Jek Yeun Thong
Singapore
“Would the Minister now consider it wrong to allow CPF members to use their CPF money to buy shares in the stock exchange, people whom the Howe Yoon Chong Report not so long ago would like us to believe that they could not be trusted to look after their own savings and yet they are now allowed to participate in the stock exchange casino, s…”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, could I ask a supplementary question which either Minister can reply? Is the Minister surprised that the Voice of America, an organ created by the US government to counter Communist propaganda world wide, has been used to cast critical views on a non-Communist government such as the Singapore Government which is, in fact,…”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the Minister has not touched on my point regarding the tuition fees of University students. I do not know whether he would like to take this opportunity to answer or he would want to leave it to others to answer it.”
“Also, there is no danger that the students having taken the loans would abscond or not come back since at the moment all the male students going overseas are providing bonds because of national service. And as for female students, if we are still having too many of them, we can easily arrange bonds for those who intend to take the loan.”
“Yes, of course. I think the trouble with the press is that they missed my point on Education. The style they happened to like is what the Chinese call - wan shi bu gong (playful and not taking things seriously). So they really do not know what to do with me - I mean the press, not the Government.”
“Sir, since the Government is encouraging the people to have more babies now, the likelihood of these 3-room flats being unsold will be greater. Is it not a good point for the Ministry of National Development to try to convert these 3-room flats into, say, 6-room flats so that more babies could be accommodated?”
The complete record
Every one of 628 lines we hold for Jek Yeun Thong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 13.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to thank my colleagues and Back-benchers for offering very useful suggestions for the implementation of this Bill. I think many Members have some doubts on clause 12 which provides that a birth certificate without a name shall not necessarily be considered as sufficient evidence of birth. I think here the operative word is "necessarily", which gives the officials in the registration centres the discretionary power to decide whether a man who produces a birth certificate without a name is the holder of a genuine certificate belonging to him. I must inform the House that this clause is mainly devised to catch impostors and forgers. I think the officials in the centres will do everything they can to help the innocent people in possession of birth certificates without names to establish their citizenship status. In fact, in the long run, this will be of very good service to them. The Member for Farrer Park has cited the case of a boy who has a birth certificate without name and who is finding difficulty in getting a job. Not only that; I think he will also find difficulty when he grows up and tries to get a house or a passport, because the possession of a birth certificate without a name is not conclusive proof that the certificate belongs to him. So, in the re-registration process, if this boy can prove with all the relevant documents, once and for all, that he was really born in Singapore, then this will save him all further trouble. Then he will not be faced with the same problems in future when he applies for a job or a passport or a house or any other social amenities where very strict rules have to be followed in regard to citizenship status. In the long run, I think this re-registration will benefit these people.”
“Sir, 50 cents for citizens and $1 for non-citizens.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the re-registration exercise does not stop at just the issue of identity cards. The system devised will ensure the compilation of more up-to-date and reliable population statistics, and in due course will give each Singapore resident a number which will be used for all purposes in future. This is an essential requirement to meet the goal of a welfare State. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“In the outlying areas, especially in kampongs and villages where road names and house numbers are not to be found, the address on the identity card may simply mean the address of a village coffeeshop which the holder frequently visits to collect his mail or sip his coffee. Then there is also the question of colloquial names of places. Some of our streets are named after colonial rulers in the past. Their names are so difficult to pronounce that local people soon have to resort to their own way of naming the place where they live. A person may come and tell you that he is staying at such and such a house number in Tai-poh. But Tai-poh may mean anywhere in Chinatown around the Kreta Ayer area. In order to secure accurate addresses, it is our intention to send out a few teams to survey the area and to visit every family before re-registration in any particular area is attempted. The family so visited will be issued with an appointment letter showing the date when they should visit the Registration Centre and the correct description of their address. Re-registration is understandably a massive exercise and must be carried out smoothly and efficiently with as little inconvenience to the public as possible. The work of re-registration will, therefore, be phased with school children and those in Government institutions like the Home for the Aged, and so on. They will be registered first, and the respective schools or institutions will be serviced by mobile teams. The next phase will embrace registration of workers in commercial and industrial undertakings with 20 or more persons at or near their places of work. On completion of these two phases, the third phase of re-registering the public will begin at registration centres which will be set up in various parts of the island.”
“But if in the re-registration process they can prove once and for all that they are citizens by birth, then this fact will be written down on their identity cards which will serve as permanent documentary proof of their citizenship status on all future occasions. And in time to come they may even afford to discard their nameless and worthless birth certificates. It is intended to charge a citizen 50 cents and a non-citizen $1 for the issue of a new identity card, and for a replacement identity card a flat rate of $5 will be charged. However, in the case of school children and others such as persons receiving public assistance from the Social Welfare Department, provision will be made in the regulations to exempt them from these charges. Hon. Members will realise that re-registration will involve an expenditure of a large sum of money. The imposition of a charge on the new identity cards which are for the benefit of the people is, therefore, reasonable, for these identity cards will be their passport to prosperity and security and may last them for decades. The Bill also provides for the compulsory notification of change of residence within 14 days of such change. For the convenience of the public, facilities will be made available at police stations, post offices, and other disseminated centres where change of residence can be effected. Then there is the problem of how to keep the address on the identity card accurate. In many cases the addresses on the identity cards do not necessarily describe the places where the holders of the identity cards can be found.”
“In the case of a citizen by registration, a citizenship certificate must be produced. In the case of a person claiming to be a citizen by birth, a birth certificate or other evidence to substantiate his birth in Singapore must be produced, and the onus of proving such birth is on him. However, the evidence of a birth certificate without the name of the child or a birth certificate supported by only a Statutory Declaration to the effect that the person was born in Singapore, or an identity card which only states that the holder was born in Singapore will not necessarily be accepted as sufficient evidence of such birth. This provision is necessary, Sir, because in the past we have found many people who were not born in Singapore at all but using other people's unnamed birth certificates or those of dead persons claiming to be citizens by birth. However, we will be very tactful and considerate in the implementation of this provision, for we are aware that there are still many people in Singapore who are genuinely in possession of birth certificates without names. We will use every means to track down the forgers and the impostors, and will ensure that innocent people will not be unduly inconvenienced. For the innocent people, the re-registration will prove to be a great help in establishing their status as citizens by birth. In the past they may have encountered many difficulties when they apply for passports or for Housing Board flats or other social amenities where more stringent proof is required to establish their citizenship status.”
“They had treated Singapore like a step-child or a colony where they expected to harvest 40 per cent of our Federal revenue and did nothing. The new identity cards that will he issued on re-registration of the population will be laminated with heat-resistant plastic by means of a special process. This will ensure that the cards are forgery-proof, tamper-proof and water-proof. This is of the utmost importance because it is essential to our survival and prosperity. The two main objects of the Bill are set out in clauses 5 and 6. First, subject to certain exemptions which will he made by regulations, all lawful residents in Singapore above the age of 12 will have to be registered. Second, those who are in possession of existing identity cards issued under the provisions of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, 1955, will also have to be re-registered. For the dependants of foreign services personnel, separate administrative arrangements will have to be made with the respective foreign authorities. In the re-registration exercise, it is essential to distinguish citizens from non-citizens. It is, therefore, intended to issue two types of identity cards of different colours: one for citizens, and the other for non-citizens who are permanent residents. This will tie up with the Bill providing for the issue of work permits to non-citizens, the Second Reading of which I will move later. By a glance at the colour of the identity card, an employer will be able to know whether his workman is required to carry a work permit or not. In view of the special significance of an identity card issued to a Singapore citizen, every person who applies for such a card will have to provide adequate proof that he is a Singapore citizen by birth or by registration.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The re-registration of the population is of vital importance to independent Singapore. National registration was first introduced in 1948 as an emergency measure, but registration under that scheme was haphazardly done. The incorrect information and the perishable nature of the identity cards issued, and the deficiencies in the registration system have made the existing system most unsatisfactory. Forgery of identity cards has been rampant and these have been sold on a mass scale to illegal immigrants. Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the reasons for the Bill is to eradicate the forging of identity cards for sale to illegal immigrants who have imposed themselves on our social services. Since Singapore is now fighting for its survival and endeavouring to build a more prosperous and just society, it is only logical that the fruits of our endeavours should benefit only those who are right-fully entitled to them, namely, our citizens. In fact, the Singapore Government drew up a scheme as far back as 1961 for the re-registration of the population, but in anticipation of merger and Malaysia and in view of the fact that national registration would be a Federal subject, the scheme was not implemented. Here is another clear example of how the Federal Government had deliberately neglected the interests of Singapore when we were in Malaysia. For two years while we were in Malaysia, nothing had been done by the Central Government to implement the scheme; not even a single hint from their high officials. In the meantime, they themselves had initiated and completed a re-registration scheme in the Federation and issued everyone with a plastic identity card.”
“As to the remarks made by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, regarding wrong addresses in identity cards at present, I agree with him that in the past, when these identity cards were issued in a hurry to meet the emergency situation in 1948, there were not very strict conditions laid down about the filling up of these identity cards, especially the names and addresses of the holders. But in future, before our re-registration campaign is carried out, we will send teams to areas to inform the residents of the correct address, the name of the street where they live, so that when they come to the registration centre, they can give the registration officer the correct number and address of their house. In fact, in the National Registration Bill which is going to be read a Second time tomorrow, there is a clause to compel the report of a change of address within 14 days. So I think this will meet the request of the Member for Kampong Kembangan. The Chairman: Does the Member for Kampong Kapor wish to proceed with his motion?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to reply to the criticisms made by the Member for Kampong Kapor in respect of the Registry of Births and Deaths. He says that there is some inconvenience caused to people living in the outlying areas of the island and also to those staying in the Southern Islands who have to come to the Registry to change their temporary birth certificates into permanent ones. I agree with him that there are some difficulties caused to these people when they come from their homes to town to have their birth certificates changed. I think his suggestion that we should branch out into these areas to provide such services to these people is a very good one. I will look into this matter fully. But in any case there have been instances where in these outlying areas community centre leaders have collected these temporary birth certificates and have come to the Registry to apply on behalf of these parents. This is, I think, a very good service also and we will also encourage it in future. As to the criticisms of the Registry of Persons in regard to mistakes in the spelling of names on identity cards, I can assure the Member that in future, when re-registration is carried out, his name will he spelt to his full satisfaction on his plastic identity card. In any case, we are going to take great pains to make sure that all names, whether they are Chinese names or Malay names or Indian names, will he given proper study before they are written on the new identity cards. Even under the present system, if a man is not satisfied with the spelling of his name, he can always apply to have his alias written on his identity card.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, subject to the general assent of the Assembly, I beg to move, That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order 66 and the Order of the Assembly on 17th December, 1965, that the Regulation of Employment Bill be read a Second time on the first available sitting day after 28th December, 1965, the Second Reading of the following Bills be taken on Wednesday, 22nd December, 1965:- (1) The National Registration Bill, (2) The Regulation of Employment Bill.”
“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. RELIEF FOR FISHERMEN AFFECTED BY NIGHT CURFEW 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 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.”
“The next available sitting day after 28th of December, 1965. ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS TRAFFIC LIGHTS AT JUNCTION OF TANJONG KATONG/DUNMAN ROADS 1. Mr Ng Yeow Chong asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether and when the Government will install traffic lights at the junction of Tanjong Katong Road and Dunman Road. The Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj) (for the Deputy Prime Minister)(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. SECOND CLASS HACKNEY CARRIAGE DRIVING LICENCES 2. Mr Bernard Rodrigues 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.”
“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”
“But since this has already been imposed on us and since they have been collecting it for about a year, we do not intend to stop it yet. Instead, we intend to use it solely for the benefit of the workers. We intend to set aside the revenue collected under this head to form a fund for the social security of the workers. We will set up a committee to put up recommendations for the implementation of the scheme. As what we have done in all our major labour legislation and policies, the N.T.U.C. will be the first we would approach for their views and suggestions on the scheme. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to second the motion on the debate.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful for your ruling. If their traders can have barter trade with the Indonesians in Malaysian territories, then why cannot we trade with Indonesia in Pulau Senang, which is 12 miles away from our main island? This, I think, is like the case of the Chinese proverb which says that high officials are allowed to set fire to a town, but the common people are not allowed even to light a lamp in their own house. If they are so concerned about the security of Malaysia and the security of Singapore, then it should he their duty to help Singapore to industrialise, because a contented people will not so easily fall into the hands of the Communists. But instead of doing this, they clamp down on trade between Singapore and the Peninsula. Every sane person knows that by denying access of their markets to our manufacturers, there can be only one consequence - the slowing down of our industrialisation programme. This would create conditions most favourable for a Communist take-over in Singapore. If, as a result of their foolish measures, the people in Singapore lose hope in a democratic government and turn to the Communists, then what will be left of Malaysia's security and defence? Everyone knows that the defence of Malaysia rests on the British bases in Singapore. Can Malaysia be defended with a Communist base in Singapore? Finally, I would like to come to the question of the payroll tax which was also mentioned by the Member for Bras Basah. This tax was foolishly imposed by the then Federal Minister for Finance. It has the ill-effect of discouraging employers from employing more labourers that we have in surplus. When we were in Malaysia, we opposed it strongly in Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia has suggested that Singapore should go its own way and should not interfere with the affairs of Malaysia. This we will gladly do if they would also keep to their own word. But what happened was that when our Prime Minister talked about political eunuchs in the Federal Cabinet or the Sultans and their multiplicity of wives, they immediately sent us a protest note through diplomatic channels complaining that we were interfering with their internal affairs. When we announced our intention to resume barter trade with Indonesia, they stepped in and objected to the scheme, giving the flimsiest reasons for their objection. Is this not a blatant interference with our internal affairs? They claimed that resumption of trade with Indonesia, even though on a small scale, would jeopardise the security of Malaysia. But everybody knows that their own traders are carrying on barter trade in Tawau, Pulau Ketam -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to seek the general assent of the Assembly under Standing Order 98 to move the following motion:- That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order 23, and notwithstanding the Orders of the Assembly on 13th December, 1965, that the undermentioned Bills be read a Second time on the first available sitting day in January 1966, the undermentioned Bills be read instead a Second time on the first available sitting day after 21st December, 1965:- (1) The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, (2) The National Registration Bill.”
“If more people come in to share the rice-bow, then the benefits to our own people will be jeopardised. If we allow more and more people to jump into our small boat, because life in the Federation is miserable, then our small boat may sink and our own life may start to become as miserable as theirs in the Federation. What we are now, in fact, telling our brothers across the Causeway is this. Do not take Singapore as your escape route from your present day problems. That is no solution. If you feel you should have a better society and a better Government like Singapore, then you must stay in your own place and rally more people to light for such a goal. If you try hard enough, then one day the whole of the feudalistic society will collapse and a more just and equal multi-racial society will emerge. Thenn the people in the two countries, which are separated by artificial means, will be one again. The Federation of Malaysia is determined not to allow us to prosper. On this basis, we must seek our own survival. We do not have to depend on the Federation for our living, but we must warn them not to block us from seeking our living elsewhere. Trading with any country of the world is our sovereign right, and I hope the Federation Government will not interfere in our internal affairs. They do not want to trade with us, and they deny their market to us. That is their business. We cannot complain. But do not stop us from carrying out our legitimate trade with other countries under any pretext. The Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation, when commenting on the Speech of our Yang di-Pertuan Negara, said that lie hoped Singapore would live on her own, with her own way of life, and follow her own courses. We are doing exactly that. We are riot asking charity from anyone --- 6.30 p.m.”
“For two years they have taken away 40 per cent of our Federal revenues plus our share of the profits in the Currency Board. But not one item of development projects was carried out in Singapore. Promises they had made before Malaysia were never carried out after we had joined Malaysia. For instance, their promise to let us have autonomy in labour and education. This was solemnly guaranteed in the Malaysian Constitution. But on Ithe slightest pretext, they tried to snatch away our autonomous power in labour by proclaiming a ban on strikes under the Emergency powers, and this was to include Singapore. There is another example. It was agreed before we joined Malaysia that for the Singapore component of the Malaysian Police Force, recruitment, whether Malays or otherwise, must be from Singapore citizens. It was only fair because jobs in Singapore must be given to Singapore citizens, whether they belonged to Federal departments or not. But after we were independent, we were shocked to learn that of the new recruits in the Singapore Police Force since Malaysia Day, the majority of them came from the Federation. They were using Singapore as a convenient dumping place for their unemployed. We are not going to allow them to do this any more. At a subsequent sitting, I will introduce to this House a Bill to provide for the issue of work permits to non-citizens. The Member for Bras Basah yesterday appealed to the Government to be lenient in the issue of work permits. Well. I do wish we could be rich enough to allow our neighbours and brothers across the Causeway to share our prosperity. But Members must realise that our rice bowl is barely enough for our 1.9 million or 2 million population.”
“We sought to join Malaysia for greater prosperity and security, which a small island like ours would not he able to achieve. But we were very soon disillusioned. Our big brothers over the Causeway turned out to be not so brotherly. During the two years we were in Malaysia, instead of helping us with their vast resources and the potentiality of their markets to hasten our industrialisation programme, they have looted and plundered -”
“If that is the case, then the Minister for Health will have to seek more money from this House to provide for more V.I.P. wards to accommodate them. They said in their statement that they would boycott this Session because they did not want to lend credence to the so-called phoney independence and help the P.A.P. Government to deceive the people. I do not believe this is the real reason. If that is true, then why did they ask for a silting in August? 1 think the real reason is that they have lost out on all fronts. They have lost in the Referendum. They have lost in the general elections. They have lost even in the Hong Lim by election. They have lost out in all open arguments. Furthermore, their Party is split, and there is no unity between their trade unions and their Party. Even their only hope, that the P.K.I may come and rescue them, vanished with the coup and counter-coup on 30th September in Indonesia. in August, the Barisan demanded an emergency sitting. Today, four months later, they have refused to come to the sitting. The only difference between today and four months ago is that in August the P.K.I. was at the peak of its influence in Indonesia. Today it is down and out. And their friends in the M.N.L.L. are in hiding. So the Barisan decided to boycott the Session because they cannot echo the voice of their masters any more, because the masters are nowhere to he found. I now wish to touch upon the question of survival which was very much emphasised in His Excellency's Speech. The obstructive forces which work against the progress of our society stem from two sources. First, the Communists in our country, and second, the feudalists over the Causeway.”
“They even locked up Professors in their houses in an attempt to prevent them from giving lectures. There was a case in which a teacher had to call for outside help to release him from his house because his door was tampered with by students in the night. By these and other underhand methods, they were able to carry out their so-called boycott of classes for a few days. They finally had to give up the boycott because public opinion was not with them. But their activities have put shame to the name of Chinese education. On the day before His Excellency opened this Session, the Barisan leader, Dr Lee Siew Choh, announced that they were boycotting the Session. But when reporters pointed out to him the danger that his Assemblymen may lose their seats by doing so, he replied that he had to reconsider the matter. Even a resolute man like him is indecisive! Probably he has to wait for instructions from his underground masters or from his comrades in the Malayan National Liberation League in Indonesia, and these instructions are not yet forthcoming, because his friends in the M.N.L.L. are now busy hiding in Indonesia. Such is the indecisive and inconsistent Opposition we are facing today! They are lost souls. They do not know where to go from here, and so the only convenient way out of this dilemma for them would appear to be absent from the Assembly. With this tremendous amount of split mentality and inconsistency on their part, it is small wonder that one of their leaders had to go to Woodbridge Hospital to seek special treatment. If this trend continues, I am afraid many of them will have to follow the lead of their leader and they will have to line up at the doorstep of Woodbridge Hospital.”
“They complained that they were not given any opportunity to air the grievances of the people. They said that the Press used to black out their statements. They said that the radio was controlled by the Government and that there were very few Assembly sittings. And now when we arc having a full-scale debate on the policy of the Government, they refuse to turn up to fulfil their duties as representatives of the people. On the one hand, they denounce the independence of Singapore as a phoney independence and a British plot. On the other hand, they formed a committee of the relatives of detained persons and got Mr Lim Ching Siong's father to sign a memorandum to the Prime Minister claiming that Singapore, having achieved independence, must release all the patriots who were arrested by the British during the colonial days. At the time when the majority of the population wanted merger and Malaysia, the Barisan Sosialis said that they were opposed to merger and Malaysia. They wanted a self-governing Singapore with control over internal security, which actually amounted to independence. Now that we have got independence, which is what they originally asked for, they turn round and say that they do not want independence but a merger with Malaya. They call it a "United Malaya" (including Singapore). So what kind of a political Party is this which is always going against the wishes of the majority of the people? They claim to he fighters for the cause of Chinese education and yet during the recent incidents in Nanyang University, their supporters heat up the Vice-Chancellor of the University and set fire to the dormitory of non-academic staff. They broke equipment in the laboratories. They defaced the wall of the university with their ugly slogans.”
“Mr Speaker, the mentality of the Barisan Sosialis Members is extremely difficult to fathom. In their public manifestos and statements, they talk of their task to educate and free the people from ignorance so that they can build a new society over the ruins of the old. And yet in practical life, with their inconsistent behaviour and their contradictory arguments, they arc confusing the people more than anyone else. On the 9th of August when independence was forced on us, the Barisan Sosialis Members were the first to demand an emergency sitting of the Assembly to debate the separation. We told them that there were other more urgent matters than a debate in the Assembly. Our country must first gain admission into the United Nations which had a General Assembly meeting in September. Our Ministers must he there to present their case on behalf of Singapore, otherwise we would miss the occasion. So we had to postpone our Assembly sittings in order that the Deputy Prime Minister and two other Ministers could proceed to the United Nations to make an appearance, and then to visit the Afro-Asian countries to win over their friendship and recognition for our new nation. Their achievements have been widely publicised in the Press, and I do not wish to elaborate on them. There is no doubt that we have firmly established ourselves in the international field. So now when the difficult task is over and we are ready to have our Assembly sittings to conduct a full debate on the independence and the manner in which Singapore was separated from Malaysia, we find the Opposition Members missing. What kind of a situation is this? They were clamouring for a sitting, but now when we let them have a sitting, they absent themselves.”
“The first available sitting day in January, 1966. ADMINISTRATION OF MUSLIM LAW BILL "to repeal and re-enact the law relating to Muslims and to make provision for regulating Muslim religious affairs and to constitute a Council to advise on matters relating to the Muslim religion in Singapore". presented by the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs (Inche Othman Bin Wok); read the First time, to he read a Second time on the first available sitting day in January, 1966, and to be printed. DESTITUTE PERSONS BILL "to provide for the care and rehabilitation of destitute persons and to amend the Vagrancy Ordinance (Chapter 125 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Inche Othman Bin Wok; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the first available sitting day in January, 1966 and to be printed. PEOPLE'S ASSOCIATION (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the People's Association Ordinance, 1960 (No. 35 of 1960)". presented by the Minister of Defence (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on first available sitting day after 20th December, 1965, and to be printed. SINGAPORE ARMY BILL First Reading”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation to proceed with the Bill. I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to provide for the registration of persons in Singapore, for the issue of identity cards and for purposes connected therewith, and to repeal the Registration of Persons Ordinance, 1955 (No. 32 of 1955)." Bill read the First time. Second Reading”