. Seen in this light the events of the last few years in Singapore, Malaya. Sabah and Sarawak are not at all difficult to understand. Was it racial strife and a communal blood-bath that those in Kuala Lumpur were trying to avoid? Or was it the gradual erosion of the established economic and social system which the powers that-be in Kuala Lumpur in the Alliance Government were trying to halt and postpone? Sir, it is clear to the people not only in Singapore and Malaysia but to all who believe in progress, human dignity, equality and justice, that Singapore was evicted to postpone the eventual victory of social forces inspired by the ideology of democratic socialism from spreading far and wide into the towns and kampongs, from Tebrau to Padang Besar and Tawau to Kuching. Mr Speaker, Sir, recently I had occasion to ask a visiting Member of Parliament from a friendly country, who had earlier visited Kuala Lumpur, what he was told of the reason for Singapore's eviction from Malaysia. He told me that officials in Kuala Lumpur had told him that because Singapore was predominantly Chinese, and the Chinese were dominating the economy of the country, therefore the solution was to get rid of Singapore. Sir, I believe this Member of Parliament I am quoting was himself quoting from not only officials but Ministers. I remember very well the Tunku, in justifying his call for the formation of Malaysia in 1961, said that the reason Sabah and Sarawak should be taken into the new Federation was to balance up the Chinese in Malaysia and Singapore with the indigenous people in the Borneo States whom the Tunku then thought were also Malays. There are in Singapore about 1.3 million Chinese and almost four million in Malaya, apart from those in Sabah and Sarawak. The problem of the Chinese is, therefore, not one which is peculiar to Singapore. It is not even one which those in power in Malaysia have to face alone. Indeed all over South-East Asia, in Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand, and to a lesser extent in the Philippines, the governments in these countries face the same problem of immigrant Chinese who had settled and made their homes in these countries. The question is, how is this problem of the Chinese to be solved? Are there any lessons we can learn from Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam about the problem of integration? Is political, cultural and social integration possible over a long period of political stability, for example? Or must segregation be the only solution of the Chinese in Malaysia and Singapore? Conversely, is it possible to solve the problem of Chinese presence by racial domination in politics? Or has the solution to be brought about by a get-together of the people of Malay race in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines to outnumber and later to squeeze out the Chinese from these areas? Sir, these propositions have direct relevance to the Speech by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara when he said that "we may be two countries but we are one people." Not a few people in our closest neighbouring country believe that this is also the case. It is hard to believe that our neighbours think it possible really to isolate Singapore on a racial basis, because I think they would have found the same problem reverberating within their own territories. Sir, I have lived many years of my life in Malaya, and in those years, I have posed to myself and to others this same question. I have found that not only has this problem remained the same after all these years, but that I have been unable to get new answers to this problem of the Chinese in this part of the world. As a matter of fact, as the years pass and my hair grows grey, I am more arid more convinced that the only solution is for us of all races to live together peacefully and strengthen the foundations of the multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society. Even today I am prepared to consider and rethink about any other solution, if there is one forthcoming from any quarter. Upon separation, when the Tunku offered the Malays in Singapore ten acres each in Johore, I was wondering whether he was taking the second step towards what he thought was going to be the complete isolation of Singapore. I wondered whether he wanted all the Malays in Singapore to leave this fair island and go back to Malaya and thereby encourage the four million odd Chinese in Malaysia and possibly millions more all over South-East Asia to make Singapore a Chinese city. I do not know what his intentions were. But it is clear that the absence of any response from the Singapore Malays is more than an answer to the Tunku's call. It seems to me that even if there are unthinking Malays elsewhere in Malaysia who are thinking along the same line, then they will similarly learn that the Malays in Singapore do not propose to leave our shores even if they were offered ten times ten acres. It would indeed be a tragedy for the Malays if we helped to make Singapore a Chinese city. He must be a mad man to help in the creation of a second Israel in this world. It goes against the grain of any sane Malay to leave Singapore, an island which is part and parcel of the Malay world, for purely party political reasons to satisfy the selfish political ambitions of certain people. Singapore is to us our world, as much as Malaya is to those living in that part of the world. You can ask a Malay who has, for example, settled in Bangkok to return to his country of origin for these reasons. But can you ask us to leave Singapore to fit in with the political strategy of the Alliance? And if we leave Singapore, where do we go? Sir, in terms of land and ownership of land, Singapore Malays, and for that matter Singaporeans of all races, have very little in their possession. But in terms of earning capacity we in Singapore, the Malays included, earn on the average two, three or four times more than the padi farmers or fishermen in Malaya and other parts of Malaysia. When we were still in Malaysia, I had occasion to look into the problem of resettlement in land development schemes carried out in at least two areas in Malaysia, including the one at Sungei Buloh. What I saw there leaves much to be desired. On the other hand, the Malays in Singapore, who have been used to modern and advanced social amenities and services made readily available and accessible to increasing numbers of people in the lower income group, are not at all likely to leave their homes which are in many cases subsidised by the Government. I am pretty certain that they will not go to the less habitable and undeveloped areas in Johore or Pahang. Mr Speaker, Sir, more than this Singapore Malays have come to love the open society and the nature of equality, freedom, justice, democracy and progress, the five principles symbolised in the stars in our flag. The Malays in Singapore are not used to be treated as Harijans by local Brahmins. Sir, we in Singapore, all of us - Malays, Chinese, Indians, Ceylonese, like you, Sir, Eurasians, Pakistanis and others - have strong and healthy red blood in our veins. In Singapore our inquiring minds want to know whether there are really people with white blood, as a Malay idiom describes it. For hundreds of years we have heard about the so-called blue-blooded chieftains who enjoyed privileges and comforts for doing nothing. I do not know if you are aware of a fundamental teaching in Islam which prohibits its followers from cringing or in any way worshipping human beings whatever the colour of their blood. Muslims are not supposed to sembah to anyone except Allah. The term to describe prayer in Islam, Mr Speaker, is Sembah Yang. In its fuller form it is Sembah Yang Maha Kuasa dan Maha Esa. Muslims only sembah to God and to no one else, and we believe in this. We are an independent and sovereign State in the comity of nations. A hundred and sixteen independent and sovereign States and their governments have accepted us into the United Nations Organisation. More than a billion of the world are with us in the international family of independent and sovereign nations. Yet there are a few miserable characters in the Barisan Sosialis who say that our independence is phoney. They do not recognise Singapore's independence. In a statement in reply to a challenge to them to ask for a public inquiry regarding Lim Chin Siong, the Barisan Sosialis asked for air radio and T.V. time on our mass medium. What is the true position? The true position is that on two occasions when the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, Dr Lee Siew Choh, was invited to take part in T.V. forums, he refused to attend them. He was running away from the open argument. I am told that they want radio and T.V. time to themselves so that they can make speeches without having to take part in a discussion. Sir, they can have this; they can have what they ask, but on condition that they first win a general election in Singapore. Then, as members of the Government, they can appear on T.V. and radio to explain Government policy and other related matters. The people in Singapore look upon them as being no more than political opportunists who have time and again lost out in free and democratic elections, open arguments, in the Referendum and even in international forums. You remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, that Dr Lee Siew Choh, Woodhull, Dr Lim Hock Siew and others went to the United Nations to fight against Malaysia and the Referendum. In the December, 1965 issue of the Plebeian Express, the Barisan Sosialis alleged that the Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organisation had snubbed the P.A.P., the governing Party in Singapore, it seems. It is a fact that the Permanent Secretariat of the A.A.P.S.O. works on the principle of unanimity, among other things, on the question of membership. On the Permanent Secretariat, besides members from the U.A.R. and other non-Communist Asian and African countries, are also to be found members from Peking, the Japanese Communist Party and the Indonesian Communist Party, the leaders of whom, Mr Speaker, Sir, are today running for their lives looking for hide-outs. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that opposition by any or some of these Communist representatives on the Permanent Secretariat of the A.A.P.S.O. can prevent unanimity, and this is what has happened in the case of not only Singapore's membership, but the membership of other applicants as well. Membership of the A.A.P.S.O. is on an unofficial basis, unlike the Afro-Asian Conference where Heads of State and Heads of Government attend. Membership of the A.A.P.S.O. is limited to organisations which may or may not be in the governments of Afro-Asian countries. For example, Japan is represented on the Permanent Secretariat of the A.A.P.S.O. by members of the Japanese Communist Party, but not by Members of the Government. So the Editor of the Barisan Sosialis is talking through his hat when he talks about the governing Party in Singapore being snubbed by non-government pro-Communist members of the Permanent Secretariat of the A.A.P.S.O. What matters is the official recognition by Governments in Asia and Africa and in the world at large as represented in the United Nations Organisation. In the light of these hard facts the boycott of the Barisan Sosialis of this Chamber does not constitute even a ripple in the ocean of support and expressed friendship and understanding shown to Singapore by accredited Governments and Asians of the world. Dr Lee Siew Choh and his gang are not going to make any difference to our position as an independent and sovereign State. Sir, I am inclined to think that not only Lim Chin Siong should be examined by psychiatrists, but there are many more in the Barisan Sosialis who would appear to be in greater need of psychiatric treatment. In the field of education, the planned programme of expansion in Primary and Secondary Schools, the Teachers' Training College and other institutions of high learning, speaks for itself. If Singapore's independence is phoney, if all our development plans, including those in the field of education, are phoney and of no consequence, then leaders in the Barisan Sosialis, married and with children, like Dr Lee Siew Choh, should withdraw all their children in our schools in Singapore and send them for higher learning to Peking, if they want to. In Indonesia, there is an institute called the Lenin Institute in Sourabaya, and Dr Lee Siew Choh can send his grown-up children or even the younger ones to that Institute. But, of course, I believe that the professors and lecturers in the Lenin Institute are also running for their lives. The Barisan Sosialis, Mr Speaker, Sir, have lost hope in the democratic processes, and it is only when politicians have given up all hope of ever winning in an election, in a referendum and in an open argument, that they turn to more desperate ways; and, when they do, some of the manifestations take the form of boycott of elected Legislatures like ours for no logical and rational reasons. Sir, I was reading a short letter in the Straits Times the other day from a writer in Petaling Jaya, which happens to be part of the constituency of the Member for Bungsar - but that has nothing to do with the letter. But the writer has asked whether or not Barisan Sosialis Members of the Singapore Parliament should also boycott their $500 a month allowance. I think, Sir, before this Parliamentary Session is over, it would be good if you could make a ruling on this matter. Coming back to the question of Singapore's independence, we were travelling in some parts of Africa, Europe - Eastern Europe - and Asia, Mr Speaker, Sir, and what struck me most about the reception given to us was that it was not only warm everywhere we went but that the people were interested to know why Singapore left Malaysia. In not a few cases, leaders of governments, leaders of the Opposition, some of whom are pro-Communists like Dr Lee Siew Choh and others here, shook our hands warmly and congratulated us on having left Malaysia. Words like "liberation" were mentioned, as the Minister for Health has just said. But one other thing which sometimes gladdened our hearts was that some of them said, "You have done very well by having left the-Kuala Lumpur type of politicians," and all the rest of it which went to describe people who go cringing about before blue-blooded chieftains. Sir, this allegation of our independence being phoney, I do not know what measure the Barisan Sosialis leaders use when they talk of independence. Whether a country which has a foreign military base, when it achieves independence is phoney; whether countries like the Philippines, which has a relatively large American military base, is phoney; whether Ceylon, which upon attainment of independence in 1947 also had a base in Trincomalee was phoney in its independence; or whether Thailand with its S.E.A.T.O. base is also phoney. Incidentally, Cuba under Fidel Castro has a large American base --- An hon. Member: Russian!

Yes, the missiles had to be withdrawn, being a threat to the late President Kennedy. I ask whether that country's independence is also phoney. Sir, it is very difficult to explain, but what I know as a member of the Goodwill Mission to Africa and other parts of the world, is that Mr Rajaratnam, our Foreign Minister, explained to accredited and sober leaders of the world that Singapore has a military base. They all know about it. There are very few leaders in the world who do not know that there is a military base in Singapore. But we explained to them very clearly and forthrightly that there is nothing wrong with having a base in Singapore, and that there is nothing wrong in having an air base - and a naval base at that - within the confines of an independent and sovereign nation. Sir, not one government leader in any of the countries we visited questioned the independent and sovereign status we have in Singapore today. So who are those characters in the Barisan Sosialis to question us? What do they want? Must Singapore fall into the hands of the Communists and then only become independent? Then only will Singapore's independence not be phoney? I have also searched my mind on this question of the allegation of the Barisan Sosialis and their other pro-Communist friends about Singapore's phoney independence, but it is very difficult to understand them. One can almost see the glint of insanity in their eyes when they talk along these lines, because I am sure you yourself, Mr Speaker, Sir, have asked this question and not found the answer as to why they say Singapore's independence is phoney. We can go on considering this question, probably only to arrive at one conclusion, and that is, that the Barisan Sosialis are phoney socialists. One is sometimes tempted to describe them as Communists or pro-Communists, but even the Communists we met in Russia were not phoney. They were genuine Communists. But here we have Members of Parliament who earn $500 a month as allowance - not 500 Indonesian rupiahs, but 500 real Singapore dollars, Straits dollars - and yet they boycott everything except what they pocket. 5.44 p.m.

Mr 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 the 8th of December. As this is the first sitting of Parliament after Singapore's independence four months ago, it is worthwhile recalling that Singapore is unique, not only in the manner as expressed by our Prime Minister, that independence was achieved without bloodshed, and with a large foreign military base still intact, but that in recorded history, no country has ever proclaimed its independence three times like Singapore! It shows how much the people of Singapore love independence, but they also love peace - not violence or bloodshed - even more. Our first declaration of independence was made on the 31st of August, 1963, as agreed by the signatories to the Malaysia Agreement signed in London. Singapore, which had, by majority consent through a referendum accepted merger and Malaysia, was not to be deterred in its objective of independence by 31st August, 1963, despite the ferocity of Indonesian confrontation, whilst other signatories to the London Agreement dithered and dallied. The second occasion was on the 16th of September, 1963, when Malaysia "officially" came into being. Whilst we in Singapore accepted, in good faith, the conception of a multi-racial Malaysia to be realised through a Malaysian Malaysia, yet during the two years in Malaysia, we suffered the traumatic experience of two heart-rending racial riots, and thus we in Singapore came to the rude awakening that the authorities in Kuala Lumpur were not thinking along the same wavelength as us. As stated in the Appendix to His Excellency's Speech, the separation of Singapore from Malaysia did not affect our health services in any way, because we had autonomy in health matters when Singapore was in Malaysia. But it should be recorded that when Singapore was part of Malaysia, attendance at international conferences required Singapore's representatives to be part of the Malaysian delegation, which is correct. Yet, for the 18th World Health Organisation Assembly Meeting held in Geneva in May this year, although the official Malaysian delegation consisted of four delegates, yet Singapore was not officially invited by the then Central Government to send a delegate. Being then an Opposition Member of Parliament in the Malaysian Parliament, I tabled an Oral Question to enquire why this was so; and believe it or not, Sir, the official reply given was that "it was due to an oversight"! There could only be two explanations: one, the gross inefficiency of the Central Government authorities, or, two, the then Central Government already had the pathological attitude that Singapore, although then in Malaysia, was still a "foreign" country. Either explanation is revealing, and sad! Thus it was that on 9th of August, 1965, Singapore had independence thrust on it by Malaysia. This should not be regarded as our third try at independence; rather that the dynamism and the virility of Singapore and its people refused to be browbeaten, bullied or cowed by the unreasonable bludgeoning from the Centre. Singapore could not be swallowed and digested, and had to stay out! Singapore therefore now stands proudly as an independent country, amongst the family of nations. Though we may be the youngest of independent countries, No. 22 in the Commonwealth and No. 117 in the United Nations, we do not necessarily remain in that order of position where quality of performance or desire and ability to live in peace and harmony amongst the troubled nations of the world are concerned. Singapore stands at one of the most important cross-roads of the world, and its citizens come from various racial stocks, which comprise many of the world's peoples. With its multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious composition, we are a little United Nations in being. Every effort should therefore be made to make Singapore a tolerant society as it had been, to give and take, and also to be united as one people and to prosper. We should, however, be on our guard against those who have evil thoughts and designs of wrecking this peace and harmony, namely, the pro-Communists, the pro-Communalists and pro-Confrontationists. Every loyal citizen of Singapore must decide to play a part in exposing such elements in order to help preserve our country and to make it more united and stronger so that we may be better able to overcome our many political and economic problems. Let it not be said that we, of this generation, were tested and found wanting. Let it be recorded that Singapore, on attainment of its sudden independence, weathered the raging storms and surged forward into greater prosperity and happiness because all its peoples rallied together and, with courage and fortitude, successfully overcame its present political and economic difficulties. And now, Sir, I would like to deal with certain points raised by the Hon. Member for Punggol on the White Paper for Family Planning which was tabled in this House in September last. Although he expressed certain doubts and fears because of religious convictions, I am glad that he started off by stating, and I quote - "I would be very happy, therefore, to support the Government in a campaign to educate the people towards a more responsible attitude to parenthood." That is exactly what the White Paper on Family Planning attempts to do, that is, to increase welfare and happiness for all in Singapore, and only responsible parenthood can do that. The Member for Punggol, however, disagrees with the view that smaller families of two or three children are necessarily happier than larger families. He is entitled to his opinion and even to practise what he preaches by raising a large family if he is so inclined. Paragraph 1.5, Sir, of the White Paper goes as follows: `Family Planning does not prevent those who desire large families from having them, if so inclined, provided that the mother's health [not in this case the father's health, the mother's health] permits such frequent child-bearing and [here the husband comes in] the family bread-winner is in the position to earn enough to provide his children and family with a reasonable standard of living in basic necessities of life, ability to see them through school and other things which make a comfortable and happy home'. But further down the paragraph is this very important sentence which points out that many parents are ignorant of family planning and this is where it is the responsibility of an enlightened Government to dispel such ignorance by educating and informing such parents that there are available a number of methods for family planning and there are seven methods. Now these seven methods. The parents will be told that some are 100 per cent effective through surgical ligation, where certain things are cut, but there are other methods which are nearly 100 per cent effective which are reversible, that is to say, if you practise this, it is nearly 100 per cent effective, but if you do not wish to have it, you just stop it, then you are back again into trouble, shall we say. Now these nearly 100 per cent effective family planning methods are the Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices or the Contraceptive Pills. There is what is called the "menu card" of seven methods for persons to choose from, and they will be told method one, method two, method three, method four and so on down the line until a method which only gives 25 per cent protection. Well, if the mother chooses that 25 per cent protection and she comes within the other 75 per cent which does not prove effective, well, she has asked for it - like the T.V. film called "You Asked For It"! So it is for the married mother in these circumstances to decide which method she prefers -the 100 per cent effective method, the 90 per cent, the 70 per cent, the 50 per cent or the 25 per cent effective method. There is no question of compulsion, but one of choice and what her conscience prompts her to decide. The very first paragraph of the White Paper goes as follows: `It is the intention of the Singapore Government, under its Second 5-Year Development Plan (1966-70), to bring the message to every married woman [not every woman, but every married woman, it is being very carefully worded] (within the fertility range) [that is, between the ages of 15 and 44-there are mothers who at 55 still give birth, but that is a rare exception. We are concentrating on those who will give birth more readily.] in Singapore that Family Planning brings her immeasurable benefits. And, at her request, [not at the Government's request, but at the woman's request; she wants something done, she wants knowledge, she wants a helping hand] to advise her on the best available methods of Family Planning which will be simple, inexpensive and safe.' So there can be no victimisation of the poor nor moral blackmail of mothers in receipt of social welfare assistance that unless they consent to family planning, they may not get any assistance. The White Paper on Family Planning is intended to extend help to such poor destitute mothers from falling into greater tragedy and the disaster of bearing yet more children when she is already incapable of earning a livelihood to feed not only herself and whatever children she already has from her unemployed husband. For such social welfare cases there will be no charge for services rendered, but for others there will be a nominal charge for such family planning services. For example, we intend to charge only a nominal $10.00 for an intrauterine contraceptive device insertion which is only a very insignificant percentage of what is now being charged by certain private practitioners for such a service. Sir, I have no hesitation in assuring the Member for Punggol that no doctor, nurse, midwife or staff will be ordered to do anything which would run counter to any of their religious scruples or prejudices, if any, under the Government Family Planning programme; but, on the other hand, I would expect such members of staff to declare why they wish to be exempted from such work, and, on their part, do not stand in the way of others who may desire and wish such family planning advice or help. In other words, if you think you cannot practise this method, please keep off, but do not stop others who are queuing up for such service. Finally, Sir, I completely disagree with the fears held by the Member for Punggol that this family planning campaign will result, I quote, "in grave danger of lowering the whole moral tone of our people." He is a brave man who dares to cast moral judgment on another. Besides, certain morals, like fashions, are one of relativity and would appear to change with the times. I see no danger of moral laxity in Singapore as envisaged by the imaginative mind of the Member for Punggol, but I am quite certain and emphatic that our White Paper on Family Planning will prove a great boon to our married women folk, because they will be liberated from the burden of bearing and raising an unnecessarily large number of children and, as a consequence, to increase human happiness for all. 6.01 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a little bit difficult to conduct debates in this Parliament because of the situation where you do not have an Opposition! For a good debate there must be stimulus and response. We have not got the stimulus because the Barisan Sosialis, for reasons best known to themselves, have decided to stay away from the Assembly - but I have enough imagination to visualise them in front of me to provide the necessary stimulus especially on the question of foreign policy, which is a matter dear to their hearts. So I would first like to state that when we come to talk about the foreign policy of a country, there are two senses in which we can do so. We can identify its foreign policy by the statements of principles and objectives propounded by the leaders of a country. These are generally very reassuring and infused with high moral purposes, but these do not necessarily constitute the foreign policy of the country involved. Then there is another sense in which we can talk of a foreign policy, in that we can abstract it from the concrete decisions and actions taken by a country on specific international issues. From these we can abstract what the country's foreign policy is. In other words, there is a foreign policy of words, of principles, and there is a foreign policy of deeds. For practical purposes, the foreign policy of deeds is a more reliable guide to the intentions of a country than its declared and invariably reassuring principles. I am not saying that the enunciated foreign policy principles of a country are irrelevant or that they do not have any bearing on its foreign policy. They can and very often do. They denote what a country would like to do, though in the world of hard realities it may be forced to do things which do not quite harmonise with its proclaimed principles. It is therefore necessary for Singapore, which is venturing for the first time into the jungle of international politics, to bear in mind always these two kinds of foreign policy. We should be on the look-out for possible discrepancies between deeds and words in the foreign policy of a country. Only then can we devise our own foreign policy which is sound and realistic. For example, we should not be lulled into a false sense of security just because a country professes undying friendship and high regard for us or proclaims peace and goodwill to all men. We should satisfy ourselves first that these proclamations accord with what it does. Similarly, the fact that a country does not like us as a matter of principle (maybe because they do not approve of the system of government we have, or because they do not approve some of the actions that we have chosen to do), this should not preclude normal relations between us and them. So long as they do not translate their theoretical disapproval of us into deeds, we are prepared to enter into relations with them. Of course, it would be better if they say friendly things about us even as they enter into peaceful and workable relations with us. But if that cannot be done, then we would be satisfied with a friendly foreign policy of deeds. So in shaping our foreign policy we should have a clear idea of which category a country comes under, for upon this will depend the measure of friendship and closeness with it. While, generally speaking, we are sincere in our wish to be friendly with all countries which want to be friends with us, in the hard world of international realities there are bound to he degrees of friendship between countries. Those closest to us will naturally he those countries whose foreign policy principles and deeds coincide with our national interests and our basic aspirations. We may from time to time have disagreements with them on specific issues, hut so long as the fundamentals of their foreign policy and the deeds with which they hack them coincide with our basic national interests and objectives, they will continue to remain our closest friends and allies. We should not allow temporary irritations and minor disagreements between us and them to cause us to abandon them as our permanent and secure friends. The second category of countries are those which may have to be unfriendly with us in theory (for ideological reasons or because of the exigencies of domestic politics) while developing friendly and normal relations with us in practice. So long as the practice is friendly, we are equally prepared to be friendly with them, though this friendliness will have to be qualified by the realisation that the friendliness is not as complete as we would like it to be. In a relationship of this kind - the second category - there is always the hope that the friendly relations, however tentative and however cautious, could in course of time and with good sense on both sides, mature into friendship of the first category. These things can happen and do happen in international relations. For example, during World War II, the Americans and Russians were the best of friends, so much so that they combined forces to bring to heel Germany and Japan - by mutual agreement then their No. 1 enemies. But since World War II, Germany and Japan have become America's No. 1 friends - more so than their wartime ally, the Soviet Union. So the friends of today or the enemies of today need not be the enemies of tomorrow. Therefore, in international politics, it is not wise to formulate foreign policies on the basis of permanent enemies, especially in the twentieth century world of convulsive changes and rapid shifts in the balance of political forces within countries. Singapore's foreign policy, based on a realistic appraisal of the position we occupy in South-East Asia, will therefore not be postulated on the basis of permanent enemies. Ours will be the more positive approach of cultivating as many permanent friends as we are capable of. We shall therefore strive to convert this second category of friendship in so far as we can into the first category of friendship, of permanent friends. There will he no fixed and inflexible attitudes in regard to these countries. We shall not take wild and angry postures if from time to time in their foreign policy of words they say something which is not pleasing to us, so long as their foreign policy of deeds remains correct and reassuring. Here patience backed with some understanding of why they have to say the things that they say, might pay dividends and it could prevent their drifting into the third category of nations. The third category of nations are the nations whose foreign policy of words are as hostile and dangerous to our national interests as their foreign policy of deeds. Fortunately for us, no country has so far officially elected to put itself in this category vis-a-vis an independent Singapore. True, there are elements in Singapore, like the Barisan Sosialis, who are exhorting other countries to place themselves in this category vis-a-vis Singapore. Under the hilarious leadership of Dr Lee Siew Choh, for example, the Barisan Sosialis are trying to convince certain countries that Singapore's independence is phoney, that Singapore is a tool of Anglo-American imperialism. Of course, the Barisan Sosialis leaders think that in doing this they are acting like good Marxists. My view - and this may also be the view of the countries to which their appeals are made - is that the Barisan Sosialis brand of Marxism has more in common with the lunacy of the Marx brothers than with the thoughts of the author of the Communist Manifesto. The Barisan Sosialis leaders - if you will permit this euphemism - would be well advised to re-read the opening sentence of the Communist Manifesto which goes "A septre is haunting Europe...". A septre is certainly haunting the Barisan Sosialis and also their friends who not so long ago fled to Indonesia to help do in the people of Singapore. These comrades absconded to Indonesia on the pretext that they wanted to liberate Singapore, to free it from the fetters of British colonialism and Malayan feudalism. But all we know is that they sent terrorists from Indonesia who killed and maimed not British colonial soldiers but a number of innocent and decent Singaporeans, including two women bank employees. They make no distinction of the sexes in these matters. Neither these self-exiled comrades-on-the-run nor their less adventurous cheer leaders who elected to stay in Singapore contributed anything towards the emergence of an independent Singapore. Even as terrorists from Indonesia slipped into Singapore with bombs and hand grenades, Singapore, despite the scheming and obstruction by anti-national elements, found itself independent without bloodshed, without turmoil, and without any damage to the social and economic life of the people. The so-called revolutionary methods of struggle advocated by the Communists and the Barisan Sosialis, it is clear to the people, achieved nothing. Revolutionary methods of struggle, as interpreted and practised by local Communists and apprentice Communists, have been barren of results in Malaya, in Malaysia and in Singapore. Independence has come to Singapore not because of the so-called revolutionary struggles or methods of struggle of the local Communists, but in spite of them. The Barisan Sosialis therefore now try to cover up their bitter failures by pretending that Singapore's independence is phoney. In order to sustain this fantasy of phoney independence, they are compelled to create other and new fantasies. For example, in their Party journal, The Plebeian, they claim that Singapore's independence and sovereignty has been acknowledged only by Anglo-American imperialists and their stooges. In fact, some 116 countries represented in the United Nations voted for the admission of Singapore into the world body. There has, in addition, been formal recognition by individual countries. The recent Goodwill Mission, led by the Deputy Prime Minister, was officially received by Afro-Asian and Communist countries it visited. These countries would not have officially received a country whose independence they doubted. So the Barisan Sosialis leaders evade the truth about the reality of Singapore's independence by pronouncing the United Nations a tool of the American imperialists and the countries which received us as stooges of the Anglo-American imperialists. In other words, the 116 nations which voted for the admission of Singapore are, according to the Barisan Sosialis, the tools of the Americans. That goes, I presume, for Albania, too, because it too voted for the admission of Singapore into the United Nations. If the Barisan Sosialis thesis is correct, then President Kenyatta, President Nyerere, President Nkrumah, President Nasser and many other Heads of State who extended personal messages recognising Singapore's independence must be Anglo-American imperialist stooges. This kind of political lunacy is carried to astonishing lengths when the Barisan Sosialis move an amended foreign policy motion for the consideration of this House demanding that we adopt a foreign policy "friendly to Afro-Asian countries". This is illogical. They argue that Singapore's independence is phoney. On the one hand, the Barisan Sosialis leaders are busy asking the Afro-Asian countries to have nothing to do with Singapore because they claim Singapore's independence is phoney. On the other hand, they move an amended motion demanding that we should establish friendly relations with Afro-Asian countries, which the Afro-Asian countries cannot do if they believe the Barisan Sosialis thesis that Singapore's independence is phoney. All this, I humbly submit, Mr Speaker, is incontrovertible evidence of a fairly advanced state of political lunacy within the Barisan Sosialis fold. The Barisan Sosialis may not know it. In fact, I am convinced they do not. But the countries to which they are making these frantic appeals to adopt a hostile foreign policy of words as well as of deeds must surely be aware of this. In listening to pronouncements of the local Communists, such countries should be aware that they are listening to people who are inept because of a chronic inability to distinguish between fact and fantasy, to political leaders and a political movement which has been discredited in the eyes of our people. It may well be that there is a clear grasp in certain Afro-Asian countries that a Party like the Barisan Sosialis is an expendable coterie of ineffectual clowns to play around with for lack of something better. It may be convenient, from the point of view of these countries, to humour them into believing that they are advancing the cause of socialist revolution. If that is all, then we are content, because we for our part can deal effectively with the Barisan Sosialis and the local Communists. In fact, we can well afford to allow the Barisan Sosialis to play at revolution. Should they or their Communist mentors exceed the hounds set by the law and the Constitution, we are equally capable of checking them there too. For example, it is all right with us and the country if the Barisan Sosialis choose to conduct their revolutionary struggle by the simple process of absenting themselves from this Chamber. They have not broken the law or the Constitution by doing this. And at the end of the month, they will be paid their $500, and for so long as the law and the Constitution prescribe they should be paid. If knowing the law and the Constitution in regard to the remuneration of Assemblymen, the Barisan Sosialis representatives return to do their duty by their electors, then they would still be acting constitutionally and no harm will befall them. But insofar as our foreign policy is concerned, what is important is that the local Communists and the Barisan Sosialis should not be treated by outside countries as their special responsibility, when in fact it is a domestic problem for us to solve. We do not care if foreign countries sympathise with the Barisan Sosialis or anybody else or even wish the local Communists were a little more intelligent than they have been. But what we ask in the conduct of foreign relations is that these private sympathies and regrets should not be allowed to obtrude into the relations of foreign countries with us. The fate and fortunes of the local Communists should not be made an active concern in the relationships foreign countries establish with us. Equally, the fate and fortunes of anti-Communists or racialists should not be made the active concern of countries which seek to establish relations with us. In a democratic country like ours, there have been and will be contending political Parties striving for power on the basis of different ideologies consistent with our Constitution. It is natural for outside countries to feel sympathy for this or that Party or even to pray for the victory of a particular Party. But friendly relations between us and other countries become difficult and even impossible when the sympathy of an interested observer is transformed into active interference in our national affairs. Though the Barisan Sosialis may prattle about phoney independence, this Government and our people accept the reality of our independence, and our foreign policy will be directed towards the safeguarding of this independence. It does not matter if some countries do not believe in the reality of our independence. It is sufficient for the purposes of our foreign policy that we believe in the genuineness of our independence, that the overwhelming majority of the people of Singapore believe in our independence, and that the vast majority of the nations of the world accept our independence. This being so, genuine respect for our political integrity and independence must be an essential element in relationships between us and foreign countries. The primary task of our foreign policy will always be to safeguard our independence from external threats. We shall try to do this by establishing friendly relations with all countries, particularly those nearest to us. Another way of establishing friendly international relations is to support any measure, whether on a regional basis or through concerted international action via the United Nations, which will enhance prospects for peace in this region by reducing tensions and fears. Because Singapore is regarded by the world and by our neighbours as a strategic key in this area, we shall ensure that our foreign policy and our defence policy do not increase tensions and fears among our neighbours. We are well aware that South-East Asia is in fact a battle-ground of great power politics and that Singapore could, as a pawn of some other countries, decide the outcome of the military game the big powers are playing in this region. Because we are aware of this, our foreign policy and our defence policy must ensure that we do not become, or even appear to become, the pawn of any outside power. If this were to happen, then we would be that much nearer to a real military conflict in this area. Therefore, the contribution that Singapore can make towards peace in South-East Asia is not to side with this or that contending power bloc, or become the pawn of any one of them. So long as Singapore does not fall into the hands of any one contending power bloc, we are ensuring that they are not panicked into taking desperate and dangerous counter measures. This was the reason, Sir, why immediately on independence we declared ourselves non-aligned. It was not, as some people believed, simply a case of Singapore following a current Afro-Asian fad! For an independent Singapore, which is also important strategically, to have aligned itself with this or that power bloc was to have invited counter reaction from its rivals. It would have meant Singapore, an independent Singapore, being drawn willy-nilly into the big power conflicts already raging in South-East Asia, and thus enlarging the arena of active conflict. More important, it would have also meant jeopardising our recently won independence. Alignment with one of the power blocs means aligning oneself completely with its major military and foreign policy objectives. And when a small country like Singapore aligns itself with a big power, there is no doubt as to who keeps in step with whose policies. In other words, Singapore's foreign policy, if it is aligned, becomes a copy reproduction of the foreign policy of its more powerful partner. Maybe to keep up the illusion of independence, the major power may permit or tolerate disagreements in minor matters of foreign policy, but in fundamental matters, we would have to stand smartly to attention when the roll call is made on any issue. Once a country has put itself in a position of having to follow the foreign policy of another country, there must eventually be loss of freedom of action in regard to basic domestic policies. If, as it is generally accepted, foreign policy is promotion and protection of national interests through appropriate international actions, a policy of alignment with a big power means promotion not of our national interests but those of the big power. That is why we are loath to join in any international anti-Communist crusade, because we are non-Communist Socialists at home; because we believe - 6.30 p.m.

Order, order. It is 6.30 p.m. now, and in accordance with the resolution of the House, the House will now stand adjourned. Adjourned accordingly at Thirty minutes past Six o'clock p.m.