As to the latter, the need to be aware of the changes occurring around us, there is one thing we should always bear in mind, that is, in the midst of the turbulent changes in this region, one thing must never be allowed to change, and that is the independent identity of our country and our people. This is the objective which keeps us going in our fight for survival and for a better material life. Once it is gone, our will to survive will be rapidly eroded, and Singapore will revert back to a fishing `village and this time the fishing village will be poorer than the one Stamford Raffles found 150 years ago, because the sea water around us is much more polluted than before and there is less fish ip the water. It is therefore necessary that we should pool all our resources and stiffen our will to fight the under-current forces which are trying to pull our people apart. So far, we have been able to achieve certain successes on the economic front, because we have been acting as one people. But the moment the divisive forces take over, all our efforts will come to a standstill. Our people will be embroiled in endless tights and quarrels, with very little time for work. This is not what we want. And we should use all the powers that we have to stop certain persons from trying to push us towards that direction. Sometimes it may be good to be an ally of a great power, to have a big brother behind you. But there is always the phenomenon called the gravitational pull in the world of physics. The closer a smaller object moves towards a bigger mass, the greater the gravitational pull exerted on the smaller object by the bigger mass, until eventually the smaller object crashes into the bigger mass and the two become one, and there is no more of the smaller one. We should therefore resist the temptation of moving too close to any great power, whether it is for prestigious, protect ional or sentimental reasons. A balance must be maintained in our efforts to remain a free agent in the international arena. Between now and May next year, we will be able to witness a period of great changes in this region. The President of the United States is going to Peking to meet Chou En-lai. They will be playing a game of chess on the huge chessboard which is Asia. The nations in the Asian continent, big and small, are the pieces on this chess-board. Whatever we do, we must try to avoid becoming a pawn in other people's game of chess. It is true that we have no means to influence the great powers when they make decisions, and whatever they decide concerning other countries may have far-reaching effects on us. But the fact still remains that if we are to get the greatest benefit out of this unprecedented change in the international climate, we should not commit ourselves too early to any side, and, best of all, should not commit ourselves at all. There is no doubt that the international scene is changing as a result of China's new policy, and if we must respond to these changes, we should do so in a dignified manner and in the best interest of our country, not just because it is the fashion of the day and that other people are doing the same thing. We should not allow ourselves to be rushed onto the band-wagon. It is important that we should have friendly relations with all the countries in the world, and having friendly relations with China has always been one of our aims. But it is unrealistic, and even foolish, to expect that having good relations with China will solve all our problems. When a great power acts, it does so in its own interest. All considerations for the interest of other countries or parties are just coincidental and are part of its moves to improve its international standing. Our immediate problem is and has always been the Communist threat in our midst. From the long-term point of view, the armed struggle of the M.C.P, in the jungles of northern Malaysia will have a very serious bearing on the security of our country. It is foolish to believe that having friendly relations with China will cause the M.C.P, to abandon their fight in the jungles, or our local Communists to give up their so-called "outside Parliament" struggle. We must therefore watch very carefully the developments both inside and immediately outside Singapore. Right now, the mouth-piece of the M.C.P., the Voice of Malayan Revolution Radio, has increased its power, output and frequencies. It can only do this with the help of a great power sympathetic to its cause. So I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions as to whether or not having close relations with China, or any great power, will help us to solve our immediate problems. What is important here is that we should not allow our wish to have closer and friendlier relations with China to jeopardise our efforts to curb the local Communists in their mischievous deeds to turn our society into a lawless one. The pace must be set by the elected government of the day. If there is going to be a change of policy, that policy, whether foreign or domestic, must be decided by us here, the representatives of the people. However, there are some people who believe very foolishly that they also have that right to decide for the people. They think that because they are controlling the mass media, the newspapers, they should have the right to influence the people, who will in turn influence the policy of the Government. We must state here very emphatically that they do not have that right. They represent only themselves and they speak only with their own voices, whereas we speak here with the voices of the people and with the authority of the electorate behind us. These men are fond of saying, "We, the people." But we must ask, who are the people? Are they the people who elected us, or do they just consist of newspaper owners and editorial writers? it is one thing to reflect the views of the people in a paper and to report truthfully what is going on in Singapore and in the world. But it is definitely another thing trying to mount a campaign by omitting certain things and exaggerating others in order to force the Government to change its course to suit the taste or the purpose of the owner of the paper. The Government is the one to decide which way the country should be heading and it is then for the press to assist in explaining why that course has to be taken. The dissenting voice should be heard, but it must he in proportion to the views of other people and it should not be exaggerated. This is the kind of relationship we would like to see between the Government and the press. There has been a lot of talk about the freedom of the press. But we must be frank and realistic. Singapore has never had freedom of the press as it is understood in the Western world. Making comparisons with the so-called freedom of the press in other countries, particularly the West, is misleading. The circumstances of the press in these countries are very much different from those in Singapore. For instance, no one is allowed to run a Communist newspaper here. The last one was closed down 20 years ago during the emergency. A few persons who now write for newspapers here are very fond of reminding the readers of the turbulent years in the fifties. But in spite of all this, the restriction against Communist newspapers still stands. The organ of the Barisan Sosialis, the Chen Sien Pau, is a different matter. It is deliberately allowed to carry on because we want the people to see for themselves how foolish the lines of the Barisan Sosialis can be. It also serves as a constant reminder of the Communist threat in our midst. In this case, we also have to be frank. We are tolerating it because its circulation is small, reaching only a small section of the people, particularly the die-hards of the Barisan Sosialis who are dwindling in number. But the moment it becomes a mass circulation daily, it would be a different thing. We will then have to deal with it as a security problem. It is, therefore, futile to try to draw a comparison between the case of the New York Times and the case of the newspapers in Singapore. There is no similarity between the two. It is a waste of time writing endless editorials here harping on the freedom of the press with the model of the New York Times in mind. In the first place, we do not have such traditions. In the second place, in the United States riots can happen every day and everywhere, and yet the country remains stable and prosperous. But in Singapore, one bloody riot will wreck the whole country. We have been responsible for bringing about the present good order in society and the modest prosperity for the people. We are definitely not going to sit idle and watch our achievements being cancelled out by poisonous writings in the papers. After all, how many countries in the world can afford the luxury of unlimited freedom of the press? Or is it a myth that there is such a thing called freedom of the press? In Russia, in China, and in other Communist countries, the press is part of the propaganda machinery of the state. The press serves the interest of the Communist regime. It may be argued here that since the Communist party is the owner of the press and the party has the greatest freedom to do whatever it wants, including the use of the press to achieve its political purposes, therefore, freedom of the press in its truest sense exists in Communist countries. But, I do not think this is the kind of freedom that the press wants in Singapore. In the case of the older countries with established social orders, or, as the Communists would like to call them, the capitalist countries such as Britain, France, the United States and so on, the case is slightly different, but the fact still remains that even in these countries there is no unlimited freedom of the press in terms of a blank cheque where journalists can say what they like. In these countries, the newspapers and other mass media are controlled by big financial groups. In almost every one of these countries there exists a hard core of people who form the establishment, or, to use a Communist terminology, the ruling class. The people working in the press share the views of the establishment. They have the same social values, tastes and outlook on life. The members of the establishment do not belong to just one political party. They have no party lines. They can be found in all the major political parties and in all walks of life and invariably hold very high positions. So political parties may come and go in these countries, but the establishment ensures that its views and social values prevail. These are reflected in their press. All newspapers must toe the line of the establishment and those which do not are subtly dealt with, not by the withdrawal of the printing licence, as we have done so in the case of the Singapore Herald, but by the quiet and effective withdrawal of advertisement and financial support. There may exist one or two small newspapers, Communist or otherwise, which contain drastically opposing views. But they are merely tolerated there, just as we are tolerating the Barisan newspaper here. They also serve as trappings to the make-belief that there is such a thing called freedom of the press. In Singapore, we have had too short a time for any establishment to evolve. We have only just come to the sixth anniversary of our independence. In these circumstances, the P.A.P, assumes the leadership of the country and it represents the interest of the people. There may be extreme and conflicting views existing among the people, but we always take the middle course and represent the majority of them. We therefore must have the right to lay down the lines for the people, because we are for the time being charged with the responsibility of looking after their welfare. We must have the right to say that it is our views that should prevail and not those of the Communist party or those belonging to the establishment group of a foreign country. There may be a group of people who think that they can ignore this rule. I think it is time that they should open their eyes to realities and not allow themselves to be overwhelmed by the myths and fictions belonging to a different society. If they do not do so, then it is going to be very difficult for us and very troublesome for them. Perhaps all this talk about taking over the Government and pulling the P.A.P, down arises out of an innocent belief perpetuated by some quarters that we are getting old and that we are about to give up. It may be beneficial for all parties if we are to state here that we are not getting old. Older maybe in age, but not in mind and spirit. The good knife is not blunted yet, as a Chinese saying goes, "Pau tau wei lau." We have our ears and eyes always on the ground listening to the voice of the people and always catering for their needs. It is also necessary for us to state here that we are not likely to give up our task so easily. There might have been a time in the very remote past when we considered giving up. Immediately after the defeat in the Hong Lim by-election, which I can still remember, for instance, there was a passing thought, and it was even discussed among some of us, that perhaps it might be a good idea if we were to give up for the time being. But then we were aware that the British were in active control. There was a safety net at the bottom of everything and we knew that things could not go too far wrong. But things are different today. We cannot afford to give up and we do not intend to do so. There is nothing at the bottom to save us now. If we go down, we will go right down and this time it will be worse than the confrontation days, the days when we were in Malaysia, the days of the Emergency and the days of the Japanese occupation. The lives of two million people would be endangered if we were to fail in our task. History will judge us as the greatest cowards and criminals if we were to abdicate our duties now at this crucial moment of Singapore's development as an independent country. So, to those who have the ambition to succeed us, I have this advice to offer. They must stop talking about taking over the Government. This only serves to demonstrate their greed and their ambition. That is no good for them. They must first show to the people of Singapore how they can be worthy of their support. They must first tell the people of Singapore how they can do things better than the P.A.P. The people of Singapore want as their leaders persons who are serious and with a sense of responsibility towards the ultimate well-being of the country. They want persons who can withstand the toughest trials and tribulations in time. They do not want clowns and entertainers in the political arena. They do not want people who start scrambling for spoils immediately after they have formed a party and who resign as soon as a so-called crisis occurs in their midst. 3.45 p.m.