Hansard, 1965-12-17

Order. I understand that the Minister wishes to move a Motion under Standing Order 10 (2).

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That under Standing Order 10 (2) the introduction of Government Bills today be taken before Questions.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That under Standing Order 10 (2), the introduction of Government Bills today be taken before Questions.

"to make provisions for the use of parts of bodies of deceased persons for therapeutic purposes, for purposes of medical education and research and with respect to the circumstances in which post-mortem examinations may be carried out", presented by the Minister for Health, Mr Yong Nyuk Lin; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting day after the 28th of December, and to be printed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation to proceed with the Bill. I now beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to provide for the regulation of employment in Singapore and for matters connected therewith." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

The next available sitting day after 28th of December, 1965.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether and when the Government will install traffic lights at the junction of Tanjong Katong Road and Dunman Road.

(In Malay): I have been given the task to reply. Government will give priority to the installation of traffic lights at the junction of Tanjong Katong Road and Dunman Road in 1966.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister (a) if he will explain why there are only 3,213 Second Class Hackney Carriage Licences issued up to August 1965, as against 13,032 Hackney Carriage Driving Licences issued up to the same month; (b) whether he is aware of hardship caused to holders of Second Class Hackney Carriage Driving Licences by this imbalance, and (c) if he will undertake to stop issuing further Second Class Hackney Carriage Driving Licences, and increase the number of Second Class Hackney Carriage Licences.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in July 1959 the issue of taxi driving licences was stopped. Four years later in 1963, representations were made by taxi owners that there was difficulty in looking for taxi drivers to man their vehicles. Petitions had also been submitted from members of the public asking for a resumption of the issue of taxi driving licences. Because of these petitions, a Committee was appointed by the Deputy Prime Minister in 1963 to ascertain the correct ratio of taxi drivers to the number of second class hackney carriages (i.e., taxis). In 1963, there were 3,185 motor vehicles licensed as second class hackney carriages, i.e., as taxis. If it is argued that all these vehicles were operating, and 2 drivers are required to operate one taxi during a 24-hour period, then the total number of taxi drivers would be 6,370. This simple arithmetic, however, does not fit into the actual requirements of the taxi business. Taxi drivers, like all other workers, must have their rest days in any week, and it is not always possible for a taxi driver to remain at the wheel continuously for periods as long as 12 hours at a stretch. Therefore, the total number of persons that would be required to operate the 3,185 taxis is actually higher than the figure of 6,370, and a ratio of 3 drivers to one taxi would probably be more correct, giving allowances for sick leave, resignations, etc. This should bring the figure of persons holding taxi driving licences to 9,555. In actual fact, at the end of 1963 there were 9,841 persons holding taxi drivers' licences. However, the Committee found that not all these licence holders were engaged in driving taxis as a full-time occupation. It was ascertained that a great number of these licence holders either were not engaged in driving taxis at all, or were only engaged in driving taxis as a part-time occupation. Some of these licence holders, according to the evidence submitted to the Committee, are shop assistants, hawkers, lorry drivers or attendants, bus drivers or conductors, subordinate staff in commercial firms, and even Government servants. They drive taxis whenever they can during public holidays or during their off-duty hours to earn some extra income. There are other licence holders who, although they are at the moment not engaged in driving taxis at all, renew their licences year after year with a view to making use of them in case they lose their present jobs. Yet a number of the licence holders are garage owners or motor mechanics who require these licences to drive taxis for the purpose of testing the vehicles. For these various reasons, it was decided to resume the issue of taxi driving licences but only to those who were unemployed and had registered at the Labour Exchange. At present, l3,414 taxi driving licences have been issued, but this figure is small in comparison with the total number of ordinary driing licences which is 368,408. The problem does not lie in the number of holders of taxi driving licences but in the number of taxis permitted to ply on the roads. At present, there are 3,193 taxis. The Government had in the Past indicated that the number of taxis plying on the roads must have relationship to public demand and that the number would be reviewed from time to time. It is my intention now to review the position of public transport and I shall set up a Committee to investigate and make recommendations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister indicate when he intends to set up this Committee and if he will include the Singapore Taxi Drivers' Association on it?

(In Malay): This matter will be considered and even if they are not selected, the Committee will still receive opinions which they hope may be constructive in nature.

asked the Minister of Defence (a) whether Government has any plans to improve the community centre at Jalan Penggaga and to construct additional ones in the Geylang Serai Constituency; and (b) when will such plans be implemented.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the community centre at Jalan Penggaga is housed in a building which is rented from one person who is not in Singapore, and the land belongs to another party. Therefore, it is not advisable to spend money on structural improvement in these circumstances. Improvement of all community centres in other respects is continually attempted by way of recruitment of better qualified staff, training of staff and appointment of management committees. The Assemblyman of the area is usually invited to be the adviser of the management committee and it is his responsibility, as much as that of the Government, to improve the amenities and activities of community centres. In reply to the second part of the question, the Government plans to build another standard type community centre at Geylang Serai. In fact, it has already acquired a site. But we do not have enough money for the construction of this centre until sometime after 1966.

(In Malay): 1 wish to inquire of the Minister, since the P.A.P. came to power, the Government has been building community centres throughout Singapore. This is a matter of pride. But it is a pity that after the P.A.P. came to power, there has been no project for Geylang Serai -

If the Member has a supplementary question to ask, he may do so. But he must not embark on a speech. A supplementary, please. Inche Rahamat(In Malay): This is related to my question. May I inquire why the Geylang Serai constituency does not have a community centre as other constituencies have? Is there something wrong why there is no community centre in Geylang Serai?

Sir, there is one community centre. As I said, this is in a rather ancient building of wooden structure. The owner of the building is now staying, I am told, in Indonesia. The landlord is somewhere else. Obviously it is a risky thing to effect improvements to this particular place. Geylang Serai, of course, is fortunate in having at least one community centre. There are three other constituencies which have none whatsoever, and the Member is therefore comparatively fortunate. After 1966, as I said, we can look forward to having another one. He must, in the meantime, contain his soul in patience.

asked the Minister of Defence whether the Government has any plan to construct a community centre at Jalan Sembawang Kechil (formerly known as Ulu Sembawang, Indian Village, 12 m.s.) and when such plan will be implemented.

Mr Speaker, the Government has no plan to construct a community centre in the place mentioned by the hon. Member, as a community centre already exists some 500 yards away. There are already eight community centres in the hon. Member's constituency. He is, therefore, comparatively well off in this respect.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask a supplementary question. According to what I know, there is a regulation stipulated by the Government that if there are 200 families they are entitled to one community centre. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is going to implement this policy according to the regulation.

I am not aware of such a regulation. I think what the hon. Member is referring to was a statement of intention made sometime I think after the referendum - 1962 is it? - when the Government made a statement saying that if there are more than 200 families living in a village, we will try to build a rural type community centre. Preference, of course, will be given to the Barisan areas where their influence is strong, so that the population may be instructed in the correct way in order that falsehood may be confronted with truth. For this reason, during 1962 and 1963, there was quite an active programme of building rural community centres, and we laid down as the minimum criterion that unless there are at least 200 families, then we would not consider building a community centre. This does not mean, of course, that there must be a community centre for every 200 families. If, in fact, we take this literally, then we will have in Singapore something like 200,000 community centres.

asked the Minister of Defence when a community centre can be provided for the residents of the Moulmein Constituency.

The hon. Member will be pleased to know that her constituency ranks very high in the building programme of community centres. Her constituency, as well as Anson and Cairnhill, is the only constituency without a single community centre. They have priority over other constituencies. The trouble, of course, is to get land. If the hon. Member can help the People's Association in finding suitable land which is available at a reasonable price, she will be performing a service to everybody.

The following Question stood in the name of - 6. To ask the Minister for Education how many children have been registered for admission to Primary One in 1966, giving figures separately for the four language streams and for Government and Government-aided schools.

Mr Koo Young. There being no response -

The Member is not present. The Minister will, therefore, please circulate a written answer to the Member. If the written answer is available now, please hand it to the Clerk. The reply will appear in the Hansard. Otherwise it could be circulated.

Sir, on a point of order.

Yes?

If hon. Members of the Opposition show a complete disinterest in the proceedings of this Assembly, are the Ministers obliged to circulate written answers or give them written answers? It does seem to me in the circumstances improper.

The Minister will appreciate the Speaker's difficulty. The Speaker only knows that they are not present in the House. He does not know whether they are interested or not. So far as the Speaker is aware, they are still Members of the House and, as such, are entitled to all the privileges of the House. One of the privileges is that if a Member is not present in the House when his name is called for a Question, then he is entitled to have an answer sent to him by the Minister. So, Mr Minister, will you be good enough to send the answer to the Member in question? Written answer handed in to the Clerk.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Koo Young :- 7. To ask the Minister for Education how many students will be taking the Primary School Leaving Examination in 1965, giving figures separately for the four language streams and for Government and Government-aided schools.

Mr Koo Young. There being no response -

Mr Ong Pang Boon, perhaps the answer could be circulated? Written answer handed in to the Clerk.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Chia Thye Poh :- 8. To ask the Minister for Education (a) whether the Government has given any financial aid to Ngee Ann College, and how much; and (b) what is the amount of money actually spent in aid to Nanyang University since the Government had taken steps to reorganise it.

Mr Chia Thye Poh. There being no response ---

The Member not being present, perhaps the Minister will circulate the answer? Written answer handed in to the Clerk.

asked the Minister for Health when the Outpatient Dispensary on the ground floor of one of the blocks of the Siglap Estate will be opened.

Mr Speaker, I have been asked by the Minister to answer. As the Ministry of Health does not have the full complement of doctors and trained staff to man the present 26 Government Outpatient Dispensaries situated all over the island, it sees no useful purpose in attempting to open yet another Outpatient Dispensary on the ground floor of the Siglap Housing Estate mentioned by the hon. Member for Changi. In fact, this particular constituency, i.e., Siglap, is already well served by a 3-doctor Government Outpatient Dispensary known as Still Road Outpatient Dispensary, situated at the junction of Changi Road and Still Road and which is not fully utilised as yet.

asked the Minister for Health if he is aware that third class patients in the Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital are provided with hospital clothing that is so inadequate as to improperly expose portions of their bodies, and if he will give instructions that this state of affairs he remedied as soon as possible.

Mr Speaker, I have been asked by the Minister to answer. It is not true that patients in Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital are being provided with hospital clothing which is inadequate. The clothing provided for female `C' Class patients in this Maternity Hospital are standard type, that is, white bajus and red sarongs, similar to those for other Government hospitals. It is possible, however, that some patients who are not accustomed to wearing sarongs may inadvertently expose themselves on change of posture. Ambulant patients (i.e., those who can walk on their own) whilst on their way to and from operating theatres or labour wards are provided with kimono-type gowns. Patients on stretchers are clothed in maternity gowns and always covered over by a blanket. The only time where patients may expose themselves is in the labour ward, i.e., when patients are already in labour. However, in this section, only doctors, nurses or midwives are present. Visitors are not allowed inside the Labour Ward.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask a supplementary question. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that kimonos are given to those in the wards after surgery. Does he know that some parts of the kimonos have no buttons - open at the back? Some do not have elastic bands. Does it not appear to the Minister that the patients have to hold on to the dress with their hands where-ever there are no buttons? Male attendants laugh at the patients. Is the Minister not aware of this? Will he do something to remedy the situation?

I think the patients are in a position to look after themselves at that stage. They are not entirely helpless. If the kimono has not got any buttons - I do not know; there may well be cases where the buttons come off in the laundry and they have not been replaced. But I should imagine they will be replaced as soon as they are discovered missing. If the patients will take a little bit of care, I do not think this sort of thing will happen.

asked the Minister for Health whether and when a new market will be constructed at the 5th mile area in Holland Road; or alternatively the present market be renovated to serve the needs of the hawkers and residents in the area.

Mr Speaker, the present market at Holland Road of 43 stalls is considered adequate for the needs of the hawkers and residents in this vicinity at the present time. As a result of recent re-siting of 76 hawkers outside the market, some market stalls have been taken up. However, there are still 4 market stalls and 18 open pitches which are vacant. There is, therefore, no immediate need to build a new market. The question of renovation and improvements to the present Holland Road Market could be looked into when the need arises. There is no scheme for a new market to be built at Holland Road in the Government's Second Five-Year Development Plan.

asked the Minister for Health if he will consider the construction of another market in the new MacPherson Housing Estate which now has 10,000 units of flats and when that market can be expected to be ready.

Mr Speaker, the development of the MacPherson Road (South) Housing Estate has provision for another market to be located off Persiaran Keliling. This second market will he a big market with 150 stalls, and is scheduled to be built next year. It is expected that work on this second market will be started by the middle of 1966, and is expected to be completed before the end of the year.

Question 13.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Poh Ber Liak :- 13. To ask the Minister for Labour if he will make a statement on the strike of workers at Hup Seng Bee-Hoon Factory at Changi Road, 10 m.s., in July, 1965. Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi (Kampong Kembangan) rose ---

A supplementary question, Sir.

Order. Mr Ho, you are somewhat late. I have called the Question. Inche Mohd. Ariff.

(In Malay): As Mr Poh Ber Liak is absent, I would like to put the question to the Minister for Labour.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to the Member for Kampong Kembangan for giving me this opportunity to expose one of the wrong doings of the Communist unions in the labour field. It is rather surprising that the Member for Tampines should have originally tabled this question regarding the so-called strike at the Hup Seng Bee-Hoon Factory, for in this particular case it is he and his Communist friends, or rather the union which is under their control, that should make a statement to the public as to why they should not be condemned for causing the unemployment of 18 workers and the closing down of the factory. These workers worked in the factory premises of Hup Seng and Company in the manufacture of bee-hoon. Amongst them they had their own head, a man named Low Ah Seng. They worked on a tonnage basis of $6 per picul. The system appeared to be that all the workmen collectively participated in manufacturing the bee-hoon and then shared the earnings equally among themselves. The factory premises and the equipment belonged to Hup Seng and Company, and the rice for the manufacture of bee-boon was supplied by the Company. The workmen made the bee-hoon in their own time. They were not under the direct supervision of the Company. In fact, they were what is normally termed "independent contractors". There was no written agreement between the Company and the workers. The Company had never paid Central Provident Fund contributions in respect of any of them. The C.P.F. Board had investigated into this matter in August 1964 and was satisfied that the Company was not an employer. These arrangements had been going on for some ten years until September 1964, when a Communist-dominated union, the Singapore Commercial Houses and Factory Employees' Union, came into the picture. It created a dispute out of a case where the Company was reported to have told one worker to stop work. There were two unfruitful meetings in my Ministry. The Company refused to negotiate with the Union on the ground that the Company was not the employer. This led to a strike in October 1964. The Union, on the advice of their learned lawyer, Mr T. T. Rajah, tried to force the case in the Labour Court. But the Labour Court decided that no employer-employee relationship existed between the Company and the workers. This decision was later upheld by the High Court. Meanwhile the Company was strike-bound for months. It finally had to close down in February 1965. The case was simple. Since there was no employer-employee relationship between the Company and the workers, there could not be any industrial dispute. The system of production prevailing in this Company has been existing in Singapore for years, especially among the smaller factories. Because of the unnecessary militancy and the stupidity of the Communist-dominated Singapore Commercial Houses and Factory Employees' Union, 18 workers lost the opportunity to earn their living.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Chia Thye Poh :- 14. To ask the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs (a) what is the total value of relief in money or in kind given to fishermen affected by the night curfew at sea each month from January 1965, up to a latest convenient month: and (b) how many fishermen have received such relief from the Government.

Mr Chia Thye Poh.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, as Mr Chia Thye Poh is not here, I am asking this question on his behalf.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am instructed by my Minister to answer. In January and February food parcels consisting of rice, sugar, milk and flour of a total value of $2,967.97 were distributed to 224 fishermen families comprising 1,249 persons in the Southern Islands. Special assistance grants have been paid to fishermen both on the mainland and in the Southern Islands, with effect from May 1965, as follows:- Month No. of fishermen families Amount $ May 154 (comprising 809 persons) 3,495 June 185 (comprising 989 persons) 4,289 July 204 (comprising 1,103 persons) 4,805 August 229 (comprising 1,244 persons) 5,445 Month No. of fishermen families Amount $ Sept. 240 (comprising 1,285 persons) 5,655 Oct. 247 (comprising 1,331 persons) 5,875 Nov. 249 (comprising 1,345 persons) 5,945 In addition, there are 140 fishermen families, both on the mainland and in the Southern Islands (comprising a total of 696 persons), who had been receiving Public Assistance from the Social Welfare Department before the curfew, and are still doing so. After further investigation following upon the imposition of the curfew, a certain number of these families was given increases in the P.A. payments with effect from June; the total P.A. payments, including the increases, average $4,700 per month.

asked the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs if he will give the reasons why unemployed holders of Second Class Hackney Carriage Driving Licences are denied social welfare benefits.

Mr Speaker, I have been instructed by my Minister to answer. It has been the long standing policy of the Department of Social Welfare to refuse public assistance relief to applicants who hold Second Class Hackney Carriage Driving Licences. It is considered a reasonable presumption that holders of such licences are employed, or intend to seek employment, as taxi-drivers. However, in cases where such applicants have surrendered their licences and can satisfy the Department that they are unemployed, public assistance relief has been given.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Chia Thye Poh :- 16. To ask the Minister for Law and National Development whether the Government has taken any step to urge the Malaysian Government to enable fishermen, affected by the night curfew at sea, to carry on fishing at night, and if he will state the outcome in the matter.

Mr Chia Thye Poh. There being no response, Mr E. W. Barker handed in to the Clerk a written answer to the Question. The following Questions stood in the name of Mr Ong Lian Teng ---

17. To ask the Minister for Law and National Development when the Government will install street lights at the 11th and 12th milestones, Woodlands Road.

18. To ask the Minister for Law and National Development what is the sum of money spent by the Government for rural development in the Bukit Panjang Constituency from 1st January, 1964, to 31st December, 1964, and the details of such expenditure.

19. To ask the Minister for Law and National Development whether Temporary Occupation Licence fees of Crown Land in the Mandai area have been increased and by what percentage.

Mr Ong Lian Teng. There being no response, Mr E. W. Barker handed in to the Clerk written answers to Questions Nos. 17, 18 and 19.

The following Question stood in the name of Madam Chan Choy Siong :- 20. To ask the Minister for Law and National Development whether (a) the repair of Brahmaputra Road and drains and the construction of three timber bridges at Brahmaputra Road; (b) the repair of Zion Close; and (c) the installation of a standpipe in front of houses Nos. 545A and 545D, Havelock Road, will be carried out, and when.

Madam Chan Choy Siong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the absence of Madam Chan Choy Sion, may I ask Question No. 20?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this question is in three parts. The answer to (a) is: the repair of Brahmaputra Road and drains has been approved, and work is expected to he carried out in the first quarter of 1966 when funds will be available. The construction of three timber bridges at Brahmaputra Road has been completed. Answer to part (b): the repair of Zion Close has been completed. Answer to part (c): the installation of a standpipe in front of houses Nos. 545A and 545D, Havelock Road, was approved some months ago. Work has been completed and, in fact, water supply was turned on the 3rd of July this year.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development (a) whether he is aware of traffic jams in the morning and evening at the 5th mile and 6th mile, Upper Serangoon Road: (b) whether and when the proposals made to him in 1964 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health who is the Member for Upper Serangoon, that two overhead bridges for pedestrians be constructed, one at the 5th mile and one at the 6th mile, Upper Serangoon Road, will be implemented: and (c) what other measures does the Government intend to take to ease the traffic congestion at the 5th mile Upper Serangoon Road, and if he will give details with an indication when they will be put into effect.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware of traffic congestion during rush hours at the 5th and 6th m.s. Upper Serangoon Road, particularly at the 5th mile where the restricted junction of two major roads with heavy traffic converge. Consideration has been given to proposals for overhead pedestrian bridges to be constructed to assist pedestrians crossing the road at this point, but it is not likely to be a measure that will contribute to alleviating the traffic congestion. It is also very doubtful if the pedestrians will use the overhead bridge when they can quickly cross the very narrow stretch of road. The question whether overhead bridges should he constructed at this and similar junctions in Singapore is under serious study. A few overhead bridges will be built to test reaction and, if found inappropriate, will be dismantled. One such overhead bridge has been proposed at this point. The Public Works Department has been working on a proposal to ensure the smooth flow of traffic at this junction by widening that stretch of Upper Serangoon Road between Paya Lebar Road and Yio Chu Kang Road to accommodate six lanes of traffic instead of the present four. Another proposal under consideration is the construction of a new stretch of road between the 5th and 6th m.s. Upper Serangoon Road and running parallel partly to Upper Serangoon Road towards Paya Lebar Road to meet that road near the Singapore Telephone Board Exchange. This, however, is a long-term solution which can only be constructed in stages and will probably be slow because it involves land acquisition and resettlement. The following Question stood in the name of Mr Poh Ber Liak :-

22. To ask the Minister for Law and National Development in regard to land around 8¾, m.s. Tampines Road (Sembawang Estate or Ban Kok Estate) and at 10 ms. Tampines Road (behind the Nankin Theatre), (a) whether the Government intends to acquire the land and for what purpose; (b) whether the Government has any plans to resettle the residents now on the land, and where; and (c) when did the Government give notice to the occupants to remove.

23. To ask the Minister for Law and National Development whether and when the Government will (a) provide electricity to residents at the upper parts of Peng Ghee Road and Peng Ann Road; and (b) repair Goh Hup Road off Tampines Road, 9¼ m.s.

Mr Poh Ber Liak. There being no response, Mr Barker handed in to the Clerk written answers to Questions Nos. 22 and 23.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether and when public standpipes will be installed in (a) Kampong Water House, off Bukit Timah Road, 6½ m.s.; and (b) Kampong Tani.

Mr Speaker, Sir, proposals to install two stand pipes in Kampong Water House, off Bukit Timah Road, 6½ m.s., were approved by the U.R.S.C. three years ago. But the scheme has been delayed because of objections by the landowners, Messrs. Fred Waterhouse Co. Ltd. Answer to part (b): the houses in Kampong Tani are unauthorised and no standpipes can, therefore, be installed.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development when the Government will repair (a) the road leading to the Kim Pong Community Centre; (b) the track in Kim Pong Village; (c) the timber bridge along the road leading to Kim Pong Village; and (d) the road leading to the Holland Road Market.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all these proposals have been approved and work will commence in early 1966.

Inche Mohd. Ariff.

I am not asking Question No. 26, Sir. [The following is Question No. 26:- To ask the Minister for Law and National Development whether he is aware that all the unpaved drains in the Kampong Kembangan area have been neglected for more than a year without maintenance, and what action will be taken to maintain and remove the silt from those drains.]

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether he is aware of the traffic congestions at Tanjong Katong Road around the commencement and termination of school hours, and whether the Government has any plan to widen that road to eliminate the traffic congestion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that there is traffic congestion at Tanjong Katong Road during school hours. This congestion is aggravated to some extent by cars which stop to let down or pick up school children. This problem has been looked into and it is proposed to widen the actual roadway in order to provide a lay-by lane for cars bringing school children to and from school. The road will be widened by six feet for a length of more than 1,000 feet at the cost of about $7,500. This proposal will be submitted to the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee for its consideration and approval, and as soon as funds are made available, the work will be carried out.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether the existing sewerage system in the Tanjong Rhu area, laid pre-war up to the Singapore Swimming Club, will he extended to Rhu Cross to provide sewerage facilities to the factories and residents there, and when the work will be carried Out.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that there was a 12-inch sewer built in 1938 up to the Singapore Swimming Club only. In 1964 plans were drawn up by the Public Works Department for the extension of this sewer up to Rhu Cross. The estimated cost of this extension is about half a million dollars. This is a large sum of money relative to the number of people that will benefit from the project. There are many areas in Singapore with denser populations and more urgent needs, and so this project has to be given low priority. The working drawings are ready and it is hoped that funds will he available within the next five years to proceed with this project. But I would like to point out to the hon. Member for Mountbatten that all the factories and many private houses in that area have their own septic tanks and only about 60 premises depend on the nightsoil bucket system.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether and when the Government will improve the road surfaces and drains along Siak Kuan Road, Windsor Drive and a track off No. D-1 Gulega Road (leading to houses Nos. 786-59).

About one-half of Siak Kuan Road from Koh Sek Lim Road is being metalled. The road surface and drains along the remaining section of the road up to Somapah Road may be improved next year when funds are available. Approval has been given by the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee to improve the road surface and drains along Windsor Drive and work will start in February 1966. The road surface and drains along the track off No. D-1 Gulega Road leading to houses Nos. 786-59 may be improved should funds be made available in 1966.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether and when (a) electricity supply will be extended to Kampong Gulega; and (b) electricity and water supply will be extended to the Malay Kampong at Jalan Greja where these utilities are not available.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this area will come under the Rural Electrification Scheme in 1966. The houses in the Malay kampong at Lorong Pelasari off Jalan Greja were officially numbered two months ago. Electricity and water supply will he extended to this area in early 1966.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether and when electricity and water supplies will he made available to the residents of Tracks 12, 13 and 17 off Punggol Road.

Mr Speaker, Sir, electricity supply under the Rural Electrification Scheme will he extended to the residents along the main Punggol Road including Tracks 12, 13 and 17 in early 1966. A water main in Track 12 off Punggol Road has already been laid. Proposals to lay water mains in Tracks 13 and 17 off Punggol Road have to he deferred so that the houses which are unauthorised can have their positions legalised.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether he is aware that approved projects for the repairs of tracks and drains and the installation of standpipes in Trafalgar Estate were not executed due to objections by the authorities of the Trafalgar Receiving Station (which was known as the Cable and Wireless Station), and whether he will look into the matter with the view to executing those projects; and whether and when electricity supplies will be extended to the farmers living in the area.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that some approved projects for Trafalgar Estate were not implemented because of objections from the previous owners, Cable and Wireless. The licence of this Company has now been terminated and the Company was taken over by the Malaysian Government on the 1st of January, 1964. The House is well aware of the dispute over the Company since the separation. The installation of standpipes and provision of improved services in the property will have to be postponed until the position is clarified.

3.18 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 Foreign Affairs was addressing the House. Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I indicated why it was necessary for us to stick to a policy of non-alignment, because to be aligned to any big country would eventually have meant the loss of our freedom of action even in domestic fields, because foreign policies are in fact an extension of domestic policies into the international field. And therefore I said that was why we refused to join any anti-Communist crusade because we are non-Communist. We are socialists at home because we believe that the non-Communist policy is the best way of dealing with our domestic problems, including the Communist problem in Singapore. We cannot be non-Communist at home and anti-Communist abroad. For the same reason we have resisted demands that we should align ourselves with the Communist bloc. This demand has in fact come from the Barisan Sosialis for, when all their verbal disguise is removed, what they really want us to do is that we should align ourselves with one of the Communist blocs. This was clearly revealed in the foreign policy motion which they originally submitted for our consideration last August when, as a test of the genuineness of our independence, they specified the countries with which we should immediately establish diplomatic relations. There were only two countries, Peking and Jakarta. Since then they have amended this motion, but I do not wish to anticipate the debate to which we are looking forward in the coming days. For us then, non-alignment means avoiding entanglements in what are essentially power conflicts even though these conflicts may be wrapped up in such highly moral terms as the struggle for a free world, for the liberation of oppressed people as a struggle against Communism, capitalism, neo-colonialism and what have you. We are intelligent and hard-headed enough to know that these fine slogans are merely cloaks to cover big power national interests, and these are not always identical with ours. To align ourselves with any one power bloc is to add to its potential strength. And having regard to the strategic value of Singapore, we will he adding decisive strength to one side. This, far from contributing to stability in this area, will do just the opposite. In view of all this, 1 think it is in the real interests of the big powers themselves to see that Singapore is non-aligned. If the big powers are really interested in averting a major conflict in South-East Asia, they should accept and ensure the non-aligned status of Singapore. Since Singapore is genuinely convinced that a non-aligned policy is the correct one for itself and for the peace of South-East Asia, a major power need not fear that the strategic position of Singapore would he exploited to its disadvantage by one of its rivals. Our policy will be to ensure, to the best of our ability, that Singapore remains the still centre in the power storm raging in South-East Asia. However, non-alignment does not mean indifference on our part to the real issues of peace and war in this region or even feigning blindness as to what is right and wrong. A non-aligned policy, in fact, gives us greater freedom to make pronouncements or adopt stands purely on the merits, as we see them, of specific international issues. An aligned position on the other hand obliges us automatically to take the stand that our major and more powerful ally takes on any important issue. It is inevitable that Singapore's stand in specific international issues will he coloured heavily by national interests. The promotion of national interests is the essence of the foreign policy of all countries, big and small. Only a country aligned to a big power, whether as a colony or as an ally, may he compelled to sacrifice its national interests where these conflict with those of its major partner. However, the pursuit of national interests cannot be absolute in a world where the fact of national independence has to he balanced against the reality of interdependence between nations. Even big and powerful countries like the United States and the Soviet Union cultivate allies and friends in order to safeguard and promote what they believe to he their national interests. Interdependence implies give and take between the partners involved. Interdependence cannot therefore be on the basis of unrestrained pursuit of national interests without regard to the national interests of one's partners and friends. There will arise occasions when we may have to make some sacrifice of our national interests for the long-term interests of the nation. This need not give rise to insurmountable difficulties if there is broad coincidence of views between the partners as to their ultimate national interests. In the case of Singapore, our ultimate national interests are the preservation of the essential values on which our society is founded. We believe in democracy. We believe in the establishment of a multi-racial non-communal society. As Socialists, we believe in the eradication of poverty, ignorance, disease and other forms of economic and social injustice. We believe in "a more just and more equal society", a slogan which does not always give reassurance to some other countries. We believe in peace between nations simply because we have nothing to gain by war and, in any case, we have not the capacity or the resources to make war on others We covet no people's territory. We have no desire to save other peoples by interfering in their affairs. They must save themselves. These then are the elements which constitute our national interests, out of which our national interests are compounded. These, I submit, in no way conflict with the national interests of those countries which genuinely want to live in peace with us. If other countries understand that these constitute our national interests and that the preservation of these are the only objectives of our foreign policy, then they will put a kinder construction on many of the things that we do, including the existence of a British base in Singapore, unlike the Barisan Sosialis who put a different construction on the existence of our base. In the light of what I have said so far and in the light of what are our true national objectives, the bases are here not for any aggressive or imperialist purposes but for the defence of Singapore and Singapore's national interests. We are realistic enough to recognise the limits to our capacity to be able to defend ourselves against external threats. We shall, of course, build our own defence forces to the fullest extent we are capable of. But what we are interested in is the defence of Singapore in the context of a major conflict in regard to major and more powerful neighbours. We are in no position to build or finance an army capable of defending Singapore in a conflict of this kind. Even big powers with far greater resources of money, men and material plan their defence on the basis of friends and allies. That goes for the Soviet Union. That goes even for the United States. So it is sheer madness for certain people in Singapore, like the Barisan Sosialis, to advocate that Singapore should be self-sufficient in regard to defence. But the Barisan Sosialis know that self-sufficiency in defence is merely another way of leaving Singapore defenceless, and that is what they really want. They know that their prospects of capturing power by constitutional and even by unconstitutional means are pretty dim in Singapore. Therefore, their only hope of seizing power is by the arrival of rescue parties from outside Singapore. A defenceless Singapore is therefore their dream and hope and the objective of their foreign policy. Getting rid of British bases, they well know, does not mean no bases at all in Singapore. Even if the British were to quit the base, the strategic value of Singapore still remains. Many countries outside of Singapore know this. What is likely to happen if the British were to pull out is that there will be a scramble by other militarily more powerful countries to get control over the base in Singapore. In such a scramble of elephants, it is Singapore which is going to be trampled to death. Because of this, we would like the British base to be here until such time as we can find other more effective and more practical ways of ensuring our defence. For one thing, the British base is already here and it has been here for decades. So there is no question of any scramble starting for possession to control the base, which there must be if the British were to quit it. However, now that Singapore is a sovereign and independent country, we can take steps to make it clear to those who genuinely fear that the base is an imperialist base and that it is a base for aggression against them, that their fears are unfounded. We have no intention of allowing the base to be used for aggressive or so-called neo-colonialist ends, simply because it is not in our national interest to encourage aggression or neo-colonialism. This assurance is a firm one and it can be an effective one. Because, as you know, Sir, the base cannot in a sovereign country be effectively used for purposes which the Singapore Government believes to be against the national interest. We all know that without the goodwill and support of the government of the country in which the base is, a modern base cannot be operated effectively, if at all it can be operated. Of course, those who have designs of their own on Singapore will persist in believing that the base is a neo-colonialist threat. There is nothing we can do to persuade them otherwise except not to be needled by such charges into abandoning such arrangement as we think necessary for our defence for our national interest. Our responsibility is not to any outside country but to the two million people who have entrusted their welfare and safety to us, and we will ensure their safety by the most practical and most effective means we think is necessary to secure their defence. Sir, we have been independent for just under five months and our foreign policy, though still rough about the edges, has won regard as well as friends for us. The essential thing is that we have not been isolated as the local Communists and others who are not Communists had hoped we would be. There are people, Communists and non-Communists, who thought that Singapore, by the manner in which it achieved independence, by openly proclaiming its intentions that the base would remain, would never be accepted by the Afro-Asian countries as a truly sovereign and independent country. Sir, though we are new to foreign policy, it is the measure of the effectiveness of our foreign policy that we have been accepted as a sovereign independent country despite the British bases by nonaligned countries, and even by Communist countries. Therefore, it is not a bad beginning for our foreign policy. It only underlines the effectiveness of our foreign policy. We have made a good start. We have made a start in the right direction by adhering to a non-aligned policy. The process of consolidating the friendly relations we have established with foreign countries will take time and money. It may not be feasible to establish missions in every friendly country because we cannot mobilise the personnel and the money to do this. So friendly contacts with foreign countries will have to be maintaned and consolidated, in some cases, by establishing overseas missions. In others, by official visits and, for the most part, because there are 116 nations, by working together with all countries in the United Nations to help build a more peaceful and more prosperous world. Therefore, it is our intention first to establish missions in some ten countries. These are in alphabetical order: Australia, Burma, Cambodia, India, Japan, New Zealand, Thailand, the U.A.R., the United States and the United Kingdom. These will be, as I said, the first of our overseas missions and we hope to set up most, if not all, of them during the course of the coming year. They will of necessity be initially on an austerity basis. There may be some countries where there will he just the Ambassador and nobody else. But whatever it is, we have to make a start, and this is a start. With some of these countries, we have very substantial and close trade relations. With others, identity of political interest and aims counts for more than trade interests. And with the rest, trade and political interests happen to be equally important. These are, as I said, Sir, the first of our overseas missions. We shall set up others when we can find the personnel and the money or when political and trade considerations justify their being set up earlier. The promotion of trade with as many countries as possible will he a major objective of foreign policy I should like to state here that ideological differences will not be made barriers to trade between us and other countries. The only criterion for trade is whether trade with another country is in our economic interest, because promotion of our economic interest is promotion of our national interest. There may, of course, be occasions when economic interests may have to be sacrificed to safeguard some important political interests the total ban on trade with Rhodesia recently is a case in point. But, generally speaking, ideological differences will not he made obstacles to trade, i.e., legitimate trade. We shall take care to see that trade does not become a cover for political manipulations, interference or attempts to control us. Talking of trade brings us to the most important aspect of our foreign policy, our relations with Malaysia. I have kept this to the last because our relationship with Malaysia is of a special kind. I confess, Mr Speaker, that I find it difficult to keep a straight face in talking about a foreign policy towards Malaysia. There is something unreal and odd about lumping our relations with Malaysia under foreign relations. But then some rather odd things do happen in the history of peoples and countries. All that we can then do is to accept the oddity as something not of our making and try to make the best of an odd situation. Because the situation is odd., we should be more than usually careful to devise rational and intelligent policies in regard to Malaysia. In theory, i.e., in regard to the Constitution, the relationship between us and Malaysia comes under the category of foreign relations. So we set up a High Commission as part of the necessary formalities between two foreign countries, and the machinery functioned efficiently when on occasions the two Commissions had to exchange formal diplomatic protest notes. However, constitutional forms are one thing and the hard facts of history, geography, economics and demography are another. All these latter factors underline not the separateness or foreignness of the two territories, but the oneness of the people in the two countries. People on both sides of the Causeway have not since 9th August even begun to treat one another as foreigners. And I do not think they ever will. This is a hard fact. Sir, if I may be permitted a personal note. I have my parents and a brother in Malaysia. Though I have tried very hard to keep up with the appropriate spirit demanded by the Constitution, I could not bring myself to regard them as foreigners. I am quite sure this goes for hundreds of thousands like me on both sides of the Causeway. So one cannot talk of a foreign policy towards Malaysia in the same sense as we would in regard to other countries. It must be a foreign policy of a special kind, a foreign policy towards a country which, though constitutionally foreign, is essentially one with us and which, when logic and sanity reassert themselves, must once more become one. It must be a foreign policy based on the realisation that Singapore and Malaysia are really two arms of one politically organic whole, each of which has, through a constitutional proclamation, been declared separate and independent. True a Minister in Malaysia not so long ago did say that on 9th August a diseased arm was cut off. I do not think that anything was cut off, in fact, fortunately for us. I say, fortunately, because if one of the arms is really cut off, it must result in the whole organism bleeding to death. Our foreign policy is based on an awareness of not so much the constitutional fact as the fact of what is real - the reality of the thing. The survival and well-being of Malaysia is essential to Singapore's survival. Conversely, the survival and well-being of Singapore is essential to Malaysia's survival. We should not, however, confuse the survival of the peoples in the two territories with the survival of governments and political parties, because political parties and governments come and go, as the mood and aspirations of peoples change and as the political environment changes. With this broader background in mind, we in Singapore have to accept the fact that we and Malaysia are two sovereign States compelled to move, by different routes, towards the ultimate destiny of one people and one country. We have chosen our route towards this ultimate destiny even if we have to do so, now, as an independent and sovereign State. In one way, Sir, this may not be a bad thing because we have the freedom now to choose our route towards this ultimate and inevitable goal. We live the way we want to live, the most effective way. I believe, Sir, victory goes to the one who chooses the route and successfully reaches the goal set for it by destiny. When we were in Malaysia, we chose the route of a Malaysian Malaysia as our objective, and that resulted in many difficulties and ultimately in our receiving a quit order or else. We were told never to darken Malaysia's door, and they exhorted us to set up house on our own elsewhere. Well, so be it. We are now an independent State. True it is no longer within our power to help in the building of a Malaysian Malaysia. But it is within our power and within our rights to build what I would call a Malaysian Singapore - not a Singaporean Singapore but a Malaysian Singapore. The essence of a Malaysian Malaysia was that it was possible to build a just, prosperous and progressive nation in a multi-racial society only on the basis of a non-communal and a non-racial approach in policies and in economics. When we were in Malaysia, this thesis was rejected as not only impractical but also dangerous. So since 9th August we have had the opportunity and the freedom to show in Singapore that such a society for which we struggled in Malaysia can be made to work in Singapore; that a multi-racial society founded on the concepts of democracy, social equality and socialist concepts of economic and social justice is the only safe and practical way of building a united nation, of building a nation out of many races, and of solving the economic and social problems of peoples of all races. But for the time being, all we ask of our neighbour in Malaysia is that having insisted that we should be a sovereign State, they should treat us as a sovereign State and allow us the rights and privileges that go with sovereignty, because we concede to them the right to behave like a sovereign State. We are resentful when they behave towards us as though Singapore is still a State within Malaysia. And Malaysia can be assured that we will not use our sovereignty in such a way as to jeopardise their interests - their genuine and ultimate interests - because we are well aware that we have a vital stake in the well-being and security of Malaysia. We cannot do them in because eventually we would he doing ourselves in. Malaysia is for us a sovereign State but not a foreign country. We shall always bear this in mind in our relations with them. All we ask is that they should reciprocate this attitude. Sir, I shall have more to say about the particular aspects of our foreign policy when we come to debate the Barisan Sosialis' amended motion on foreign policy. I do not wish to anticipate the motion or their return to this Chamber. All I wish to point out now is that the course of a foreign policy is never smooth. It is never a straight line between two points. There must he changes, of course, as the international landscape changes. The fact that the Barisan Sosialis had to amend their motion within a period of a few months only underlines my point that the world, and particularly our part of the world, is changing rapidly, and a foreign policy must be flexible enough to meet these changes. The tragic weakness of the Barisan Sosialis - that is, tragic for them but good for us - is that the more the world changes the more they remain the same old hunch of tenderfoot Marxists. 3.52 p.m.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the Motion of Thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his Address, I wish first to express my thanks for being granted this opportunity to participate in this debate. The policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is giving confidence and hope to everyone. I am also pleased with that speech. At this juncture, I wish to give some of my views to this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, all our citizens should be given adequate employment opportunities. That is our basic task. The employment exchange is not functioning well. That is what I have gathered. There are some people who have registered with the employment exchange for many years, but they have not been able to get any job. However, those who have newly registered have been able to get jobs. I hope the Minister for Labour will look into this matter. Mr Speaker, Sir, our nation has four official languages. All of them have the same official status. It is remarkable and praiseworthy that all of them should be given equal status. We do not have the policy of having one language, one religion and one race. We have quite clearly declared our policy. Democrats who have the interest of the people at heart should accept this objective. This policy of multi-lingualism is accepted with much pleasure. At this juncture when we are practising multi-lingualism in our society, I should mention one important matter. There have been some defects in the working out of this system. The Tamil language is being very adversely affected. It is my duty to point this out. Notice boards at Government offices are written in all the four languages. But there are too many errors in the Tamil language version. In some places there are only three languages. Tamil has been omitted. In some Ministries there are not enough officers in certain departments for the Tamil section. Therefore, the sections do not function well. I hope the departments concerned will take adequate steps to remedy this. Tamil is used in the Tamil secondary schools. However, there are no opportunities for these students in the secondary schools to continue with their education. They have no means to continue with their education even though they may have the desire to do so. Opportunities and facilities should be made available for such students. I feel there is a shortage of teachers. I appreciate that. There is the Teachers' Training College to train teachers. Even though there are Tamil-trained men in the College, not enough graduates are being produced. I feel that immediate steps should be taken to rectify this situation. Those who have passed well and with credit in the secondary schools should be given bursaries. They should be sent to India for higher education. On their return in a few years' time, the pressing shortage of trained staff will be eased. Meanwhile, officers on contract could be brought from India. They can be appointed for teaching appointments at the Teachers' Training College. In this connection, the Ministry of Education should take adequate steps to implement this proposal. I would request them to do so. Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy of the Government to protect the interests of the minorities is most gratifying. The minorities will have full confidence in the Government. In conclusion, I wish to point out one fact. In any democratic society Opposition Members should always bring up any points on which they disagree, in this House. They may even walk out if they wish to do so. But our Barisan Opposition Members have chosen to boycott this Session altogether. This shows that they have no faith in the democratic system. At the same time, they must realise why they have been elected by the people. They have forgotten the duty which they owe to the people. I wish to associate myself with the Motion of Thanks to the Speech made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. 4.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as you are well aware, ten years have elapsed since the publication of the last edition of the laws of Singapore. During the latter part of this period Singapore became a State of the Federation of Malaysia, as a result of which many of our laws were either amended or repealed, and many Federal laws were extended here. On the 9th of August this year. Singapore became separate from Malaysia, and though the Separation Agreement makes provision for all present laws in Singapore in force immediately before Singapore Day to continue to have effect according to their tenor, some of these laws will now have to be changed. The publication of the new edition of our laws at the earliest possible moment has now become a matter of necessity and some urgency. The work of reviewing all existing legislation with the object of making such modifications as are necessary to bring the laws into conformity with Singapore's status as an independent Republic, as well as fusing amending legislation with principal legislation, would constitute a real contribution to those who have to find their way about our laws. To read the law as it is at present is now often a tiresome task, involving references to several books or documents. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government, therefore, intend shortly to introduce in Parliament a Bill to provide for the appointment of a Law Revision Commission whose task will be to prepare and publish a Revised Edition of our laws. This will afford us an opportunity to take stock of our legislation by briefly surveying our laws as they existed from the days of the Straits Settlements and through the period when Singapore formed part of Malaysia to the present day with an indication of law revision plans for the future. When the Government of the Straits Settlements Act, 1866, was brought into force in 1867 by an Order of the Queen-in-Council, certain islands and territories which were previously under the East India Company jointly became a separate colony known as the Straits Settlements. The first meeting of the Legislative Council was held on the 1st of April, 1867, when certain laws were passed. And in the following year was enacted the interpretation (Amendment) Ordinance, 1868, which provides that the legislation of the Colony shall be called Ordinances. The Ordinances of the Colony were reprinted by Government in two volumes in 1886 and again in 1898. In 1910 a thorough revision of the whole body of written law was begun, and a Commission appointed to prepare a new and revised edition of the Statute Laws of the Colony. The new edition, which was published in 1920, dealt with all legislation from 1835 to the end of 1919 exclusive of war and emergency legislation. The Second Revision of the laws of the Colony was published in 1926 and contained the law's enforced on the 31st of December, 1925. The Third Revision, the 1936 Edition, was prepared under the authority of the Revised Edition of the Laws Ordinance, 1935, and contained the Ordinances amended to 31st December, 1935. The current edition of the laws of Singapore, which run into eight volumes, was brought into force from the 1st July, 1956, and annual supplements for the years 1956 to 1962 were subsequently issued. This then, Mr Speaker, was the position prior to Malaysia Day. It could have been said that whilst the laws were not available in one set of volumes, they could at least be ascertained with reasonable diligence and care. Unfortunately, with the coming of Malaysia, the position was worsened and it has become more and more difficult to ascertain the law through the multitude of Modification Orders issued mainly in Kuala Lumpur, but also in Singapore, and the various amending Acts and Ordinances that have been enacted. The Malaysia Act, as well as the Constitution of the State of Singapore, provided for the continuity of all laws which were in force or which had been passed but not brought into force before Malaysia Day. After the establishment of Malaysia on 16th September, 1963, laws which could not be enacted by the Singapore Legislative Assembly in so far as they were laws which could not be passed after Malaysia Day by the State Legislature, were treated as Federal laws by virtue of the provisions of section 73 of the Malaysia Act. The Malaysian Government, acting under powers given under section 74 of the Malaysia Act, made amendments by means of Modification Orders to such of the laws of Singapore as were treated as Federal laws. In the same manner, laws which before the 16th September. 1963, had application only to the States of Malaya were extended to apply to Singapore with or without amendments. Certain Singapore law's which were treated as Federal laws were also repealed by such Modification Orders. The Singapore Government, in exercise of powers under Article 105 of the Constitution of the State of Singapore, made consequential amendments to such Singapore laws as were treated as State laws to bring them into conformity with Singapore's status as a component part of the Federation of Malaysia. The laws enacted by the Malaysian Parliament up to the 8th August. 1965, which had application to Singapore, also form part of the laws of Singapore at present. Mr Speaker, Sir, the result of all these changes and manipulations is that our laws are by no means as clear or as easily ascertainable as they should be. It is inevitable that mistakes are being made not only by the administration but even by trained lawyers; and the layman has every reason to complain that the law is veritably an ass. In these circumstances, it will be one of the major tasks of my Ministry and of the State Advocate-General's Department to try to bring some order, coherence, and certainty to our laws. The Republic of Singapore Independence Bill provides that all existing laws shall continue in force on and after Singapore Day, and that they shall be construed as from that day with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications, and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with the Act and with the independence status of Singapore upon separation from Malaysia. The Bill also provides that the President may, by Order made any time during the period of three years after the Act comes into force, make such modifications in any written law as appear to he necessary or expedient as a result of the passing of the Act and in consequence of the independence of Singapore upon separation. The term "modification" in this context includes amendments, adaptations and repeals, and in relation to any law of Malaysia or of the United Kingdom for the time being in force in Singapore, includes power to declare that such law shall cease to apply to Singapore. In anticipation of the enactment of this provision, the State Advocate-General has already commenced preparing Modification Orders to restore the laws to the position in which they were before Malaysia. These Orders cannot, of course, be published until after the Independence Bill has been enacted. Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to facilitate the reading of the laws modified during the Malaysian period and in consequence of our Independence Act, it is proposed to publish reprints of such laws incorporating not only all such modifications but also all amendments made to them whether before during, or after the Malaysia period, so that any reprinted legislation may be read as a connected whole without reference to several books or documents. The Interpretation Bill provides for such reprints, and many of these reprints will form the basis of the next Revised Edition of the laws of Singapore, provision for the preparation and publication of which will be made in the Revised Edition of the Law's Bill. The need for a new Revised Edition is apparent even if for no reason other than that a decade has passed since the publication of the last edition of the laws of Singapore during which momentous constitutional changes have taken place. Mr Speaker, Sir, the State Advocate-General and I ate mindful of the task of providing the Bench, the Bar. Government offices, and the public generally with readily available laws in a connected readable whole with the inclusion therein of all the amendments and modifications made to-date. It is for this reason, Sir, that the publication of every Modification Order made under the Republic of Singapore Act is to be followed shortly, after by a reprint of the legislation in question. These reprints will form the prelude to the Revised Edition of the laws, and when the Revised Edition is completed. Singapore will have a self-contained consolidated compendium of all statutes. It is the Government's intention, as stated in the speech of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, to set up a Constitutional Commission to consider the safeguards which should be inserted in the Constitution to protect the rights of minorities and to ensure that the rights of all citizens shall be equal not only in law but also in practice. Pending the deliberations and the conclusions of this Constitutional Commission, it is proposed that the provisions of the Constitution of Singapore and of the Malaysian Constitution shall continue to apply in Singapore subject to such modifications, omissions, and amendments as are necessitated by the independent status of Singapore and its ceasing to be a part of Malaysia. The amendments which the Government considers immediately necessary are contained in the Constitution (Amendment ) Bill and in the Republic of Singapore Independence Bill. And further formal amendments will be made by Modification Orders. After the Report of the Constitutional Commission has been received and considered, those provisions which have been accepted by the Government will become part of the Constitution. 4.15 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am standing here to express my sincere thanks to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his fine delivery of our policy Speech in the first Session of Parliament. Our country is standing up in the turbulence of South-East Asia as an independent nation fully fortified with the determination to survive. As an independent nation in the world, we are laced with some common problems in life, and one of the problems is that we must try to solve our economic problem which represents two schools of political philosophy. Mr Speaker, whether our people will have any well-being economically, can well he seen from the non-Communist democratic socialist policies of the Government. The experience in implementing these policies is that the well-being of the people must not he sacrificed on the altar of a totalitarian government. That means their personal freedom and political freedom must not he sacrificed. In fact, whether politica1ly, culturally or religiously, the people must be allowed to progress in all respects. This means that the future of the people must of necessity depend on the manner in which the people try to solve their economic problems. Mr Speaker, I would like to crave your indulgence to speak with some certainty that in an ever-changing developing country and society, obstinacy, totalitarianism and feudalism are some factors which will arrest the progress of our society and will hinder our endeavour to solve our own economic problems. So the manner in which we try to solve our economic problems, in fact, is a reflection of the soundness of bankruptcy of our political and economic system. Talking about the concrete contents of our political ideology, we can see very clearly what kind of political line we are taking through our foreign policy and political contentions. On the other hand, we can also see our own political stand from the reflection and reception given to our foreign policy. These facts are very concrete and I believe many of us have already been acquainted with them and I do not therefore wish to spend any more time in this respect. Mr Speaker, please allow me to speak as a representative of the people and, in this capacity. I would like to speak with some clarity and frankness on our economic future. I hope that by so doing I shall he able to correct the erroneous attitude and ideas of some of the obscurantists in their attempt to hinder our economic progress. I do not wish to spend the time of this I louse in trying to recall the dramatic experience that we had in achieving independence. But I would like to say that ever since we were forced to leave Malaysia, there have been some feudalistic rulers who have harboured the intention to hinder our economic development. They are of the opinion that by so doing they will he able to make it difficult or even impossible for Singapore to survive as an independent nation. There are several reasons for them to harbour this idea. Firstly, they think that without a densely populated market, Singapore would not be able to strive economically. As a matter of fact, we do not think that our economic foundation depends on whether we have a densely populated market or not. This fact of a densely populated market is not the important factor to determine our economic progress and prosperity. We can see that China and India are very densely populated. They are, in fact, a densely populated market. But these countries do not enjoy a very high standard of living. What is more important is that the mere existence of a densely populated market is not the determining factor to provide us with any economic prosperity. What is the determining factor then? Let me tell you. Mr Speaker, it is the purchasing power of the people that counts. I would therefore warn those ultras and shortsighted people that although the people of Singapore are without natural resources or perhaps without a densely populated market, they have a higher purchasing power. In fact, our own population can be considered a kind of natural resources. These are the important factors by which we may achieve prosperity and progress. Industrialisation is to be the base of our economic progress. This, in fact, is a very important factor. But that is not enough. We must also have a very enlightened economic policy. I believe that with a very enlightened economic policy, we shall be able to make progress with our programme. The maintenance of a good labour and management relationship is very important too. We must also see that the purchasing power of our workers, our businessmen and the whole society in general, must be maintained. In this respect, I would like to mention some aspects dealt with in the policy Speech of His Excellency. We must make our goods competitive in the international market. Our prices must be competitive enough to enable us to capture some part of the international market to provide an outlet for our manufactured goods. This, of course, will depend on the political consciousness as well as the discipline and efficiency of our workers. They should have high efficiency and effectiveness in their work. Given this effectiveness and efficiency, I am sure they will put forward their best effort so as to implement what is being stated in the policy Speech. The main factor of our industrialisation is a big consumer market. Apart from this, we should also have two prerequisites. As stated in the policy Speech, we must establish trade relations with all countries in order to get a share of the international market. The only correct policy in our trade relations is that we want trade, not aid. Internally, people from all walks of life should make a concerted effort to ensure the success of our industrialisation and to take active and positive part in all economic activities. In view of this, I am confident that in our economic development, we will be able to bring about a better and higher living standard for our people. This is not a mere slogan. I would like to make an earnest appeal to our people here in order to ensure our independence and survival. Our entrepreneurs should have a new understanding of their role. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to say that the entrepreneurs should not be concerned with their own interests and their own dividends only. They should also be concerned with the overall interests of the whole society. They should not be concerned with their market and the curve of their production. They should take a similar interest in the overall interest of our nation. On the economic development problem, I am glad to note that certain leaders in Malaysia have realised that closer economic relations between Singapore and Malaysia is a necessity. If I am allowed to quote certain statements made by the Malaysian leaders, 1 think I can make clear what I am going to say about the economic relations between Singapore and Malaysia. This relationship should be based on mutual interest and benefit. The Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister on the 24th of November said that the Western countries should give aid to Malaysia. Otherwise, they would lose their desire for the democratic way of living. If they have a better living standard, they would not turn to Communist countries for aid. Similarly, on the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia, our stand is that we want trade. We want to survive. If our neighbouring country is not able to give us aid and, in fact, go one step further to foil our attempt to increase our trade so that we can ease our burdens and difficulties, instead of incurring a loss of trade for ourselves. This will only create instability and chaos. This will give a very good opportunity to the Communists to wreck our democratic way of life. This is not only a danger to Singapore, but it would also be a danger to other countries in South-East Asia. Mr Speaker, when Singapore was expelled from Malaysia, the Malaysian leaders declared that the separation of Singapore from Malaysia would bring about a better understanding between the two territories. We agree to what they said. But since we have achieved independence, what is the true situation? It is a matter for regret that the Malaysian leaders have not practised what they have said. I have to point out that since Singapore is a neighbour of Malaysia, the relationship should be close. Anything which happens here will have repercussions in Malaysia. Therefore, we should progress in a spirit of competition arid strive to achieve a common prosperity for the two territories by economic co-operation. 4.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the process of history is relentless and continuing. We who are here today as the elected representatives of our people never did hope in our fondest dreams to be in this House today to run the affairs of an independent nation. We entered Malaysia because we believe in Malaysia - a re-unification of the people who were artificially separated by a colonial power who saw in separation the way to successful colonial rule. Colonialism has, however, historical limitations, for the process of time wears down colonial domination. People elsewhere have achieved freedom from colonialism by revolution and counter-revolution. But we in this part of South-East Asia have achieved independence by nationalism against the colonial power that knows and understands the storms that nationalism can evoke. Indeed, political and economic expediency saw the graceful withdrawal of colonialism from Malaya and Singapore, and what we, who struggled against colonialism, achieved was a social and political change for the better. For a time we felt that we had found the answer to our ills in Malaysia. But history had destined otherwise for us. Colonialism raised its ugly head with obscurantist slogans of one race, one language and one religion, and the whole structure for which we fought collapsed. Our stand for a nation of Malaysians, multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious, foundered on the base of racial fanaticism and we were forced out of a national entity which we sincerely helped to create and nurture. What we were forced ho accept we have accepted. And now it is for us to show all concerned that we can travel the road of independence under our own steam and overcome all difficulties. Indeed, we have travelled a long and arduous road. We have overcome colonialism. We have exposed and isolated the anti-national elements and we have shown the communalists that we will not stand any nonsense. Independent Singapore is confident of building a tolerant multi-racial nation which will be the pride of Asia and the world. We are sure that our experience in tolerant multi-racial unity will find its echo in the neighbouring territories and lead to unity with our kith and kin elsewhere. In this sense our independence is a boon. That we are independent and sovereign no one doubts, except the pro-Communist Barisan Sosialis. They have boycotted this first session of the Parliament of Singapore and history will damn them for this stupidity. The Afro-Asian world has acknowledged our independence, and we have been admitted into the United Nations. But to the Barisan Sosialis our independence is "phoney". The term "phoney" has been so much used by them for every conceivable reason that one wonders what they really mean by "phoney". Indeed, I am beginning to think that the very existence of the Barisan Sosialis is "phoney", because they exist not for Singapore but for others who are not interested in Singapore and her people. But if they would really apply their minds to what has happened to Aidit and the P.K.I., they would have enough time to mend their ways. Otherwise a similar disaster can well befall them. The Afro-Asian countries have accepted us as truly independent and sovereign, committed to a policy of non-alignment. Even Russia and Yugoslavia - Communist nations - have understood why we still require British bases. We are a small nation and it is only natural for small nations to require assistance for defence until their territorial integrity can be assured by other means. The fact of life in a turbulent world must be accepted and South-East Asia is today a troubled area. It would be foolish for us to say. "Out with foreign bases." The Barisan, however, use the existence of the bases as a weapon for malicious attack. Trincomalee in Ceylon was for quite some time retained as a British naval base after Ceylon's independence. President Nyerere called for the assistance of British troops sometime ago to quell a rebellion, and today Zambia is asking for British troops to guard the Kariba Dam. Would the Barisan say that the independence of these territories is "phoney" and neo-colonialist? The rub really comes when the Barisan Sosialis endeavour to dissuade the people of Singapore from joining the volunteer force for their own self preservation and security. Can the Barisan Sosialis guarantee the people this by dissuading them? We do not want large standing forces because a small nation cannot afford to have them in the first place, as its primary duty is to ensure the social and economic progress of the people. Again, we cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be an aggressor. Our size rules that out completely. However, there is no reason why we should not have a volunteer force. If the people of Singapore can fight and win against the colonialists, the anti-nationalists and the communalists, the courage and quality of our youths can also meet the challenges for our survival and protection. There is no doubt that our youths will respond to the call of duty and their responsibility as citizens of an independent country. The Barisan have lost the battle to do Singapore in. Whatever they do or say, they cannot affect the future of Singapore - a nation that has the will to succeed in the face of onslaughts from anti-national elements, communalists and the illegitimate children of both these elements, the crooks. In conclusion, Sir, I would like to associate myself with the motion which has been moved by the Prime Minister.

I think it is a convenient time to take the tea break. I shall suspend and assume the Chair at 5.15 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.43 p.m. until 5.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.15 p.m.

I understand the Minister for Law has a Business Motion to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission and with the general assent of the House, I would like to move, That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, this Assembly doth adjourn this evening at half-past Six.

Does the Minister have the general assent of the House? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, this Assembly doth adjourn this evening at half-past Six.

Debate resumed. 5.16 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I express my support for the Motion of Thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his policy Speech. In the Speech it is stated that the Government would treat all races equally, safeguard their rights and interests, and realise a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual society. I fully support this policy. Our country has been independent for four months now and many countries have recognised our independence and sovereignty. The majority of Afro-Asian countries have established foreign or trade relations with us. Our purpose is to survive. In order to survive, we have to get as many countries as possible to befriend us and to open up international markets so that we can maintain our economic standards. International markets are very important to us. But the eight Barisan Sosialis Members opposite have chosen to boycott this Session. They have denounced our parliamentary democracy as false and our independence as phoney. I would like to ask them: why do they not boycott their allowance of $500 each per month? Just look at them. They want the money but they do not want to carry out their responsibility or do any work. They are irresponsible in this respect. There should he by-elections to decide their seats. They have all along been inducing the workers to go on strike and to carry out all sorts of activities to sabotage our national development programme and to overthrow our Government, so that they can have the opportunity to take over and rule the country. But their subversive activities can never succeed. They have been saying this: drive out the British bases here and make friends with Indonesia and the Communists of other countries. If such actions were possible, why have they failed? It shows that the people are very discerning and they have seen through the tactics and intrigues of the Barisan Sosialis. That is why they have met with disaster after disaster anti failure after failure. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis have also said that our independence on the 9th August is not "correct". We should realise that Malaysia and Singapore are economically inter-dependent. One State relies on the other for existence, it is just like a human being, made up of flesh and blood. So it is not possible for one to have only skin without flesh, or flesh without skin. That is the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia. The logical conclusion, therefore, is the coming together of the two territories. Our Prime Minister, and also our Minister for Finance, have said that the two countries should co-operate economically and work closely together in order to bring about a better standard of living for the two halves of one body of people. For next year there is about $500 million in revenue, and expenditure will be slightly less than that, and in the end, there will be a small surplus of about a few million dollars. From this, we can see that our economy is stable. It is a sound economy. Mr Speaker, Sir, in March this year the Ministry of National Development sold the pre-war Tiong Bahru houses in order to permit the people to own their own homes. As one who resides in this area, I wish to express my thanks on behalf of the residents in Tiong Bahru to the Government. Talking of the rents of these houses, I suggest that those who cannot pay the initial deposit on rents should he given generous consideration. One month's notice of such payment should be given to these people, and only then can any action be taken. This is to lessen the difficulties of the people concerned. The practice at the moment is that a notice is issued after only seven days of the due date. Several days after the issue of this notice, another notice is issued to the occupier to quit the house. The first notice is to demand the payment of rent, and the second is to evict the occupier and also demand the payment of all rents due. In my view, this measure is a bit too harsh, because, in addition to the arrears of rent, there are other payments to be made on receipt of the second notice. So I hope that the Housing Board will take a more liberal view in this regard and not just issue eviction notices which will affect the livelihood of the people concerned. I hope the authorities will take steps to rectify these measures in the interests of the people. 5.24 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first express my gratitude to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his Speech to this House, which sets out in clear terms the tasks ahead and the efforts that have to be exerted by all of us in Singapore for the future prosperity and happiness of our people. Despite the Business sessions having commenced for several days now, I find it most difficult to comprehend the reasons for Members of this House in the Opposition to stay away, particularly when vital matters affecting the nation and the future of our people are being discussed. Although confusion and uncertainty could have led to their absence, I can only conclude that their action amounts to a clear abdication of their responsibilities to the people of Singapore. These men, who have constantly spoken as if they, and only they, are the knights of freedom and democracy and leaders of the people, have now demonstrated publicly that it is part of their creed to abdicate responsibility whenever it suits them - without even ascertaining the wishes of those who elected them to this House. To use their own vocabulary, I can only say that their actions in this regard are indeed phoney, particularly when it is abundantly clear that these Members of Parliament are abiding by the wishes of Dr Lee Siew Choh, who incidentally is not a Member of this House, as against the wishes of those who elected them. It is obvious from their actions that it is they who are the stooges and not us in the N.T.U.C. Having been given a glaring demonstration of their intellectual dishonesty, I am sure that our citizens now realise that they have elected a bunch of men who are prepared to make unsubstantiated criticisms about this House after having been here for the past two years and not forgetting the financial rewards they have derived from its membership. Be that as it may, what other interpretation could we give to this insane move? Could they have exhausted their supply of gramophone-record-like speeches and remarks? Is it because they now find it extremely untenable to continue as spokesmen for the anti-national forces, following recent developments in our neighbouring country? Or can it be that, with their channel of overseas instructions, which had served them well during the few years, now disrupted, they are awaiting fresh channels of communication to be established? To my mind, it is this disruption of the channel of communication and the delay in receiving directions from abroad that has prompted them to stay away - lest any remarks they make in this House prove to he contrary to instructions that may yet come from their foreign masters. Whatever it may be. I feel sorry for them today. The intelligence and political awareness of our people makes it impossible for them to play the role of "Proxies" for overseas masters, without being hounded from pillar to post, and life indeed must be difficult for them. In the policy Speech of the Head of State, reference was made to the need for awareness amongst workers in Singapore for the successful industrialisation of Singapore and the creation of job opportunities. Mention was also made of irresponsible trade unionism and trade union actions for political motives. First, Jet me assure the House that the democratic trade union movement in Singapore, which today represents more than 75 per cent of organised workers, is fully aware of its responsibilities. It believes that it cannot operate in a vacuum. As an organised part of society, it believes that it has a clear and positive role to play, primarily to safeguard the legitimate interests of labour and to fight exploitation of labour in any form. It also recognises that the economic stagnation of Singapore must inevitably mean the emasculation of the labour movement, and therefore its own future is inextricably tied up with the economic future of Singapore. I would like to remind this House that it is this basic and fundamental realisation that has led workers, led by the N.T.U.C., to give their full support to Singapore's industrialisation programme. We fully believe that this programme must succeed and, we say here and now, that in the years ahead, we will demonstrate our capacity and ability to adjust ourselves not only to meet the challenges but also prepare for some of the sacrifices which the pioneering years of industrialisation ahead will call for. But, lest it be mistaken, let me also say that workers have no intention of giving any employer a blank cheque for exploitation. In this regard, it will largely fall upon Government to continue to ensure that employers make an equal contribution to the national development and share our trials and tribulations. We seek an assurance from Government that it will not encourage employers to seek refuge from their obligations and use these economic circumstances to exploit and stifle the aspirations of workers in Singapore. As my colleague, the Member for Bras Basah has already mentioned, employers in Singapore, like any employers elsewhere, are already giving different unintended interpretations to certain remarks of the Prime Minister. We are also aware that some among them even chose this occasion to use our struggles against the anti-national forces in our midst to play workers against workers, thus hoping to deny workers in the democratic trade union movement their legitimate rewards. To those employers, I give notice that, notwithstanding the need for stable labour conditions for our own economic future, we in the democratic trade union movement will not hesitate to make exceptions of such employers, regardless of Government's policies. We will endeavour, through sheer economic unionism and not political motives, to teach them some lessons on how collective bargaining and labour-management relations should be conducted in a free and independent country. In welcoming this remark by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I hope that the Government will equally ensure that employers do not take this plea for stable labour conditions to be an indication that Government would he a silent spectator of the exploitation of workers in the process. Finally, it was indeed heartening to note that our foreign policy aims at having the maximum number of friends and the least number of hostile countries. Speaking as a worker, I must say that this is indeed an enlightened policy to follow. We workers in Singapore have always recognised this need for positive neutrality and Afro-Asian solidarity. Unlike those absent Members from the opposite row, who preach a brand of Afro-Asian solidarity which changes from time to time, the workers in the democratic wing have consistently believed that positive neutrality was and still is the correct policy for Singapore. We have never supported ideological exclusiveness and have always adhered to establishing fraternal relations with workers in the Afro-Asian world on the basis of mutual respect for each other's approaches to fundamental problems. As evident from the large number of fraternal delegates from the Afro-Asian trade unions who recently gathered in Singapore for the National Trades Union Congress Annual Convention and the international Labour Seminar, these policies have always paid dividends. Having succeeded in a small way in fostering this friendship among Afro-Asian nations for us in Singapore in the trade union field, we naturally feel confident that we can speak from direct personal experience that the policy indicated in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech is the right one to adhere to. We should consistently display our adherence to the principles of non-alignment and the ideal of Afro-Asian solidarity, based on the Bandung principles. Far from being fence-sitters, we should never hesitate to make known that we dislike anybody making up our minds for us. Speaking on behalf of the workers of Singapore, I am indeed glad that the Government has seen the righteousness of this trade union philosophy in international relations and embodied it as the cornerstone of the foreign policy of our nation. Speaking as one who belongs to the democratic trade union movement, let me assure the House that the workers of Singapore will stand resolutely by the Government in the years ahead so long as it adheres to a policy of positive neutrality in international affairs and respects the institutional independence of the working class led by the National Trades Union Congress. Permit me, Mr Speaker, Sir, to close my remarks with the expression that the workers of Singapore, with their high degree of political consciousness, will have no sympathy for those who have so disgracefully abdicated their responsibilities to the people of Singapore and stayed away from the open argument taking place in this House, to decide the destiny of our nation. 5.38 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion in the name of the Prime Minister to thank His Excellency for his Speech in this Parliament. Mr Speaker, speaking as the Member for Hong Lim, I have a mixed variety of feelings. The by-election in Hong Lim has, to a certain extent, some connection with the independence of Singapore and the emergence of a Parliament in Singapore. If the P.A.P. had been defeated in the Hong Lim by-election, probably we would not have had an independent Singapore, to say nothing of a Parliament. Even the existence of the Legislative Assembly would have been in doubt under those circumstances. The facts show that after Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia, the leaders of our immediate neighbouring country said openly that if Singapore had not agreed to leave Malaysia, then probably repressive action would have had to be taken, thereby giving rise to further bloodshed. That clearly shows that they would not have hesitated to do what they had said they would do if Singapore had refused to leave Malaysia. Under those circumstances, if we had not left Malaysia, there would not be an independent Singapore nor a Parliament sitting today. Mr Speaker, after Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia, what do we see with regard to the actions of the Barisan Sosialis? In page 1 of the Barisan Party Organ published on the 11th of September, we notice one article with the title, "Where is Democracy? An Open Argument". In this article, the Barisan demanded the immediate convening of Parliament; and the article went on to say, "The Lee Kuan Yew regime still refuses to call a meeting of the Legislative Assembly in spite of the repeated requests of the Opposition Members. The Lee Kuan Yew regime seems to treat the question of independence as one of its own Party's problems, thereby treating the Legislative Assembly as an expendable showpiece." Mr Speaker, this is from an article published in the Party Organ of the Barisan Sosialis wherein they made their demand. At that time, the Government was very busily engaged in setting up relationships with other nations in the world, laying its foundations in the international arena, and finding trading outlets for the people of Singapore. So a Goodwill Mission under the leadership of the Deputy Prime Minister visited countries in Afro-Asia and Eastern Europe. We have made friends with these countries and we have laid a new foundation in our international relationships. The Goodwill Mission has accomplished its task, and we are now in this House. But we are facing a boycott by the Barisan Sosialis. Why should they boycott the proceedings of this House? Only a few months ago, Mr Speaker, they were clamouring for an immediate sitting of the Assembly. Why should there be a sudden change now in their policy and strategy? I think we should review the circumstances, and I can offer several reasons for their boycott of this Assembly. Firstly, they are running away from facts and realities, because they know by now that more than a hundred nations in the United Nations Organisation, including Russia which is a Communist country, as well as the other Communist countries, have recognised Singapore as an independent sovereign State; and if the Barisan Sosialis Members were to attend the sittings in this House, then it would be difficult for them to reconcile the fact of their attendance with their slogan of "Phoney independence! ". They would then be making a laughing stock of themselves. That is the reason why they are not attending these proceedings. The second reason, Mr Speaker, is that there is now an internal split in the Barisan Sosialis itself. Dr Lee Siew Choh, not being a Member of this House, cannot give expression to his showmanship in this House and so he does not want Members of his Party to avail themselves of the opportunity to do so. Neither is he in a position to gain control of those Party members who have divergent views and he is afraid that they may say something against him or his Party in this House. That again is another reason for the boycott. The third reason, Mr Speaker, and this is the most important one, is that some leaders of the Barisan Sosialis have already succumbed to the truth. Some of them have openly shown their repentance and confessed that they have made mistakes in the past. They have criticised and even renounced Communism. Others who do not dare come out in open criticism of Communism are in a state of confusion, thereby making themselves fit for psychiatric treatment. All along, Mr Speaker, the Barisan Sosialis have been boasting that only their Party, the Barisan Sosialis, have the support of the people. This is what they have been claiming, and they say that they alone really represent the people. But look at the facts, Mr Speaker; the referendum in 1962, the general elections in 1963 and the Hong Lim by-election in 1965 all go to prove that the people are on our side. The people of Singapore support socialism, democracy and parliamentary procedure. They are in support of a socialist democratic Party, because they realise that socialist democracy and a socialist democratic Party like the P.A.P. can bring about the progress and prosperity of Singapore without bloodshed. They can raise the living standard of the people. The people have realised that only by democratic socialism can they have a better future. Since the Barisan Sosialis have learnt these lessons from history, they have come to realise that it is impossible for them to capture power by the one-man one-vote system through peaceful means; so they have no choice but to change their basic stand in abandoning the line of capturing power by democratic means. Mr Speaker, the Barisan Sosialis have not been genuine in their belief in the parliamentary system. In fact, they want to make use of this system to destroy the system itself in order to establish a one-party autocracy. If they were really sincere in their belief in parliamentary democracy, then as an Opposition they should have had some effect in this House, because it is under the system of parliamentary democracy that the Opposition is charged with the responsibility to guide and criticise the Government, to point out the mistakes of the Government, and to put the Government on to the proper path, so that whatever actions the Government may take or are taking will not be against the interest of the people. But in spite of the responsibility charged upon them, they are now boycotting the proceedings in this House, thereby showing that they have forsaken the mandate given to them by the people. Mr Speaker, we support the bi-party system because we are of the opinion that, although human beings are the most intelligent of all forms of life, they are by no means perfect. Even saints themselves are not infallible. So we cannot say that whatever we do is not without fault. That is why there is the necessity for an Opposition to be present here and this is part and parcel of our parliamentary democracy. Mr Speaker, under this parliamentary democracy the Party in power has to go back to the people every five years. It has to return the power to the people at intervals of five years. Because of the existence of an Opposition and because of the fact of having to return the power to the people every five years, there is the necessity for the Government or the Party in power to be very careful in handling the affairs of the people and the nation. But today, because of the boycott staged by the Barisan Sosialis, the P.A.P. in this House is without a single opponent, a situation which has been forced upon us. But in spite of all this, Mr Speaker, and in view of our beliefs, our convictions and our respect for the parliamentary democratic system, we are encouraging our Back-benchers to come out to criticise the measures to be taken or have been taken by the Government. This again goes to show our sincerity in our belief in the socialist parliamentary democratic system. If the people have lost confidence in the Barisan Sosialis entirely so as to result in all the 51 constituencies being in the hands of the P.A.P., thereby making the P.A.P. a one-party autocracy, then whatever it may be will be achieved through the democratic process of the one-man one-vote system, and this will be done by a general election. The abandonment of the democratic struggle by the Barisan Sosialis is worthy of our attention, because we have to know what steps they will take to achieve their aims. Will they, for example, go beyond the constitutional limits to resort to unpeaceful and unconstitutional means for their revolution? This will only be proved by time and history. We do not know at this stage, but at any rate if they choose to do this, then I can foretell their fate right now - that they will only be digging their own graves. Mr Speaker, in order to have a Common Market we tried very hard in the past to secure a merger by way of Malaysia, but the Barisan at that time were shouting that merger was phoney. If, assuming that they were right, that merger was phoney, that merger sold away the interests of the people of Singapore, then today we would not have been kicked out of Malaysia. Mr Speaker, the slogan of the Barisan Sosialis all along has been that Malaysia is phoney, that Malaysia is a neo-colonialist plot, an intrigue, but in spite of their slogan, they sent three representatives to the Parliament of the Malaysian Federation. In fact, they were sworn in and demonstrated their loyalty by taking part in the swearing-in ceremony for Malaysia at that time. If Malaysia was phoney, then why should they swear the Oath of Allegiance to Malaysia? Now they turn round and say that Singapore's independence is phoney. This is the biggest laughing stock in the twentieth century. This is a most peculiar way of talking things in this century. Those who believe that Singapore's independence is phoney in fact require more psychiatric treatment than the inmates of Woodbridge Hospital, because ever since we became independent, there has not been a single country which has opposed our admission to the United Nations Organisation. Even Russia has not objected to our presence in this world body. In fact, Russia has agreed to send a trade mission to Singapore. The same applies to some East European countries which are Communist in nature. They are also willing to come here to establish trade relationships with Singapore. If Singapore's independence were phoney, then the more than one hundred countries which have recognised us, the people of these countries must have been mad, but the fact is that those who have gone crazy are not the one hundred and more nations which have recognised us, but the Barisan Sosialis. It is the Barisan Sosialis that have gone mad. I say so because we can never see anywhere in the world any people who refuse to recognise the independence of their own country. If the Barisan Sosialis still refuse to recognise our independence, then they must also admit that they are phoney citizens of Singapore. That being so, they are not fit to be citizens of Singapore and they should not enjoy the rights of Singapore citizens. Mr Speaker, as we can see now, even Russia, China and some other Communist countries have recognised their independence. They recognised their sovereignty and their nations as such. The true disciple of Marxism was Trotsky who believed that the revolution of the Communist world must be above the national interest. It was only he who genuinely believed that after the successful revolution of the Communist world, all nations in the world would perish. Perhaps the Barisan Sosialis is the incarnation of the life and soul of Trotsky. And it will attempt to start a world revolution in the Communist fold above the national interest. In the minds of people like Trotsky, nations are phoney; it is revolution that is genuine. But what happens to this kind of people? They are either crazy or they have committed suicide. The eviction of Singapore from Malaysia is a temporary result of the battle between the nationalist and communal forces. We have to avoid this type of cold war. In fact, this cold war turned into a hot war, namely, bloodshed, as a result of communal strife. So Singapore was evicted from Malaysia. In Singapore, we have faced many trials and tribulations. Those of us born and bred in Singapore cannot forget our brothers and sisters across the Causeway. In fact, the worst thing one can do is to lie to oneself and say that the people of Singapore and Malaysia are two different types of people. For 140 years, the people of Singapore and Malaysia have been under the rule of the British colonialists. They went through similar sufferings in both territories and they were determined to strive for freedom and independence. We are determined to suffer and work together. This spirit of sacrifice and hard work is not what the Constitution can provide. Neither can the constitutional arrangements stifle these qualities. In the last two years, we have felt the poison spread as a result of the work of communal forces, and we hope that our brothers across the Causeway will not repeat this foolish act. Ten years ago, Singapore suffered a great deal because of the emergence of communal forces, and now we have been evicted because of the rise of communalism. We do hope that history will not repeat itself. Singapore is an island faced with trials and tribulations. After the P.A.P. Government came to power in 1959, we went through serious troubles almost every year. In 1960, there was Mr Ong Eng Guan who believed in individualism and who liked to fish in troubled waters. In 1962, he revealed his hypocrisy. He claimed to serve the interests of the people, but in fact he was a pseudo-revolutionist. And in 1962, he was busy with slogans of "phoney merger", and he called for general elections. These were the years when we had Mr Ong Eng Guan and the Barisan incidents. In 1963, there was a general election. In 1964, we participated in the Federal elections and there were two riots in Singapore. In 1965, we were kicked out by the racialists from Malaysia. It seems that every year there are incidents. The P.A.P., while undergoing all these difficulties, has been able to fulfil the Five-Year Development Plan. Through democratic socialist methods, it has resolved the housing problem and has improved the living standard and safeguarded the welfare of the people. And we have established the basis for industrialisation. All these achievements have been due to the support of the people. Therefore, these achievements go to show the hardworking spirit and intelligence of our people. Therefore, although independent Singapore is faced with all these difficulties, I believe, in the end, we can overcome them with the co-operation of the Government and the industry of the people. The people will, in the end, overcome all these difficulties so that the Second Five-Year Plan can materialise. Economically, we need new markets so that our manufactures will have an outlet. We need to build more factories in order to provide more employment opportunities. But we must understand that in any newly emerging country, there must be a period of trials and tribulations. Germany, which was a defeated country, went through various trials and tribulations. But because of the determination and hard work of the people, they have rebuilt their country and their living standard has also been raised. There is a saying that whoever can endure extreme bitterness can become a man among men. I hope the workers in Singapore can forge ahead and consider the long-term interest in order that our industrialisation programme can materialise and that they would not just pay heed to the immediate interest and forget the future. If they can do so, then our industrialisation programme will materialise earlier and our better days will come earlier. We must always remember that although Singapore is a tiny island with a small population, her importance is internationally recognised. We remember that before the Second World War, there was a militarist who said that whoever had control over Singapore could control the whole of South-East Asia. Our neighbouring countries have recognised Singapore's strategic position. Although the British bases are here to protect Singapore, we must not forget our lesson in 1941. At that time everybody thought that Singapore was an impregnable fort, that it could not be conquered, and that everybody need not worry. Yet history has proved that in a short period of one week, Singapore was taken like a split bamboo. Why is it that Singapore fell so easily? The main reason was that Singapore was then a colony. Nationalism had not germinated, and Singapore was not defended by her own people. It was not backed by the people. We can learn a lesson from this. It is only through our own strength and our own efforts that we can truly defend our own country and preserve our own security. There are some countries which are small, such as Switzerland, but their citizens are patriotic. They can turn all their people into soldiers, so that even strong nations would not dare bully them. Although there are many soldiers with modern weapons in Vietnam, there is no end to the war there because they do not have the support of the people. So we cannot fully depend upon the British bases to defend ourselves. We must depend on our own strength, and we must have the backing of the people. Although we have been kicked out from Malaysia, the two subsequent by-elections in Malaysia have proved that the seed of nationalism has germinated and is coming to fruition. We also hope that with the increased trend towards nationalism, Malaysia will in the end be united. Just now I have given the example of Switzerland. Such countries can even defend their tiny nations against strong nations when they have the support of the people. Hitler was a very notorious dictator who looked down upon other nations. Yet in the end he was defeated. So it is in Singapore. If all the people are patriotic and are willing to sacrifice themselves; if they are solidly united and willing to work hard, then I believe no country in the world will dare to bully us. We hope that in our multi-racial society, all the races will be loyal and serve our country. We must give equal treatment to all the races. We must have a multi-racial policy. That is why we have tabled in this Parliament the Republic of Singapore Independence Bill and the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. They have provisions to safeguard the interests of minorities. They will give freedom in language, religion, culture and other things. This is a basic principle in democratic socialism. Based on this principle - a multi-racial society - there will be peace, progress and prosperity in Singapore. We must understand that Singapore is situated in South-East Asia, an area surrounded by some anti-Chinese countries. Any chauvinistic attempt to turn Singapore into a third China will only bring about a major disaster and tragedy to the people of Singapore. Singapore will be encircled by unfriendly forces. Let us point out seriously that if there is an upsurge of racialism in Singapore, then the consequences will not be just one or two internal racial disturbances in Singapore, but it will also have repercussions outside Singapore. If we allow Chinese chauvinism to rear its head, then Singapore will easily be isolated in South-East Asia. It will be a country encircled by unfriendly forces. They will then attack Singapore, which is a tiny country. Under these circumstances, we cannot imagine that we can get help from Communist China or anywhere else. The question is that, "The distant waters cannot be made available to quench the fire that is immediately before us." We have a situation in Indonesia where the Chinese are persecuted. China could not send troops to Indonesia to protect the Chinese other than raise some protests. The Indonesian Communist Party has been suppressed by the Army, and yet the Chinese Communist Party could not intervene. They could not send troops to help the P.K.I. Another point is this. Small countries which can he protected by China are, from the geographical point of view, close to the Chinese border. "The near waters can he made available to quench the immediate fire." Of course, that is quite possible. There is the convenience of nearness. Also, if anything happens next to the Chinese border, assistance from China will be quick and immediate. This is all due to the favourable geographical position. But the situation in Singapore is different. The Barisan Sosialis' idea is to set up a Communist Singapore or a Chinese Singapore. Whatever they may want Singapore to be, they will finally put Singapore in a situation where it is surrounded by anti-Chinese forces. Up till now the Barisan Sosialis is pursuing a foolish line - rash, reckless and dangerous political adventurers - a line which will ultimately lead Singapore into a situation which I have described just now. I hope they will reconsider their step and not allow Singapore to come to an impasse. Singapore must not be allowed to get into such a situation, a situation in which she is surrounded by anti-Chinese forces. There is only one way out, and that is, to practise multi-racialism and democratic socialism, There is no other alternative. This policy depends on the concerted action of all the people. Yesterday the Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department, Inche Yaacob, said that we were faced with the Ultras, Malay racialists, who were persuading the Malays in Singapore to go across the Causeway. This is another manifestation and challenge of racialism. If this scheme were to succeed, then naturally Singapore would become a Chinese State. But we believe that this intrigue or scheme will naturally fail because the Singapore Government has shown in all respects that its policy is one of multi-racialism and that it alone can look after the interests of all races. The future of Singapore depends on democratic socialism and a policy of multi-racialism and a non-Communist society, together with our non-aligned foreign policy. We can then establish friendly relations with all countries of the world, including the Republic of China. Although we want to establish friendly relations with the Republic of China, we do not propose to let Singapore become a third China, because this will only lead to suicide. This is a suicidal attempt. Only a policy of multi-racialism and non-alignment can lead Singapore to the path of peace, progress, and prosperity, and this policy that we have is not unique in the world. Just now I have mentioned that certain countries are able to prosper through two world wars. One example I gave was Switzerland, which safely went through two wars and yet was able to build herself up. This was all due to her policy of non-alignment and also to the fact that no other country wanted to bully her. It is because her people are loyal to their Government and to their country. So in this situation the only sane thing to do is to look after the people and maintain their economic, social, political and racial interests. Seventy-two per cent of the Swiss people speak French, and 20 per cent speak Italian. Also in other countries with people of different races who speak different languages, there is no hindrance to their national development. In Switzerland, the national languages are French, Italian, Swiss, and German. This is so today. And the people who speak these different languages are liberal-minded. So I hope that every one, particularly the people of Singapore, should he liberal-minded and should not force others to speak only one language. What we fear is the language policy adopted by our immediate neighbour. We hope that every citizen can speak the national language. Nevertheless, the method to be adopted should be one of persuasion and not of compulsion, because history has taught us that in a multi-racial society where one racial group tries to compel other groups to do its bidding, then there will be no peace, progress, or prosperity in society. We in Singapore feel that our policy of multi-racialism is the right one, and there will be safeguards written into our Constitution to preserve the rights of the minority groups. In foreign affairs, our policy is one of non-alignment. With all these policies and with the support of the people, we can succeed in making Singapore the Switzerland of the East in a few years' time. Mr Speaker, I support the motion moved by the Prime Minister to thank the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for delivering his Speech.

It is close to 6.30 p.m., and in accordance with the resolution of the House, this House will now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Thirty minutes past six o'clock p.m.

Friday, 17th December, 1965 The following Questions for Oral Answers stood on the Order Paper of 17th December, 1965:-

"Mr Koo Young: To ask the Minister for Education bow many children have been registered for admission to Primary One in 1966, giving figures separately for the four language streams and for Government and Government-aided schools."

"Mr Koo Young: To ask the Minister for Education how many students will he taking the Primary School Leaving Examination in 1965, giving figures separately for the four language streams and for Government and Government-aided schools." Pursuant to Standing Order No. 20 (2), the Minister for Education supplied the following answers:- 6. "The total number of children registered for Primary One admission in January 1966 in different media is as follows:- Government Government Aided Total English 33,289 5,281 38,570 Chinese 2,522 15,185 17,707 Malay 5,538 - 5,538 Tamil 21 95 116 ------ ------ ------ Total 41,370 20,561 61,931" ------ ------ ------ 7. "The total number of students who sat the Primary School Leaving Examination in 1965 is as follows:-. Stream No. of Students (Government and Government-Aided Schools) English 33,482 Chinese 19,036 Malay 4,934 Tamil 161 -------- Total 57,613" -------- The following Question for Oral Answer stood on the Order Paper of 17th December, 1965:-

"Mr Chia Thye Poh: To ask the Minister for Education (a) whether the Government has given any financial aid to Ngee Ann College, and how much; and (b) what is the amount of money actually spent in aid to the Nanyang University since the Government had taken steps to reorganise it." Pursuant to Standing Order No. 20 (2), the Minister for Education supplied the following answer:- 8. "(a) No, the Government has not given any financial aid to Ngee Ann College yet. (b) When the reorganisation of the Nanyang University commenced in July 1964, the University was virtually bankrupt owing to financial mismanagement by the former University administration. In particular, the recurrent expenditure of the University was repeatedly diverted by the former Vice-Chancellor as payment for the construction of a cinema-like auditorium costing more than $1 million. As a result, Government had to step in and make an immediate grant of $200,000 to pay the salaries of both the academic and non-academic staff in November 1964. A further advance of $660,000 had to be made soon after to meet the urgent students commitments of the university, particularly in respect of payments of salaries and wages to the staff. Since then, the Government has made another grant of $1 million to tide over the financial difficulties till the end of 1965. In all, since the reorganisation began in July 1964, the Government has made a total advance of $1.86 million towards meeting the recurrent expenditure of the University. This is in addition to the $1 million for the library, now under construction, which will be fully expended in July 1966, when work on the library is scheduled to be completed, and another $1 million for scientific equipment and library books out of which a sum of $30,000 will be spent before the end of 1965 for the equipment of a language laboratory for teaching languages with a modern approach. On 12th September, 1965, the University authorities published the Report submitted by the Nanyang University Curriculum Review Committee. In the light of the recommended curriculum, it is now expected that the purchase of scientific equipment and library books will be actively pursued. To summarise:- Total amount of aid provided Total amount of aid paid for the University to the University since reorganisation since reorganisation (1)Library $1 million Will be fully expended by July, 1966. (2)Scientific $1 million $30,000 by Equipment end of 1965. and Library Books (3)Grant and $1.86 million $1.86 million Advances ------------- $3.86 million " ------------- The following Question for Oral Answer stood on the Order Paper of 17th December, 1965:-

"Mr Chia Thye Poh: To ask the Minister for Law and National Development whether the Government has taken any step to urge the Malaysian Government to enable fishermen, affected by the night curfew at sea, to carry on fishing at night, and if he will state the outcome in the matter." Pursuant to Standing Order No. 20 (2), the Minister for Law and National Development supplied the following answer:- 16. "The night curfew was imposed for security reasons. It has not been possible and still is impossible to take any step to relax the night curfew to allow fishing at night without endangering the security of the country. However, the Primary Production Department of my Ministry has been assisting the Social Welfare Department in giving relief to those fishermen who are affected." The following Questions for Oral Answers stood on the Order Paper of 17th December, 1965:-

"Mr Ong Lian Teng: To ask the Minister for Law and National Development when the Government will instal street lights at the 11th and 12th milestones, Woodlands Road."

"Mr Ong Lian Teng: To ask the Minister for Law and National Development what is the sum of money spent by the Government for rural development in the Bukit Panjang Constituency from 1st January, 1964, to 31st December, 1964, and the details of such expenditure."

"Mr Ong Lian Teng: To ask the Minister for Law and National Development whether Temporary Occupation Licence fees of Crown land in the Mandai area have been increased and by what percentage." Pursuant to Standing Order No. 20 (2), the Minister for Law and National Development supplied the following answers:- 17. "Street lights will be installed at Woodlands Road from Yew Tee Village to Mandai Road by the first quarter of next year." 18. "A total of $207,456 was spent by Government for rural development in the Bukit Panjang Constituency from 1st January, 1964 to 31st December, 1964. The breakdown of this figure is as follows: $ 1. An agriculture and Veterinary extension Centre which was Completed in December 1964 48,000 2. Road 89,031 3. Drains 14,242 4. Bridges 4,900 5. Lights 36,100 6. Bus Shelters 10,750 7. Miscellaneous (standpipes, railing guard) 4,433 ---------- $207,456" ---------- 19. "There has been no general increase of Temporary Occupation Licence fees either in the Mandai area or in any other area in Singapore. As a general practice Temporary Occupation Licence fees are only revised whenever the licences are transferred to non-relatives or re-instated after revocation for breach of condition(s). In such circumstances, and in cases of the grant of a new Licence the fee is computed as follows:-

"Mr Poh Ber Liak: To ask the Minister for Law and National Development in regard to land around 8¾ m.s. Tampines Road (Sembawang Estate or Ban Kok Estate) and at 10 m.s. Tampines Road (behind the Nankin Theatre), (a) whether the Government intends to acquire the land and for what purpose; (b) whether the Government has any plans to resettle the residents now on the land, and where; and (c) when did the Government give notice to the occupants to remove."

"Mr Poh Ber Liak: To ask the Minister for Law and National Development whether and when the Government will (a) provide electricity to residents at the upper parts of Peng Ghee Road and Peng Ann Road and (b) repair Goh Hup Road off Tampines Road, 9¼ m.s." Pursuant to Standing Order No. 20 (2), the Minister for Law and National Development supplied the following answers:- 22. "Under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Ordinance whenever Government intends to acquire compulsorily any private land for a public purpose it must announce its intention and the public purpose for which such land is required by the publication of a notification or a declaration as the case may be, in the Government Gazette. In this case, Government would do likewise if it is intended to acquire the land referred to by the Member for Tampines. Settlers on land acquired for public purposes are resettled or rehoused by the Housing and Development Board. The service of notice to remove, payment of ex-gratia payments and clearance all take place after the State has taken possession of the land under the Land Acquisition Ordinance. The Government has not given any notice to the occupants to remove." 23. "(a) The electrification of the upper parts of Peng Ghee Road and Peng Ann Road will be included in the next stage of the Electrification Programme for supplies to kampong areas. It is expected that electricity supplies will be made available to the residents in this area in 1966. (b) The repair of Goh Hup Road has been approved by the Urban and Rural Services Committee and the work will be carried out in 1966."