Lee Kuan Yew
Singapore
“Sir, I had not intended to intervene in any debate. But I was doing physiotherapy just now and reading the newspapers and I thought I should bring the House back to earth. Mr Rajaratnam had great virtues in the midst of despondency after a series of race riots when we were thrown out during Independence.”
“A point of clarification, Sir. The Member has compared Singapore against Switzerland, Denmark and Finland. Can I ask him if he considers Singapore's population to resource ratio equal to Denmark, Switzerland and Finland?”
“The Member has not answered my question. Is he saying that we are comparing apples with apples? Is he saying that the system of government in Finland, Denmark and Switzerland can bring them from First World to a superpower? Can they do that?”
“I am putting a simple question and ask for his clarification. He has compared Singapore as if it were a Denmark, a Switzerland or a Finland. Their system, their governments, never produced the kind of transformation that we have had, and their system and their governments have a broader base, and can afford a mediocre government.”
“At the end of the day, that will be the same for the Malays, for the Indians and for all the others. S Rajaratnam was aiming for the stars. I went along with him with the pledge, and we must try to live up to the pledge. But to say, let us forget race, language, religion, culture, that is not doable.”
“So there is a wide range of options open and it depends on your judgment on the quality of the people you appoint, and also what is the objective of appointing people to these positions, whether you want them to stay effectively until retirement, which means you have to avoid appointing good people to these positions early which is, I thi…”
The complete record
Every one of 506 lines we hold for Lee Kuan Yew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 11.
“But the quickest way to reduce unemployment is the greater inflow of tourists, for tourism is labour intensive. With Singapore clean and green, exotic and efficient, with good and courteous service, and shops filled with the good things of life, the tourists will flow in from America, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and even Europe, as they do the circuit Hongkong, Angkor, Bangkok, Singapore, Bali and beyond. In the two and a half years since separation, some 35,000 people have moved from Malaya, or West Malaysia, to Singapore, as against some 6,000 from Singapore to Malaysia. If our economy had stalled, this could not have happened. Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been a great deal of uninformed talk about work permits. It is not, and has never been, our intention to withdraw work permits from professional, skilled, or even unskilled workers who do the hard jobs. These people help to increase our Gross National Product. Of the 45,000 work permits, more or less evenly divided between Malaysian and Indian citizens, there are about 6,500 permits for what we call the "easier jobs", namely, the jobs not requiring either special skills or much physical effort. We need these jobs for our own citizens who, as a result of past education policies, are now not suitable for training to become skilled workers. They include a large proportion of our Singapore Malays. They have in the past been educated in schools like Malay primary schools or the Arabic schools without being taught the subjects that are necessary to enable them to be trained as artisans or technicians. But they can do these easier jobs which are now being done by non-citizens. Over the years, through the operation of open market forces, employers may find it more attractive to employ our citizens for these easier jobs.”
“All will have at least six years of primary education plus another two years of vocational training. Of the total number admitted to Primary I every year, over 50 per cent go on to complete four years of academic or technical secondary education, over 10 per cent reach University entrance standards; over 5 per cent of the best go on to University and other tertiary institutions. No other community in South Asia offers its people these standards. Nobody believed that Singapore could make it, except Singaporeans. Nobody believed that we had the gumption and the nous. And we are proud of being Singaporeans. And that pride and patriotism will grow over the years as we add to our inheritance: improved and higher efficiency in our harbours and airports, modernisation in containerised facilities and landing aids for longer runways to take the jumbo jets; better housing and more home ownership for our workers, better schools, clinics, community centres, gardens, libraries for their children; more factories and better jobs. We shall build up our defence capacity. We should be able to make arrangements for continuing security in conjunction with those with similar interests. There are possibilities for greater economic growth. The sea offers limitless prospects, some of which we have already grasped in ship repairing and ship-building. They will grow and expand as we develop our skills and expertise, and as our reputation spreads throughout the world. We shall build and run a merchant fleet. We shall go for deep-sea fishing and eventually save about $30 million we spend every year in buying fish from abroad. Our economic growth will be accelerated if we provide ideal conditions for the siting of the headquarters of international industrial, commercial and servicing enterprises.”
“There was a time not so very long ago, particularly in 1964 and 1965, after the riots when discipline broke down, when it looked as if we might slither down the slippery slope. Organisation and administration became tangled and discipline slackened amongst our workers. Cows roamed the streets in the city, leaving dung all over the place. Some people died driving their cars into cows long before they could die through disease as a result of the filth. Stray dogs, sick, mangy and wild, were becoming a nuisance, a menace. We had the laws changed and enforced. Cows found in the city limits provided food for our welfare homes. Stray dogs were eliminated as efficiently and humanely as possible. We shall not just maintain standards of public health and cleanliness. We must go further and make this the cleanest and greenest city in South Asia. If we want high morale, we must have high standards. If we want high standards, the law must be enforced fairly and firmly. There will be no squatters or beggars sleeping on our pavements doing their ablutions in our drains. People will be housed and cared for. Hawkers will not clog up the main streets. There will be thorough and proper cleansing every day of the year. Laws will have to be passed to help rid us of the malpractices that have crept into our work force. Only a year before last, malingering and shirking and sabotage to create overtime and treble, pay for public holidays was a way of life. Discipline and efficiency must be re-established. Our children will grow up in healthy and clean homes, with adequate ventilation, sunlight, water, electricity and modern sanitation. Many will go to kindergartens even before they begin primary education.”
“Also, instead of having the enormous sea and air traffic, and the stimulus of people bringing new ideas, we have South-sea Islanders lounging on the beach, watching the occasional cargo ship drop anchor. Then we would never have developed what we have: three deep-sea harbours, Tanjong Pagar, with berthing alongside for 30 ships, Sembawang, servicing what was up till very recently one of the greatest navies in the world, the deepwater berth at Jurong, not to mention Telok Ayer Basin, Collyer Quay and Kallang Basin, the earliest harbours in the days of the sailing ships. We would not have four airfields, Paya Lebar, Tengah, Changi and Seletar. Nor a network of roads, probably amongst the best maintained in South Asia, telephones and telecommunications that link us up with one another and with all the major cities of the world, and soon a satellite receiving station. In short, if Singapore were in the South Pacific, populated by South-sea Islanders and not Singaporeans, it would not be able to feed a population of even 20,000 people. But we are not in the South Pacific, nor are we South-sea Islanders. We do not put flowers on our ears, either as decorative ornaments or as fads like the flower people in the West. These assets constitute our inheritance. We must maintain and improve upon what we have inherited. Bustling commercial and administrative centres have been known to sink into disrepair for lack of self-discipline, often starting with the leaders, but invariably infecting the whole population. We have a stable economic and political situation. We maintain sane, orderly and healthy conditions.”
“We sell the same things cheaper, we do the same job for a lower price, and we offer to buy the same produce at better prices than anywhere else in the region. Our third asset is the accumulation of 150 years of infrastructure and experience, in commerce, industry and communications. This does not mean just the physical buildings, the ports, airports, warehouses, roads, banks, shops, power stations, water-works, telephones and cables. More important are the invisibles, the accumulations of knowledge and expertise; how to run the port and the airport economically and efficiently; how to keep up to date with containerised ships and jumbo jets; what banking, money, finance, stocks and shares, bills of lading, and insurance are about; how and what to buy in bulk from the industrial countries and break bulk to retail in the area, and conversely how to buy retail and package in bulk for export to industrial countries. This requires a well-trained professional, managerial and executive elite, supported by a well educated, skilled and industrious working population. Nothing can more emphasise the importance of these three factors than if hon. Members were to consider what would happen if Singapore did not have these three assets: the human resources, the strategic geographic location, and the built-up infrastructure both physical structure and the know-how. Imagine what would happen if we towed Singapore out and left it in the middle of the South Pacific. Instead of two million active and vigorous Singaporeans, you have South-sea Islanders with flowers in their hair, dancing to languorous tunes.”
“For we have not got that agricultural base where you can scatter seed on the ground, and the soil, the rain and the sun will produce you the rice, the corn and the fruits with which to feed yourselves. On the other hand, with imaginative and intelligent leadership and stiff standards of honest and just administration, we can make maximum use of our resources which are not all that slender. We have not often underlined these valuable resources. Let me enumerate them: First, we have more than average human intelligence, diligence, skills, knowledge and expertise. Second, our superb geographic location at the southernmost tip of the continent of Asia, straddling the route between the Indian and the Pacific Oceans, the northern and the southern hemispheres. We have been important for 150 years as a great sea junction. And for the last 20 years we have also grown in importance as a great air junction. Hon. Members may remember the Maltese Labour leader, Mr Born Mintoff, visiting us in December 1967. A Rhodes scholar, he does not lack perception or articulation. After a few days in Singapore, he said, privately and publicly over radio and television, that Singapore was better off than Malta because Singapore did not have to face the stiff competition that the Maltese face from their neighbours. In other words, the Italians in Naples and Genoa, the Greeks in Athens and the French in Marseilles, all have higher skills and work harder and so take business away from Malta. Changing the passive into the active tense, it means that we work harder, are better organised, and more efficient than many others in the neighbourhood.”
“We must have that spirit of self-reliance and self-respect as a community if we are to be compared to a tree. To join the growing numbers of countries who beg for alms from the developed countries, would destroy our pride and undermine our self-confidence. Quite a number of countries, after gaining independence, have failed economically and collapsed socially. They lacked one essential quality: self-discipline, either in their leaders, or more often both in their leaders and their people. It requires self-discipline to budget and live within your means, when you can just print more money. It requires self-discipline to maintain the integrity and efficiency of government and administration and to punish and keep down corruption, especially in high places. Self-indulgence would soon lead to personal wealth and security for the few, the political leaders, the military chieftains, and the principal administrators. Whatever the evils of British, French, or Dutch colonial administrations, they provided firm, rigid frameworks within which constructive endeavour was rewarded. Seldom were colonial budgets ever in deficit. They invariably spent less than what they got out of each colony, for colonies were intended to provide profits, not incur losses. They kept stern discipline and stable conditions, sound currencies, good sanitation and healthy conditions. It is sad to see how in many countries, national heroes have let their country slide down the drain to filth and squalor, corruption and degradation, where the kick-back and the rake-off has become a way of life, and the whole country sinks in self-debasement and despair. If the political leadership ever allows Singapore to degenerate into these conditions, then we shall perish.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we of the P.A.P, have been given a mandate as great as the responsibility that goes with the task. We shall do our best. Singaporeans are a hard-headed people. If we maintain group discipline, if everyone contributes his fullest share of physical and intellectual effort to the fulfilment of our plans, we shall not fail. We can and we shall build up an adequate defence force before the 1st of January, 1972. We can counter recession, expand our economy, train and educate artisans, technicians and the technocrats of our growing industrial and servicing sectors. In the next few years, as British forces withdraw and leave Singapore and Malaysia to make their own arrangements for security, we shall find out whether, as a community, we are like a creeper or a tree. Both the creeper and the sapling need support. But unlike a creeper, a sapling does not need support as it grows older and stronger. It will grow into a tree and dispense with the supporting stake. No amount of aid and assistance, grants and loans, technical assistance and training can do the job which we must do for ourselves. A people who are by nature creepers must, when the stake they have been leaning on is removed, fall and crawl on the ground. If we are that sort of a society, then even with all this brave talk by leaders and encouraging noises by observers and commentators, and all the fine words of comfort and promise of aid, we will still find ourselves crawling on the ground. However, the manifestations of the last decade point to a sapling growing sturdier and stronger as it matures into an upright tree. The stake, which the British presence provided, has enabled sapling Singapore to grow straight and tall without being too buffeted by the winds while it is still young and fragile.”
“Our future is at stake and we must give the lead in thinking and feeling in the country. If the new Members we now welcome to our fraternity learn and drill themselves, there is no reason why, when actual blood is drawn in a subsequent Parliament, that it should not be from the other side. Mr Speaker, Sir, may you preside over us to a more secure and triumphant Third Parliament.”
“Members, however, have never taken part in a debate with an Opposition like that we had from 1961 to 1963. Then attack was not only venomous and sharp, but ruthless and unprincipled, and criticism was intended not to point out defects and secure improvements but designed electorally to kill and destroy the other side by fair means or foul. Hon. Members will have to learn and practise, as much outside as inside Parliament, the cut and thrust of debate, the retort and rejoinder, the rebuttal and riposte. I am told that simulated flying in a cockpit is nearly the same thing as actually flying an aircraft, except for the eerie feeling a pilot gets when he finds himself aloft and alone. For more than four years from 1955 to 1959, I was a Member of this Chamber occupying the seat, if not the title, of Leader of the Opposition. At every crisis, crowds thronged the Gallery to watch the Government being castigated and whipped for its many misdemeanours. I changed places and became Leader of the Government from 1959 onwards. It was our turn to be pulverised. From 1961 to 1963 crowds were drawn like a magnet to this Chamber, some waiting outside to hear, if they could not see, the pack of Barisan wolves come in for the kill of the P.A.P. lamb. I do not believe that these large numbers of pro-Communist sympathisers and supporters have all vanished or been converted just because they left disappointed, as the Barisan wolves were chastised in the encounter. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst this will not be a Parliament with the suspense and excitement of its earlier years, nevertheless, there will be momentous times ahead for all of us, and this House will have enough drama if not anxiety in the crucial years ahead. Hon. Members will speak their minds freely and forcefully.”
“Second, the more desirable alternative, economic success and enhanced social stability, and further reduction in electoral support for Communist or extremist policies. With stability and prosperity, the sense of national urgency and unity which binds together a people faced with common danger, will slacken and a more relaxed mood will set in. A new restlessness will bestir the people, a desire for improvement and change, or just change for change's sake, will appeal to a younger generation. The emergence of a party or parties either to the left or right of the P.A.P, must result. But they would be constitutional alternatives, willing to work the system, prepared to compete and attain power within the system, and to surrender it by the same rules through which they came into office. But for the crucial 1970s, it is as well that in the P.A.P, we hold together in national consensus a wide cross-section of our society, from semi-skilled and skilled workers like the Members for Kampong Kembangan and Geylang Serai, both former employees of the Singapore Telephone Board and leaders of its union, clerical groups represented by the Members for Kallang and Toa Payoh, teachers and principals like the Members for Telok Blangah and Moulmein, university lecturers and professors like the Members for Katong, Joo Chiat and Alexandra, to professional men and business executives like the Members for Bukit Panjang, River Valley and Jalan Kayu. Our task, Mr Speaker, is to help you ensure that the parliamentary machine is well-maintained and tuned to meet the new circumstances that will evolve in the 1970s. I am confident that hon. Members will debate matters before them frankly and freely. More than half of hon.”
“Some of the clerks of Parliament and I have personal knowledge of the boisterous and rumbustious past of this House. There was no dearth or differences of opinions, or independence of views, sometimes sincerely, and often vehemently, held. Hansard records the clash of minds, the exchange of retorts courteous and not so courteous, the conflict of ideas and ideologies, and the face-to-face confrontation of the exponents of different ideologies. They reveal all the bounce, the abrasiveness and the self-confidence that Singapore had and still has. They made for lively meetings. Debates were often bitter and vicious. The fact that we now have such a homogeneous group in 58 Members does not mean that it will remain so hereafter. Opposition in this Chamber will and must inevitably return. But the Opposition will not be individuals claiming to act as the conscience of the people, or offering themselves as the necessary accoutrements of parliamentary democracy on the spurious argument that, because there is no Opposition, therefore there is no parliamentary democracy. Singapore is not that gullible and credulous. The Opposition, when it returns, will comprise a group offering an alternative policy, and offering themselves as a credible alternative government to implement the policies they expound. This could come about in one of two ways, one less desirable than the other. First, it could come as a result of severe economic setbacks, the failure to meet and overcome the problems coming upon us in the l970s. Then the Opposition that emerges will be extreme, either orthodox Communist or revisionist, or Trotskyite. Then divisions will be sharp and angry, and the country the worse for it.”
“Even so, had the Communists decided to contest the elections through the Barisan Sosialis, or other front organisations, like the Communist-led trade unions, or the old boys' associations and the cultural groups, I would not have been surprised if they had collected over 15 per cent of the votes, which would have ensured them some six to eight seats in this House. If they persist in orthodoxy, and their orders continue to be as unrelated to the realities of the situation in and around Singapore as they have been in the last five years, and more important, if our economic and social policies make the progress they have made over the last five years, then by 1973 their electoral support may further sink down perhaps to below 10 per cent. But I doubt if I can give as cheerful an estimate in the corresponding decline of their cadre strength. One of the subsidiary reasons why their electoral support has declined is that they have withdrawn their trained and experienced cadres from open front activity to conserve their strength for future deployment. Sir, of the 58 Members in this House, 26 Members have never known what it is to be in a Parliament with an Opposition. Indeed, 16, having been returned unopposed, have never known the rough and tumble of a contested election. To them, I commend Hansard, the report of proceedings of this House since May 1955, particularly the years 1955, 1956, 1959, 1961 to 1963. In 1955, the Governors stopped presiding over sessions of the Legislative Council. A mainly elected Legislative Assembly of 32 Members of whom 25 were elected was allowed to meet under an independent Speaker. Three Members were from the P.A.P. I am the sole survivor of that first Assembly.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members join me in extending you our congratulations and our co-operation on your re-election to the Chair. It is nearly two years since you were first elected to the office. Your experience as Speaker must be unique. In two successive Parliaments you sat over a House without an Opposition. First, the Opposition boycotted the House. Next, they boycotted the general elections. But in spite of the extraordinary circumstances, a legislative chamber without the stimulus of provocative criticism, those of us who were in the last Parliament are confident that under your guidance, this House will keep the parliamentary machine in good shape, and also sustain and cultivate the attitudes of tolerance and calculated deference to opposing views. Those of us who are natural optimists, or not long acquainted with the social science of psephology, may believe that the return of all 58 Members from the P.A.P, reflects the unanimity of views amongst people outside. My colleagues and I, who have gone through more harrowing times, cannot afford to be so naive, or so ingenuous. In 1963, the pro-Communist groups, under the banner of the Barisan Sosialis collected over 30 per cent of the votes and 13 out of 51 seats. True, their fortunes have declined. This is partly the result of our social and economic policies, partly the result of higher political sophistication amongst the voters. But it is mainly because of their own irrational rigid orthodoxy, their obsequious subservience to directives from outside. They have mechanically chanted ridiculous slogans and asserted incredible untruths - that Malaysia does not exist, that "Malaya" includes Singapore, and that the Republic is a sham.”
“RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED PREMISES (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) BILL "to provide for the recovery of possession of premises for development purposes where the premises are subject to control under the Control of Rent Ordinance (Chapter 242 of the Revised Edition), for the establishment of a Board to hear applications for recovery of possession of such premises and to assess the amount of compensation to be paid to tenants and sub-tenants on account of such recovery of possession and for purposes connected therewith", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. CORPORATION DUTY (REPEAL) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.20 p.m.”
“First of all, the assistance will comprise such equipment as already has been installed here. I have mentioned the radar system, the installations at Bukit Gombak, the ground-to-air missiles and the training of personnel to operate all these defence weapons. As to the attitude of the Malaysian Government to the statement of the British Prime Minister, I think it is only right and proper that we should await their own official response at their own time. It is not for us to respond on their behalf. But we would definitely welcome assistance in expertise which is impossible to produce within the four years minus 24 days that we have got left. BILLS INTRODUCED 3.16 p.m. PROPERTY TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Property Tax Ordinance, 1960 (No. 72 of 1960)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. STATUTES AMENDMENT BILL "to amend the Development Loan (Local) Ordinance, 1959 (No. 50 of 1959), the Development Loan Ordinance, 1961 (No. 7 of 1961), the Financial Procedure Act, 1966 (No. 13 of 1966), the Development Loan Act, 1967 (No. 1 of 1967) and the Currency Act, 1967 (No. 5 of 1967)", recommendation of President signified; presented by Dr Goh Keng Swee; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Central Provident Fund Ordinance (Chapter 150 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it would be best if I were to reread that portion of the British Prime Minister's Statement regarding his intentions to assist in a joint air defence system. It says: `Meanwhile, if our Commonwealth partners so desire and mutually satisfactory arrangements can be made, we would be prepared to assist them in establishing a future joint air defence system for Malaysia and Singapore and in training personnel to operate it.' I do not think I have any authority to go beyond the public statement of the British Prime Minister. All I can add to that is that we have every intention on our part to increase our own capability, because, unlike many other countries in the area, we form a very compact and neat target, and therefore a sneak aerial attack is a major preoccupation of any Defence Minister of Singapore. It is therefore our intention to ensure that such a sneak attack can never succeed.”
“Sir, no one would expect me to anticipate what the final outcome of the meeting of the five governments can be. In the very short space of time between July 1967 and January 1968, circumstances have altered so completely as to make it necessary for us to rethink our basic po sition. It is such a fundamental change of circumstances that it is rash for anybody to predict what the position will be after a series of meetings which will take place before the 31st of December, 1971.”
“All I can say to that, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that we must accept the solemn undertaking of any British Government at face value. But as has happened in the case of the solemn undertaking given us in July 1967, intervening acts almost of God, like the devaluation of the Pound Sterling, made certain consequential amendments necessary.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, some people did not find it credible as late as March and April 1966 that we could develop sufficient land forces in order to look after ourselves by the end of 1967. But I can assure the hon. Member that the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia found it fully credible that Singapore had sufficient land forces to look after itself. In a letter to our Minister of Defence dated the 14th of November explaining why the Malaysians were withdrawing not only their battalion at Khatib but all their other units, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia said: `I also understand that since the separation of Singapore, the Government of Singapore has increased its Armed Forces for purpose of defence of Singapore. The Malaysian Government therefore feels that it is no longer necessary to maintain its army units in Singapore and I am therefore informing you that they will be withdrawn completely from Singapore by 31st December, 1967.' He obviously found it credible that we can look after ourselves. Mr Govindaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, will the British Government respect the recent agreement?”
“As a result of decisions made consequential on the devaluation of the Pound, we shall have to undertake sooner than we expected full responsibi lity for our own defence. Before the 31st of December 1971, there will probably be a number of conferences of governments with an interest in the security of the Singapore/Malaysia area. The Singapore Government is willing to attend any conference which will enhance peace and security in the Singapore/Malaysia area. And long before the 31st of December, 1971, we will have developed a sufficient defence capability to make us a dependable and a desirable partner in any defence arrangement. 3.07 p.m.”
“But we have assured them both, and our other Commonwealth partners and allies concerned, that we shall retain a general capability based in Europe - including the United Kingdom - which can be deployed overseas as, in our judgment, circumstances demand, including support for United Nations operations. During his recent visit to Kuala Lumpur, my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary told the Government of Malaysia that we wish to reach a new understanding with them about the Anglo-Malaysian Defence Agreement so as to make it fit the changed conditions. As the House knows, the Agreement contains provisions for a review of this nature. He also assured the other Commonwealth Governments concerned of Britain's continued interest in the maintenance of security in South-East Asia, with the forces which will be available here. Meanwhile, if our Commonwealth partners so desire and mutually satisfactory arrangements can be made, we would be prepared to assist them in establishing a future joint air defence system for Malaysia and Singapore and in training personnel to operate it. We have informed the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore that we will discuss with them the aid implications of our accelerated with drawal. We shall amend our force declarations to S.E.A.T.O, as our forces in the area are run down.' Sir, on the 18th of January, as I was leaving London, the Secretary of State for Commonwelth Relations sent me a note stating that the British Government intended to do all that they could to assist Singapore and Malaysia, both separately and collectively, and in consultation with other Commonwealth partners in the area, to maintain their own national security.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, official discussions with the British Government took place on the 14th of January from 5.30 p.m. to 10.45 p.m. On the Singapore side, I was accompanied by my colleague, the Minister for Finance, the Permanent Secretary. Ministry of Defence, and our High Commissioner in London. On the British side were the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr Roy Jenkins, the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Denis Healey, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr George Brown, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, Mr George Thomson, and several Under Secretaries. I have already disclosed all that can reasonably be disclosed about our defence discussions. The relevant section in the British Prime Minister's statement in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 16th of January, reads as follows: `We [I quote here, meaning the British Government] have accordingly decided to accelerate the withdrawal of our forces from their stations in the Far East which was announced in the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy of July 1967 (Cmnd. 3357) and to withdraw them by the end of 1971. We have also decided to withdraw our Forces from the Persian Gulf by the same date. The broad effect is that, apart from our remaining Dependencies and certain other necessary exceptions, we shall by that date not be maintaning military bases outside Europe and the Mediterranean. Again, by that date, we shall have withdrawn our forces from Malaysia and Singapore. We have told both Governments that we do not thereafter plan to retain a special military capability for use in the area.”
“It is a very wide and complicated subject and neither the Member for Choa Chu Kang nor I am all that familiar with American institutions. They are very numerous and very varied in the quality of the products to whom they give degrees.”
“Sir, I am very disturbed that the Member for Changi, who has been a very politically active and alive individual with the P.A.P, for the last 13 years since its inception, should have forgotten the fundamental principle that the best way to spread a rumour is to repeat it, and the worst place to repeat it is in a place which has got the authority which will carry it over the radio, into the newspapers and on television. I do not know if he has been watching how other people use their radio and television stations. I heard with consternation how some Ministers in some other countries in the world visited riot areas and then told of their experiences. Their saying these things at the wrong time and giving wider credence and publicity to it caused further disorders to take place. I would have thought that the simple and obvious axiom -not to give the lie more credence by repeating it -would have been the one decisive factor in not having raised this matter at all. There are five members of the P.S.C. -three are Chinese, one is an Indian and one is a Malay. There are 80 per cent Chinese citizens, 7.6 per cent Malay citizens, and about 7.2 per cent Indian citizens. It is impossible to have the Public Service Commission enlarged to a number which will include proportional representation from each community. There will be the Eurasians, the Ceylonese, the Burmese, the Malays of Indonesian descent, the Malays of Malaysian descent, and so on. I would have thought that the surest way in which a matter such as this can be disposed of is by moral rectitude, that is, those people who work and get promoted in the public service get promoted on the basis of merit. I have no time to reply to the other question about recognition of American degrees.”
“You should not repeat rumours if you do not believe them.”
“First, may I explain that we paid one-third of the capital cost of acquiring the premises of Malaysia Hall. In other words, in equity we own one of the three fairly substantial houses which were joined together to form Malaysia Hall. This is the first point we want to establish, that we own one-third of the capital. With the accretion of Sabah and Sarawak, we deem that our share of the running expenses should be reduced, but we still nevertheless own one-third of the capital. We were one-third of the student population without including Sabah and Sarawak. With Sabah and Sarawak we consider ourselves one-fourth. So we held up payments for the years 1965 to 1966 and 1966 to 1967 pending clarification in sorting out the proportions. Now it has been agreed that if we take Singapore and Malaysia together, not Singapore and just Malaya, we will pay one-quarter. So this is for two years' payment. Arrears have to be paid up. But in making this point I want to make it quite clear that this does not mean we own one-quarter of Malaysia Hall. We still own one of the three houses in Malaysia Hall. It so happened that we bought three houses and we paid one-third. We are happy to have all the students together even though we are now separate and different countries. But if people should ever consider our students should be excluded, then we will not be collecting one-fourth of three houses but we will be collecting one-third of three houses, which is exactly one house.”
“When we instituted the President's Scholarships, we had in mind what used to prevail for many years before the war when the British awarded the Queen's scholarships which were awarded purely on the basis of merit. It does not matter whether the President's scholars need the money or whether they deserve it or do not deserve it for purely financial or social reasons, as long as they have the capacity, the excellence, to merit the award. If they can win other scholarships, then they will not get the full award; but they will get when they go abroad a scholarship allowance of œ50 Sterling per annum in addition to the allowances they have obtained under the other awards, instead of the full cost being borne by Government. It is quite common. The Member for Joo Chiat will know that if he turns up the preface of many of his scholarly journals or books, even in his particular field of surgery, there is great pride in referring to the fact that the man was holding three different scholarships at the time when he was an under-graduate in some college or university. And often because they are holding three different scholarships for which they have competed and won on merit, they do not get in each case the full award of each scholarship. The award is then given to somebody else on the basis of need, that he was not really good enough to get it but because he was fortunate that the man who was good enough to win it had already got another one. He gets the consolation prize. 3.00 p.m.”
“I am afraid I must assume that the Public Service Commission puts a very high standard for the attainment of the status of a President's scholar, and if there are not more than seven such scholars, then not more than seven President's scholarships are awarded. It is a very proper way of maintaining standards. It does not mean that just because you have in the Budget Estimates ten posts for Political Secretaries, therefore, we appoint ten Political Secretaries. We do not, as Members well know. We appoint Political Secretaries as and when they are found necessary and as and when there are suitable candidates. I am quite sure the same principles must have applied in the Public Service Commission in not awarding more than seven President's scholarships for this year. They must vary from year to year. Sometimes you have a bumper harvest. In some particular year the wine is of special vintage.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I assure both the Members who have raised this problem that, far from the number of potential talented young men and women reducing in numbers as the years go by, they have, in fact, shown a capacity not only to win the President's scholarships, but also to take a few other scholarships by the way; and the President's scholar is often a person who holds at least one other scholarship. The President's scholarship is given on the basis of merit, not on the basis of need, and inevitably the boy who wins it also gets some other scholarship. When he does that, then, if he is studying abroad, whether it is in the United Kingdom, Australia or Canada, he does not get the full scholarship but he gets an allowance of œ250, because otherwise we will ruin him by giving him too much money. I have also told Members of the House that last year there were seven President's scholars; three of them decided to study in the University of Singapore, one at the Polytechnic, one in Britain, one in Australia, and one in Canada. They had a free choice of where to go for higher studies. Four out of seven chose to study here. That has also saved us the cost of the passages going overseas. I am quite sure that next year, as in the case of this year, these scholars will also be able to win other awards whilst being the President's scholars.”
“Sir, the reason for the estimate being reduced to about 40 per cent of what it was the previous year is that from our experience last year we discovered, partly through the resourcefulness of the Public Service Commission, that quite a number of donor countries were able to provide us with facilities for industrial training. For instance, last year the Belgian Government gave 20 industrial scholarships, and similar awards were made available in France, the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and several other countries. This being so, the amount required to be paid out of the Budget itself is reduced by the amount which was extended in scholarship aid. So we are not unoptimistic that next year these donor countries, with whom we maintain amicable and, we hope, mutually beneficial relationships, will find it in their interest as well as ours to continue to offer industrial training facilities.”
“I am unable to predict what my successors in office will do. But in so far as we are concerned, we are satisfied that such a function does serve a purpose. It does bring home to these scholars in a psychologically meaningful way the fact that they owe something to the community that has gone out of its way to organise itself to train them, educate them and get scholarships for them, and therefore it expects them to give something back to the community. The $3,000 in the vote is hardly more than the first month's salary of probably four or five of these students. I think it is worth the effort that is put in. It is not so much the money; but it takes a lot of effort. And Ministers and others who have to attend these functions so frequently consider this a duty and not a pleasure.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in December 1963, at the suggestion of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, I held a dinner for 132 scholars who had completed their studies abroad on scholarships of various kinds. The purpose was not just to entertain them and to congratulate them on having graduated, but more important, to gather them together in a congenial atmosphere and use the occasion to underline the role for which they were groomed to play. The reason why we have taken the trouble to acquire these scholarships -sometimes from foreign missions and donor foundations -is to give them the kind of training in order that they will fulfil their duties to the community of which they form a part. Having been successful with the first function, we held a second one -a buffet dinner -on 23rd April, 1966, where we had 370 scholars and representatives of foreign missions who had given these scholarships. The purpose was to express our appreciation to these foreign mission representatives for having given the scholarships to our students for training purposes. Similarly a dinner was held on the 1st of July last year. After three successful occasions, Sir, I think it is time that the procedure should be formalised in a vote in the Budget for this purpose.”
“This vote stands and has stood in every Budget estimate over the last eight years, and at an appropriate time, when there is an obvious choice for the post of Deputy Speaker, the choice will be made. One of the cardinal principles upon which we must exercise the authority which is vested in us by popular vote, is that it should not be exercised just because there is a vote to be spent. Unless duties require the appointment to be made, and there is a person obviously qualified not only in the opinion of the Members of this Parliament but, even more important, in the opinion of the public outside who are watching us, no appointment will be made. The last appointment to the office of Deputy Speaker was you, Sir, and I am quite sure that in the next Parliament, which must be elected within three months after the 21st of September, 1968, there will be enough talent amongst the Back-benchers. As Members know, no person who is a Minister or holds any other office of profit, namely, a Parliamentary Secretary or any other such position, can be Speaker or Deputy Speaker. I am quite optimistic that we will be able to justify an appointment to this high office in the not too distant future.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this vote does not refer to the production of Hansard itself but is a vote from which remuneration is paid to part-time staff to assist the Parliamentary Reporters in the overnight production of the first copy. From our experience of the sittings last year, we found that the vote was excessive, as it was not necessary, when the House was not in continuous session, to have copies produced that very same night for Members to have them the following day. Therefore, the vote has been estimated at $4,100 for the following year. It is not the cost of production of Hansard. This is for part-time remuneration paid to people who assist the Parliamentary Reporters in overnight work when the House is in continuous session. Mr Tang See Chim: I am quite satisfied with the explanation of the Prime Minister, and I wish to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“To them we should pass on the valuable experiences of the last two decades, the esoteric knowledge of men and the affairs of men, the insight which we have gained in this strange corner of Asia - whom and what to trust, and what are just words of kindness and comfort, the civilities of form and protocol, with little or no content. In so far as it is humanly possible, we must ensure that there will be enough trained ability for a team that can give Singapore that pride in achievement which ability, dedication and sincerity, combined with iron will, can give. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with these sobering thoughts of our wider responsibilities that I ask hon. Members to express their unanimity in electing Inche Yusof bin Ishak as President of the Republic of Singapore for his third term from the 4th of December, 1967. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.47 p.m.”
“Only then can new ability, dedication and sincerity of purpose find expression and relevance in the necessarily different mood of a younger generation. Whilst perhaps for the present, Singapore may not do better for itself by electing some other team, the same need not be said for the middle '70s and beyond. For it will be a very different world. And it may require a different style to carry off with good grace and sustained strength a different posture and a revised and up-to-date set of political, economic and social policies which the continued survival and increasing prosperity of our multi-racial society may require of its leaders. So whilst we congratulate ourselves on the relative certainty and stability with which our affairs are being managed, let us always have our eye further over the horizon - towards that day when another team of good men and women will take our places. It is amongst these young men and women of disciplined talent and ability, with the freshness, enthusiasm and idealism with which every new generation brings to its task - people now in their `20s and early `30s - that we must seek the possible leaders of a robust and rugged generation. It is not in the nature of things, in an open competitive society such as ours, to nominate one's heirs and successors. But it is within our capacity to ensure that long before that time comes, there is available a whole cohort of younger people who have been equipped and steeled for the tasks of political leadership.”
“We can still see them in "Ta Po", or "big city", or the South Bridge Road area. They offer a contender three-to-one odds on any one of a variety of over half a dozen set chess positions. The contender can choose to play either side, black or white. Very seldom does any contender make the experienced hand lose on his stakes. It is not altogether in jest that I heard it said of some of my colleagues that they could easily turn chess professionals if they chose to give up their portfolios. Sir, there are very few fundamentally new moves by colonialists, Communists or communalists which we have not in turn encountered and checkmated in the past. Every ploy, each feint, every distraction, either for internal or international consumption, we have watched, studied, parried, and been ready to counter the real blow which was to be delivered. But at the same time we must all be constantly alive to the dangers of being the same persons too long in the same office. We are all creatures of habit, and the creative and imaginative parts in the human being are stifled by the repetition of the same thought or speech patterns. In the long run, as a government, we shall be judged not just by our own performance, but by whether we have provided for continuity in the quality and the verve of political leadership for our society. It was said of a much-loved Asian prime minister that he was so long in office that when he died, it was as if a banyan tree had fallen and no young sapling, ready to take its place, was growing under or around him - so complete was his dominance and that of his generation over their whole country. Younger talent there is and always will be. And we must pass on to that young talent the knowledge, the know-how, the tried and proven methods of good government.”
“As a consequence, Singapore has benefitted. I have every confidence, Sir, in commending him to this House for a third term that he will execute the duties of his high office with the same dignity, willingness, and cheerfulness with which he first undertook them eight years ago. And there is the added aplomb, the savoir faire which eight years as Head of State, informed on all the matters and the crucial issues which have affected our lives and fortunes, have given him. Nor would I be accused of flattery if I were to suggest that it would not be easy to find another citizen and his wife to carry out their duties with the same poise and graciousness. Mr Speaker, Sir, through all the vicissitudes of fate and fortune of the last eight and a half years - and the House will remember how grim the circumstances were from crisis to crisis - with notable exceptions, the majority of P.A.P, members held together as a tightly-knit and stout-hearted team, so enabling my colleagues and me to steer our way forward and to ride the stormy and turbulent seas of change and revolution in South-east Asia. It would not be immodest if I were to compare the Republic of Singapore and the President's Government to a sturdy ship and its toughened and somewhat weather-beaten crew. Together they have successfully completed many voyages through calm and troubled waters in fair and foul weather. And Singapore takes it for granted that this crew will steer their ship into the seas of the future confident that it will weather any storm that it may encounter. Sir, I hope I would not be thought too jocular if I were to compare, by way of broad analogy, quite a number of my colleagues, the President's Ministers, to professional Chinese chess players.”
“9 of 1965) and the Constitution (Amendment) Act (No. 8 of 1965) passed in December 1965, Inche Yusof bin Ishak became, retrospective as from the 9th of August, 1965, the first President of the Republic of Singapore. His present appointment, according to these transitory provisions, ends on the 3rd of December - in three days' time. Today under Article 1 of the Constitution of Singapore, I am inviting Members of the House to elect Inche Yusof bin Ishak for his third term as Head of State and President of the Republic. The vast constitutional changes in the last eight and a half years since the 3rd of June. 1959, when we first took office, reflected the momentous changes that were taking place in and around us. In 1959 he represented Queen Elizabeth II. Then from 1963 to 1965, for less than two years, he represented the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Now he simply represents us, the citizens of the Republic. Inche Yusof and his wife, Puan Noor Aishah, have graced the Istana for eight years. He has discharged his constitutional duties with devotion and dignity and has won the respect and confidence of the people. With his wife, they have been patrons of Singapore society, the arts, sports, the numerous charities of our expanding society. The burden of these duties was undertaken by them with natural grace. Eight years ago Puan Noor Aishah did not speak any English. Now she speaks it easily. The willingness to learn, the keenness of Singapore and her people - a striving, thrusting society - are personified in the President and his wife. Today it comes so naturally that one finds it difficult to recall what it was eight years ago - the stiffness and diffidence they must have had to overcome to fulfil their constitutional, social and ceremonial duties that now come easily.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, That this Parliament, in accordance with Article I of the Constitution of Singapore, elects Inche Yusof bin Ishak as President of the Republic of Singapore for a further term of four years to commence immediately after the expiry of his present term of office. This will be the third time that our President has been nominated as Head of State. Eight years ago, on the 3rd of December, 1959, he was appointed by the British Sovereign to the office of Yang di-Pertuan Negara under the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, for a term of four years. He took over from the last Governor, Sir William Goode, who was for six months the first Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Inche Yusof was, then, the personal representative of the British Queen. His term of office as Yang di-Pertuan Negara of self-governing Singapore would have expired on the 2nd of December, 1963. However, on the 16th September, 1963, two and a half months before the expiration of his first term of office, Singapore became a constituent State of the new Federation of Malaysia. By Article 95 (1) of the Constitution of the State of Singapore, his appointment under the former Constitution was extended by one day. And so it was that on the 4th of December, 1963, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of the Federation of Malaysia, on the advice of the Singapore State Government, appointed Tun Yusof bin Ishak to be Yang di-Pertuan Negara of the State of Singapore, pursuant to clause (1) of Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Singapore, for a term of four years. But by the Separation Agreement on the 7th of August, 1965, which came into operation on the 9th of August, 1965, and the subsequent Republic of Singapore Independence Act (No.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to anticipate the out- come of the first discussions between Mr Hon and Sir Alan Dudley. But purely expressing our attitude or approach to the problem, we would like the British Government to give us notice of those of their facilities found redundant, as quickly as possible, and to hand over to civilian management some of those facilities even whilst they are still in military use, as in the case of the naval dockyard - if this were possible. Secondly, any such assistance whether direct grants or technical and other assistance, should be designed to provide Singapore with the kind of industries which will not make us dependent on perpetual injections of aid from outside. I can assure the Member for Bukit Merah that we cannot change our attitude to life, that the world does not owe us a living - and that we cannot live by the begging bowl. This is an unhappy disengagement which has come earlier than either they or we expected. The best way of meeting the problem is to go about it quietly and intelligently discussing our problems in a low key, and with as little fuss and bother as possible. NON-CITIZENS IN DIVISION I APPOINTMENTS IN CIVIL SERVICE (Number) 2. Mr Bernard Rodrigues asked the Minister for Finance the number of non-citizens in Division I appointments in the Civil Service.”
“From our past performance, given no ill-fortune, it is more than likely that we can and will make up for the loss of this 20 per cent G.N.P. which will take place over the next decade. Our economy has grown at the rate of 6 to 9 per cent per annum, except for the first full year of confrontation, 1964, when the increase was only 2 per cent. But what we may not be able to do, unless our performance is better than that of the last eight years, is to create meaningful jobs as the annual 15,000 to 20,000 young boys and girls who now come into the labour market are joined by another 40,000 workers, 30,000 of whom are our citizens who will be put out of employment from the British bases. Air the family planning and other methods of controlling population which we may have to use will be of great benefit to whoever forms the government in the late '70s and '80s. But we are already saddled with the baby boom of the post-war years of the 1940s and early 1950s. We have assured the British Government of our co-operation to ensure the orderly withdrawal of their forces and the run-down of their Bases according to programme. The civilian employees' union leaders have reacted in a rational and intelligent way in the best interests of their members and of Singapore. The Economic Development Board team has visited most of the base installations which the three Services may be giving up between now and 1971. Consultations and discussions will go on between our officers and the officers of the three Services to work out intelligently and in a friendly way how their redundant base facilities can be put to some economic use. It is our intention that the changeover will be done in a quiet and orderly fashion and with goodwill.”
“First, our ability to maintain that climate of quiet confidence and the establishment of labour attitudes and social conditions which will assure local investors and overseas investors of the certainty of their planning assumptions for the establishment and expansion of their industries. Second, the capacity of our population to adapt and to adjust, without any whimpering or wringing of hands, as a way of life to which they have been accustomed over 30 years comes to an end. The least of the changes contemplated means that dockyard workers, working on naval vessels for naval commanders, who are not concerned with the time a vessel is out of service whilst undergoing repairs, have now to adjust their attitudes to work and adapt their methods of work, and also the manner in which they may be rewarded for work, to meet the needs of ship- owners who want their vessels repaired in as little a time as possible, as every hour in repair means vast sums of money in loss of earnings. At the worst, it means being able, sometimes at a very difficult age of life for the people in their middle 40's and above to make the painful change of earning a living in a different way - from being a storekeeper or a clerk to a skilled, semiskilled or even a manual worker. The third factor is whether the economic aid that we have been promised will be substantial enough and utilised intelligently enough to create the maximum number of jobs. Whether British performance will be equal to their promises will in part depend upon the performance of Britain's own economy. But it will be foolish to believe that others can do for us what we as a people, and organised as a representative government, must do for ourselves.”
“For whilst we will inherit all the fixtures which have been built over the years on lands made available by the Singapore Government to the British armed services, we will also inherit more than 40,000 bread-winners and their families who have come to Singapore from India, West Malaysia, and from places as far off as Hongkong and Weihaiwei. With their families they now comprise some half a million persons; three-quarters of them are now our citizens. Both in their public statements and in discussions and communications between British Ministers and ourselves, they have made it plain that they shared our interests in maintaining confidence in the continued stability and prosperity of Singapore and were anxious to assist in meeting economic problems which the run-down of their bases, according to programme, will cause. They have stated that they would be ready to consider with us the most effective and productive uses of the economic and technical resources they could provide. They have nominated Sir Alan Dudley of their Ministry of Overseas Development to conduct discussions with us. We have nominated Mr Hon Sui Sen. Talks will begin shortly. The first matters for discussion will be the kind of aid to deal with the more immediate problems. Mr Speaker, however significant the aid, the future of Singapore depends upon our capacity to maintain orderly and stable economic and social conditions as we go through the pangs of withdrawal of British base expenditure. The success of this operation depends upon three factors.”
“In this connection, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is useful to recall that from 1819 (the foundation of Singapore) right up to the 1930s there was a thriving and prosperous Singapore without either a British naval base or an air base. The Naval Base in Sembawang and the Air Base in Seletar were built in the 1930s. It was only the introduction of the practice of allowing serving officers and other ranks to be accompanied by their wives and children in the 1950s that British base expenditure began to constitute so sizable a percentage of our G.N.P. Now, over a period of about a decade this figure will tail back to zero. We shall be back in the position of the 1930s,where British base expenditure constituted a negligible proportion of the economy of Singapore. As I have said, there was a thriving Singapore before the bases were built and manned, and if we set about our job intelligently and in good heart, there will be a bigger and economically more self-reliant Singapore after the bases have been run down and uniformed personnel withdrawn. The problems arising out of this process are being studied by a team headed by Mr Hon Sui Sen, Chairman of our Economic Development Board. Steps are being taken to build up a team of experts and consultants who can advise the Board on the possible ways in which the facilities which will become surplus to British service requirements can be converted to civilian user, so as to create the maximum number of new jobs. It is a problem of considerable magnitude and complexity. Put simply, it is this: what to do with this vast military complex, one naval base and a dockyard, three military airfields, and a vast army complex of workshops, supply depots and other supporting services.”
“In paragraph 9 of the Statement, the British Government states: `We are, therefore, planning to maintain a military capability for use, if required, in the area, even when we no longer have forces permanently based there.' And in paragraph 10, they stated: `We do not need to settle the precise character, size and deployment of this capability now. It would be largely drawn, however, from the forces of all three Services which would be stationed in this country as a strategic reserve; and we should probably keep in the Far East some naval and amphibious forces.' These decisions have now been made public. They require reappraisal and readjustment in the foreign and defence policies of all the governments that have planned their previous policies on the basis of a continuing British military presence in the region into the indefinite future. Before the 1970s rearrangements will have to be made and will probably have been made in the pattern of defence in which we must seek our own security. But whilst our problems of defence are those of the middle term and beyond, the economic impact of the defence cuts will be immediate. Total British base expenditure constitutes roughly 20 per cent of Singapore's G.N.P. (Gross National Product). It provides direct employment for some 30,000 civilian employees in the armed forces and another 10,000 women and girls as domestic help for the service families. About 15,000 of these civilian employees and about 5,000 domestic helpers will be out of jobs by 1971, adding to our already large pool of unemployed. Our problem is to lessen the dislocation of our economy.”
“Mr Speaker, the British Government has stated its position in a Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy tabled in their Parliament on the 18th July this year. In the Far East, they have decided to reach a reduction of about half the forces deployed in Singapore and Malaysia during 1970-71. The reductions will be so phased that, by the early 1970s, the British forces still stationed in Singapore and Malaysia will consist largely of naval forces (including an amphibious element) and air forces. In paragraph 8 of the Supplementary Statement, they stated: `We cannot plan the period beyond 1970-71 in the same detail. The reductions over the next few years will be considerable: we are determined that they will take place in an orderly manner, which will enable our Commonwealth partners to adjust their plans, and will allow Singapore and Malaysia to make the necessary economic transition as smoothly as possible. We plan to withdraw altogether from our bases in Singapore and Malaysia in the middle l970s; the precise timing of our eventual withdrawal will depend on progress made in achieving a new basis for stability in Southeast Asia and in resolving other problems in the Far East.' Elaboration of the British Government's position can be found in the speech of the British Minister of Defence, who opened the debate in Parliament on the 27th July and also in the speech of the British Prime Minister when he closed the debate that same evening. Copies of the Supplementary Statement and the Hansard record of the debate are available in the library. I commend them to Members. Right up till the middle 1970s, a period of between six years at the earliest and ten years at the latest, there will be an actual presence in the area consisting mainly of aircraft and naval vessels.”
“A colonial government had no intention whatsoever other than to pass the law to teach the boys and girls, particularly from the Chinese schools, how to handle weapons in order to make life more miserable for that government and it brought about that conflict. But now a by-election took place, and this was not an issue. So long as the base of our authority is one man one vote, it is not possible to go against the grain of the whole of your community in policies which do not win their acceptance. As long as we remember this and we are courageous enough not only to do the right thing which is acceptable, but to do the right thing which is not acceptable just yet, but to make sure that the ground begins to understand us when we take the next phase, then we will be able to bequeath to the next generation of leaders a healthier and sounder situation. By then it will not really matter whether or not we have this symbolic sharing of the institutions of the State. As long as we are conscious of that - as indeed people are, particularly after their experiences in the last few years; how could you be otherwise when you can be smacked down or killed in a riot on the basis of your race? - then it is our duty to take note of that and to provide some mechanism whereby an assurance is given and felt and believed that they are consulted and they are participating in the management of their own society.”
“And so the process of constant repetition on the ground of where their long-term interests lie, why a multi-racial society. This process may he unnecessary for those who are capable of doing their own thinking, but is very necessary for those whose instincts are to do what comes most comfortably. And to give way to the things which the ground wants us to do, often foolishly, will be disastrous. Not to give way without educating them may be equally disastrous to us. And so the fearful responsibility in this decade to ensure that the next generation will not be faced with the same arduous task that confronts us at every turn - the constant explanation and persuasion - because of which alone we are able to do what we do; sane,, effective and sensible policies, and with the support of the population. I would urge Members to remember this. Never mind all the jibes about one-party government and dictatorship. They are not just necessarily jibes because they can be very real probabilities if we allow ourselves to be lulled into a sense of complacency and assume that this could be the order of things for all time. But the very fact that we are able consistently to carry a large section of the population with us despite this criticism, surely is the answer that democratic government is possible provided at each step you carry the majority of the people with you. It is not by accident that we introduced the National Service (Amendment) Bill at the time a by-election was about to take place. We gave the Opposition an issue to join issue with us - certain basic fundamental premises. It was an issue which barely 15 years ago caused little young boys and girls to riot. The police had then to use considerable force with a great deal of unhappiness all round.”