Hansard, 1955-05-25

Order, order. Hon. Members will have received a note that, under the provisions of Standing Order No. 61(2), I have appointed Mr G. A. P. Sutherland to be the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

"to amend the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, 1951 (No. 4 of 1951)", presented by the Attorney-General (Mr E. J. Davies); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 29th June, 1955, and to be printed.

"to provide a system of registration of titles to land", presented by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday, 26th July, 1955, and to be printed.

"to provide for the stabilisation of the value of land to be acquired for public purposes and for the acquisition of land for comprehensive development as new towns", presented by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday, 26th July, 1955, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this is perhaps a historic occasion, for it is the first time that a Legislature of this colony has been empowered to determine and regulate, by law, its privileges, immunities and powers and those of its Members. That power stems from the provisions of the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865, and it has been expressly conferred on this Assembly by section 65 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council in 1955. The only limitation on that power is that our privileges and immunities shall not exceed those of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, and it is this limitation which has given the draftsmen of this measure considerable anxiety and concern, because Members realise the powers and privileges of the House of Commons are not found concisely or comprehensively set out in any statute or, for that matter, in any instrument. They have been developed through the centuries by trial and experiment, and they now form a complex law in which only experts are fully at home. We have therefore been compelled to look for some statute or ordinance which defines the powers and privileges of colonial legislatures, and we have been advised by experts on Parliamentary procedure, particularly those officers employed at the Table of the House of Commons, to take as models the ordinances of Nigeria and Kenya which have received their approval and, indeed, their blessing. We have accepted this advice, and the provisions of this Bill, as indicated in the Objects and Reasons attached to the printed copy of the Bill, follow those models very closely with only those formal adaptations which are strictly necessary for local application. In these circumstances, I would earnestly ask Members of this Legislative Assembly to accept the provisions of this Bill without question and without cavil, and I hope that that plea will be indulgently accepted by hon. Members. The particular provisions of the Bill are, I venture to think, fully and adequately explained in the Objects and Reasons attached to the printed copy of the Bill, and I venture to think and hope that they require no further elaboration or amplification, or, indeed, even more comment from me. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would wish to seek clarification from the Hon. the Attorney-General on clause 24 (1) (e) of this Bill which reads: "Any person who publishes any report of a Committee of the Assembly or of any evidence given or any documents presented to such committee or extracts from such documents, before such committee has presented its report to the Assembly, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for twelve months or to both such fine and imprisonment."

Order, order.

Yes, Sir?

Mr Lee, the debate should be on the general merits and principles of the Bill at this stage. Your point can be raised in Committee.

Thank you, Sir. I am much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Nobody else wishes to speak? I will put the Question.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Bill considered in Committee.

With your consent, gentlemen, I will take all clauses in each Part together, instead of clause by clause. Have I your consent? Hon. Members indicated assent. Parts I to VI (Clauses 1 to 23 inclusive) ordered to stand part of the Bill. Part VII (Clauses 24 to 27 inclusive -

Mr Chairman, Sir, I wish to seek clarification from the Attorney-General about clause 24 (1) (e) which reads: "Any person who publishes any report of a committee of the Assembly or of any evidence given or any documents presented to such committee or extracts from such documents, before such committee has presented its report to the Assembly, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for twelve months or to both such fine and imprisonment."

Sir, I am surprised that I am called upon to elaborate or explain language which, in my submission , means exactly what it says.

Sir, I am interested at this stage as to the exact limits -

Order, order. Would you mind standing up? In a Committee of the whole House I would like Members to stand.

Sir, I would wish to make this point: that the rules and provisions which will regulate proceedings in this House, as laid down in our Standing Orders, say that where no specific provision has been made, the proceedings should be modelled on the practice in the House of Commons. By way of analogy, I have referred to that. Sir, in the House of Commons, as I understand it, there are special committees to which things are usually referred by the House - Select Committees and Standing Committees. And there is a clear distinction, as I understand it, between the proceedings of a Select Committee and the proceedings of a Standing Committee of the House. In Standing Committees all deliberations are open to the Press and can be published day by day; but there has been no such distinction made here, perhaps for good reason. But I would like to know why.

Sir, I am afraid I am not in a position to give any explanation. I have been guided in the drafting of this Bill by advice from Members of the House of Commons, particularly those officers at the Table. I do not pretend for one minute to be an expert in the procedure of the House of Commons. I have accepted the advice of an expert, and as I am not an expert myself - and I do not think anyone here is an expert - I have willingly accepted it. I am quite prepared to give this undertaking: that I will refer the point to an officer at the Table of the House of Commons, and if I have erred in any way, I will move an amendment later.

Mr Chairman, Sir, may I refer you to clause 2, Part I-[Interruption.] No, Sir, my reference is to the meaning of the word "committee" on page 2 of the Bill -' "committee" means a standing, select, special or other committee of the Assembly'.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I must accept the explanation given by the Hon. the Attorney-General and I hope, at a later date, that we will hear from his experts as to why that distinction has not been made in this particular Bill. There is that distinction in the House of Commons. The principle on which that ruling was based is that proceedings in the House, in so far as it is possible, should be completely open, should be fully reported if anybody should care to report it. It is only where public interest commands to the contrary that secrecy is maintained. And I shall be obliged if, at a later stage, we will get clarification on why there has been this departure from the practice in the House of Commons.

Nobody else wishes to speak? I will put the Question.

Question put, and agreed to. Clauses 24 to 27 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Part VIII(Clauses 28 to 33 inclusive) ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. I beg to move, Sir, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I took office as Minister for Labour and Welfare, I inherited the Labour Bill from the previous Government. For a long, long time, while I was in the old Legislative Council, I kept on pressing and pressing for a new Labour Code; and therefore when I found that the Labour Bill was an accomplished fact, I lost no time in introducing it for First Reading at our sitting last month. I went through the Bill, Sir, in greater detail before sending it for printing, and I found that amendments are necessary in several of the provisions to meet present-day requirements. These amendments are under urgent consideration, and the matter will be finalised shortly. Under the circumstances, Sir, I beg to move, That the Second Reading of this Bill be postponed to 29th June.

Mr Lim Yew Hock, the Standing Orders do not provide for postponement of any Order of the Day. The only way to get round it, if you want a postponement, is to have the general assent of Members. The only way provided for under Standing Orders is under Standing Order No. 57 where you withdraw it, unless, of course, the Members of the Assembly consent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I therefore crave the indulgence of the Members of this Assembly to enable me to postpone the Second Reading of this Bill to the 29th June?

Have I the assent of Members? An hon. Member: Certainly.

Have I the assent of Members that that motion be moved? Any dissenting voice? There being no dissenting voice, the Question was proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Labour Bill has been in the hands of the Minister for Labour and Welfare since the time he took office. Thereafter, I believe at our first sitting, he had the opportunity of naming the date, and he had named it today. Obviously, Sir, before I knew that the Minister for Labour and Welfare wanted to postpone it. I thought that the Second Reading would have been done today. For that matter, Sir, I believe if it had been so, there would have been no time for considering such an important Bill. Such a Bill should be available not only to Members of this House, but also to members of the general public for discussion, so that their views can be taken and expressed in this Assembly. Also, for that matter, I feel that we have a number of motions drawn up today for which I think we received notice yesterday at about the lunch-hour.

Order, please. Will you please keep to the motion?

I would like to point out, too. Sir, that the Bill had not only not been published in the Gazette, but also not circulated. The Minister for Labour and Welfare has already given a reason, and I think I will accept that. However. I would beg that, whenever there is opportunity, the Bill should be given a longer time for discussion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Second Reading of this Bill be postponed to 29th June.

Order, order. I must first have the general assent of Members present to dispensation with notice under Standing Order No. 23. Have I your assent that this motion can be moved without notice? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Committee be appointed with the following terms of reference - 'to investigate the situation in Chinese schools in Singapore and to make recommendations for the improvement and strengthening of Chinese education in the interests of Chinese culture and orderly progress towards self-government and ultimate independence in Singapore'; that the Committee do consist of the following - 1. Mr Chew Swee Kee (Chairman) 2. Mr Richard Chuan Hoe Lim 3. Mr Wong Foo Nam 4. Mr Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat 5. Mr Lim Yew Hock 6. Mr Lee Kuan Yew 7. Mr Goh Tong Liang 8. Mr Lim Cher Kheng 9. Mr M. P. D. Nair; that the Committee have powers to send for persons, papers and records; that 5 members of the Committee shall form a quorum; that the Committee do meet inside the Assembly House building. Hon. Members of this Assembly are, I am sure, aware of the fact that the situation in Chinese schools in Singapore needs an overall investigation to enable the Committee to make suitable recommendations for the improvement of Chinese education, so that this Colony will move towards self-government and ultimate independence in Singapore in an orderly fashion. The question is of such an important and grave nature that I have sought the assent of this Assembly to dispense with the notice, with a view to making it possible for the Committee to go into the question with all speed. The members of the Committee come from all political Parties that are represented in this House, and I believe they will present different constructive views. It is the Government's intention to seek views from public bodies, any persons interested in education, in fact, from all quarters, to enable the Committee to make recommendations for consideration by the Government. I am glad to note that the schools concerned, namely the Chung Cheng High School and the Chinese High School, have now resumed normally and that the students have resumed their studies in a normal manner. This will enable the Committee appointed to deliberate on whatever views are submitted to the Committee in an atmosphere of calm and goodwill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek the privilege of seconding this motion, and in so doing I seek to clarify our position and our attitude to the recent conduct of students in certain Chinese middle schools. They have blindly supported and incited strikers without understanding the issues. They have taken part in demonstrations of defiance. Some even have been party to acts of horrible brutality. And finally, Sir, they have blatantly flouted constituted authority. When Government moved to punish the immediate culprits, these students organised wholesale defiance and, working on the racial emotions of parents and of labour, they threatened further considerable strife without regard to truth or justice, or the welfare of the people of this country. The manoeuvring of Communists behind the scenes had succeeded in bringing about among a decent people strong racial emotions, blindly antagonistic. Sir, I have a very high regard for the Chinese parent, both the non-British and British subject. He is usually a sober, solid, sensible, peaceable person. That these parents should have been drawn into the vortex of blind emotions was a matter of the deepest concern to us. The punishment of the immediate culprits lost significance in the wider issue - the vital issue - an issue which every member of our Chinese population must now face for himself, must now ask of himself: Is Singapore my permanent home? Am I going to respect the other communities in this territory, and work in harmony and friendship with them, to build a glorious new palace of independence of which I will be a strong and loyal pillar? That is the issue, Sir, that we would like to see resolved in the peace and the calm of the individual's own soul, free from mass demonstrations and mass emotions. It is an issue which must be clearly faced, and frankly answered. Government has been told - we have been accused - that our action, and our inaction, has undermined authority. We are told that our son has publicly cocked his snook at us, and our other sons stand by wondering at our forbearance, perturbed, even dismayed. Some have cried out that we should use the whip. Sir, our son is as one who is ill. He lies stricken with the chicken-pox, his body a mass of red spots, and the more we forbid him to scratch, the more he stubbornly scratches, and the more those spots suppurate. What would you have us do? Use a knife to excoriate those red spots? Take down the whip and lash out in a frenzy of hurt pride, and then weep at the damage we have done? This, Sir, is not the time for the whip, or the knife. I have no pride in the face of this illness. The Chinese people, Sir, are the very heart in our body politic. They are the blood in our veins. To harm them would destroy all. It would destroy forever the glorious future now within our grasp of a free and independent people, working together as brothers in love and in mutual respect. This, Sir, is a time, in our view, for gentle nursing. Age-old Chinese wisdom and Chinese stability, working on a constitution that is basically sound, will restore this son to health, and we will be proud of our Chinese son. Friends think us weak; others call us cowards. They will not deflect us from our vision of a united people. The task before us, Sir, is a tremendous one - a task to win the confidence of our Chinese people, a people who have had considerable cause for complaint in the past. In humility, and with all we have, we shall seek to gain that confidence and to gain that co-operation which is absolutely necessary for the welfare of all races in this territory. Sir, a poet once wrote that "Thoughts in hours of insight willed can be in hours of gloom fulfilled." In the days of gloom through which we have passed, our guiding light has been our firm desire to bring to our Chinese people a realisation of their great role in the independent Malaya of tomorrow, a realisation that the rich broad river of Chinese culture is not limited to the present-day political manifestation of their homeland which is based on foreign concepts. It is our hope that they will realise their future is here, in friendship and harmony and loyal co-operation with all races, to build this new nation which is our deepest desire. It is in this spirit that the motion before you is conceived, and it is my privilege, Sir, to second it. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we would like to assure hon. Members here that the Progressive Party will do its utmost to promote Chinese education and culture. This involves recommendations on a long-term policy, and if the motion moved is strictly in accordance with this aim alone, it will receive our wholehearted support. However, I must point out that the motion today differs from that of a Press release, issued by the Council of Ministers sometime last week. With your indulgence, Sir, I shall read out the relevant part for purposes of comparison. As it stands today, the motion reads thus: "To investigate the situation in Chinese schools in Singapore and to make recommendations for the improvement and strengthening of Chinese education in the interests of Chinese culture and orderly progress towards self-government and ultimate independence in Singapore." The official release is as follows. This release is dated 19th May: "To investigate the situation in the Chinese schools with a view to making such recommendations for the improvement of Chinese culture which the Committee considers to be desirable in the interests of orderly progress towards self-government and ultimate independence in Singapore." It should be noted, Sir, that instead of investigating the situation so as to enable it to give recommendations on a long-term basis for the benefit of Chinese education and culture, the Committee that is to be appointed will now have two terms of reference. One, to investigate the situation in Chinese schools in Singapore; and, two, to make recommendations. We would like the Government to clarify this point and to state the reasons for the necessity for the change of phraseology. Is the Committee to be appointed now responsible not only for the making of recommendations on a long-term basis, which we gladly accept, but also for dealing with any situation that may arise from day to day? On this point, Sir, I must point out that the day-to-day administration is the responsibility of the Government. After all, I think I am right, they are paid for the job! The present Government is a Labour Front Government - An hon. Member: Coalition.

- and not an all-party coalition, and any attempt to utilise the Committee that is to be appointed as a rubber stamp to justify its actions will be resisted by my Party. I will repeat, however, Sir, that if the Government will clarify this point and state clearly that it is not the intention of the motion to make use of this Committee as such, the motion will then receive our support. Finally, Sir, we would like to seek further clarification on a few other points. Since the motion is one that seeks an opinion, is the Committee one that is appointed by this Assembly, or is it one that is appointed by the Government? Furthermore, to whom will this Committee be responsible? And to whom will it submit its report? Will it submit its report direct to the Government or otherwise?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is one point which I want to bring to the notice of my hon. Friend the Minister for Education for his consideration. He stated that memoranda on the subject of this complex problem of Chinese education sent in by responsible individuals and bodies will be given every consideration by him and his Committee. I would, however, like to inform him that a number of persons have expressed their fears to me that many may refrain from sending in valuable contributions to the Committee if these have to bear their signature. To take an example: A teacher in a Chinese school, with firm but not necessarily popular ideas, might fear repercussions if he were to forward these ideas under his own name. I would he the first to say most emphatically that such fears should not exist, considering that memoranda will be examined in secret only by hon. Members of this House. But, nevertheless, I think we must not close our eyes to the fact that these fears may exist. I would, therefore, ask my hon. Friend to consider the advisability of announcing that he will accept unsigned or anonymous memoranda so long as these are obviously constructively and sincerely written, so that no aspect of public opinion may go unrepresented.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to congratulate the Minister for Education in having improved the phraseology of the motion which now lies before this House. Unlike the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong), I thought it was very prudent of the Minister for Education this morning not to place before the House a term of reference which says "to improve Chinese culture". Sir, I have great regard for the ability and capacity of Members of this House but I should think the improvement of Chinese culture is not one within their power! I would, however, Sir, like to take this opportunity to express the views of the People's Action Party and of many people, who are not members of the People's Action Party, but who bear similarly strong views on this subject of Chinese and vernacular education in general. In my opinion, if this Committee is not, as is feared by the Member for Serangoon, a rubber stamp to pilot the Government through a somewhat delicate and difficult problem, if it is to be more - if it is to approach a very difficult problem and try to find a long-term solution to this problem, then the terms of reference should be expanded. But before we expand the terms of reference in which - [Interruption.] Before I seek to expand the terms of reference. I must never forget that the Chief Minister has got 18 votes in this House! But before I seek to expand it, I would like to seek to reduce the terms of reference "to investigate the situation in Chinese schools in Singapore, and to make recommendations for the improvement and strengthening of Chinese education in the interests of Chinese culture and orderly progress towards self-government and ultimate independence in Singapore". Now, Sir, that runs against the whole grain of the People's Action Party, to think of ultimate independence in Singapore as divorced from the wider concept of independence in Malaya, and I would seek to delete the words "in Singapore". Then I would seek to add "and to review the whole policy of English and vernacular education in Singapore in order to formulate a considered linguistic policy for an independent Malaya". Sir, the Chief Minister has referred to the fears and uneasiness of a large section of the non-Chinese-speaking population in Singapore and in Malaya at the happenings that he has referred to in recent months. I think there is one basic principle which we must resolve if we are to convince, what the Chief Minister has said, the stolid, sensible and - I forgot his other "s" - the stolid, sensible and -

Solid.

- solid parents if we are to win these parents over and their offsprings, we have to face a very important, if we do not like it, we can call it prejudice - if we are not quite so prejudiced, we can call it -

Predilection.

- predilection; I thank the Chief Minister for his choice of words. But, nevertheless, we must face it. One of the greatest difficulties in instilling confidence in Chinese schools in Malaya is the fear that either the conscious or subconscious policy of the British Government in Malaya is the Anglicization of the Chinese in this country - a policy which may reduce Chinese into a secondary language in their own Chinese schools. It is this basic predilection, but a fact which must be faced, that we must resolve. Before we can resolve that, we must be able to review the whole position and then to decide whither we are going. All this talk of multi-lingualism, all this demand for multi-lingualism, has got wider implications than just voting people whom you like into either the Legislative Chamber or, (now it would appear not), the City and Island Council. It goes right down to the root of our educational policy. In a free and independent Malaya in which every Chinese, every Indian, every Malay, will no longer be Chinese, Malay or Indian but Malayan, what language or languages shall they speak? What language or languages shall the Government use? What language or languages will be acceptable to the people? What are the language or languages of an independent and democratic Malaya? They are thorny, delicate problems which many politicians would prefer to defer to some other day, when the problem should again reappear in acute form. But I feel if we are to face, to solve, this situation, we must be able to clear our minds, and the minds of the public, in the way that the Chief Minister has said. Where do we stand in this independent Malaya? The Malays want to know. The Indians want to know. And the Chinese want to know. They are all going to be Malayans in this independent Malaya, or they will leave this country. But they all speak their own languages. They all have their own bias. The policy of the colonial government hitherto - perhaps subconsciously, perhaps even consciously - has been one of Anglicization. Malayanisation has been equated to Anglicization - to produce a Malayan nation by making them all English, or learn English, or learn about Francis Drake and his bowls, and Sir Walter Raleigh and his cloak, and daffodils and buttercups, which they have never seen. This policy I think we must review, and we must reformulate. We cannot resolve the situation in Chinese schools as long as they - the parents, teachers, principals and students - feel that there is a conscious or even subconscious attempt to introduce more and more English into the Chinese schools. They fear one day the Chinese language in Chinese schools will be reduced to a secondary language, as is already happening in Malay schools, where there is this new policy of Malayanisation. I think the Minister for Housing can confirm this - that there was a definite policy to introduce the English language to such an extent in Malay schools that Malay parents were alarmed that their children will no longer be Malays. Now, Sir, if we allow each community to go on its own way and stir up all these extreme prejudices, then we are going to have a very difficult problem of synthesizing or composing various individual units which may then never merge. But we, I think, unlike the colonial government, cannot afford to ignore basic likes and dislikes - basic facts. One of these basic facts is that no racial or linguistic group in this country will give up its own language, its own culture, its own traditions, completely for either English or any other Anglicized form of Malayan language, culture, or tradition. But we must solve it, and it can be solved. In fact, it is the only way, or we must give up. If we cannot resolve this problem, then we must resign ourselves to a Malaya in which there will be internecine strife for years, and years, and years. I believe there are men with sufficient goodwill and - if I may borrow yet another phrase from the Hon. the Chief Minister - men of stature, in the Chinese, in the Malay, in the Indian and in the other communities, who will be able to rise up to the situation, to rise up to this problem. If you can resolve this point now, in the context of an independent Malaya which we are all going to build, then I say we are opening up the way, we are blazing a new trail. If we cannot, then we have just kept this problem for the future when it would probably reappear in an even more acute and unpleasant form. And it is for this reason that I seek to extend the terms of reference of this Committee. I think I must remind the Member for Serangoon that there is no danger of this Committee being made use of as a rubber stamp for the Government. Any member of this Committee who feels that the recommendations and deliberations are contrary to his belief, or the belief of his Party, has got the right to dissent. But if this Committee is to do more than just to try and patch up, or to bottle up, the present state of the schools in Singapore, then it must resolve this problem. Is it the policy in Singapore to have English introduced more and more into Malay and Chinese schools? Is it the policy to allow Chinese education to go on uninhibited in a completely Chinese orientated way? Similarly, with Malay and Indian education. Is that the policy of this Government of the Singapore Labour Front - U.M.N.O. - M.C.A. - M.I.C. and Malay Unions? Or is it their policy, with the support of other Parties in this House, to formulate a policy which will last, which will lead us to an independent Malaya? What is to be the lingua franca - English? Have we decided? Have we made up our minds? Have the people of Singapore and the people of Malaya decided on that? Is the introduction of multi-lingualism the forerunner of riotous confusion, as the Progressive Party so often so riotously expressed it? Or are we in our inarticulate ways trying to resolve a very difficult problem, a problem of building a nation where there are diverse linguistic and cultural groups, where cultural and linguistic susceptibilities are restricted, so that it may fit within the framework of national security, national aspirations? I would not like to suggest what the languages ought to be at this stage of the proceedings of a Committee which is yet to be formed. The problem must be tackled now. It cannot be resolved just by subconsciously carrying on a policy instituted by a colonial government of introducing English into all schools in the hope that, thereby, English would prevail in this country, and, thereby, we would all become Anglicized Malayans. I know the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat) has very strong views on this matter. I do not believe we cannot resolve the suspicion in Chinese schools. The allegation, the charge, is seriously meant, seriously intended - that the British Government is destroying the Chinese language and Chinese culture in these schools. You have to face them. One could shrug, one could laugh it off, as completely ridiculous. But if one does not face this problem, one will never resolve it. In every issue which arises over the schools you will find the management committees, the teachers, the parents, not as active supporters of - if I may borrow a phrase not from the Chief Minister but from His Excellency the Governor - "constituted authority". If you want to find them behind "constituted authority", then they must be satisfied that "constituted authority" is behind the things which they so basically desire. Sir, I myself have been extremely careful not to commit my Party or myself to any preconceived notions on this subject. All we say is that there is this very delicate problem. It must be dealt with, and it is no use confining ourselves to purely temporary and ephemeral measures which will bring about a lull in these schools, without resolving basic causes. And this is one of the basic causes. There may be others, I do not know. The Committee has not started its deliberations. But I am confident that this is one of the causes and we must resolve it. Whither are we going? Is it going to be a Malaya with a single language imposed on all its subjects? Or is it going to be a Malaya where various languages are allowed to foster and to flourish, but with a common thread running through them, with one lingua franca, or as the Minister for Housing would have it, one national language? What is to be that lingua franca? These are problems which I think we should seriously start to consider. I do not believe that the Labour Front Government is the people's government. I cannot agree with that because, as the Hon. the Chief Minister will admit, he had, in what I consider more disinterested moments, expressed a contrary view. It is very difficult for him but it is dangerous, this defending of a constitution which was once described as outmoded, because that was the slippery slope at the bottom of which lies the mangled political remains of his once political opponent in Cairnhill. If you want the people to believe those things, then certain radical alterations must be made to the constitution. Perhaps we might start now by trying to show them that we are prepared, that the Chief Minister and his colleagues are prepared, within what I surely will admit are very conscribed limits, to start tackling a very basic problem. I beg to move this amendment to the motion, and it is my hope that the Government will approach this is amendment, not with an idea that the P.A.P. seeks political advantage, but that the P.A.P. seeks to help the Government resolve a very difficult problem.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I support the motion, I wish to make it clear to the House -

Are you seconding this amendment?

Yes.

Thank you.

Second? - Can I, can I - ?

Order, order. I first want a seconder to the amendment proposed. Mr Lim, are you seconding the amendment?

No.

Then I want a seconder to the amendment, please.

Mr Speaker, I rise to second the amendment.

The Question was, inter alia, That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Committee be appointed with the following terms of reference - `to investigate the situation in Chinese schools in Singapore and to make recommendations for the improvement and strengthening of Chinese education in the interests of Chinese culture and orderly progress towards self-government and ultimate independence in Singapore'; since which amendments have been proposed to delete the words at the end of that Question, "in Singapore", and to add to the end of that Question the words "and to review the whole policy of English and vernacular education in Singapore in order to formulate a considered linguistic policy for an independent Malaya". It appears to me, hon. Members, that there are, in fact, two distinct Questions. One of them is not completely dependent on the other. I, therefore, will first propose the Question - that the words "in Singapore" at the end of the Question be left out of the original Question. However, that would not prevent Members from speaking on both of them. I hope I have made myself clear. The Question will be that the words "in Singapore" proposed to be left out at the end of the Question be left out. Members can speak on that Question, as well as on the other Question, which I shall put after we have disposed of the first Question. The Question, therefore, now is that the words "in Singapore" proposed to be left out of the original Question, be so left out.

I am happy, Mr Speaker, Sir, to inform the hon. Member opposite that Government will be delighted to accept the suggested deletion. It is somewhat improved language with an eye to neatness. I see that he has used the words "in Singapore" repeatedly. Government does accept the suggestion. Mr Lim Cher Kheng rose -

You are speaking on the amendment, Mr Lim?

No.

Nobody wishes to speak? Then I put that Question.

Question, "That the words `in Singapore' proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to.

The Question now is that the following words be added to the original Question, which has since been amended to leave out the words "in Singapore". I read out now the original Question as amended. The original Question, as amended, is: That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Committee be appointed with the following terms of reference - `to investigate the situation in Chinese schools in Singapore and to make recommendations for the improvement and strengthening of Chinese education in the interests of Chinese culture and orderly progress towards self-government and ultimate independence'. The Question now is that the following words be added to the end of that Question: "and to review the whole policy of English and vernacular education in Singapore in order to formulate a considered linguistic policy for an independent Malaya".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must confess I admire the temerity of the Member for Tanjong Pagar who asks us to lay down a linguistic policy for Malaya without asking the Federation to assist us in that effort, but all seems possible to the Member for Tanjong Pagar. He asks us to expand the terms of reference of this Committee which is now, with its limited reference, viewed with suspicion. It seems the Committee, if given these additional powers, would be beyond suspicion and quite capable of performing its duties but, with the sole question of reference being Chinese education, it must be viewed with suspicion. I think, Sir, that as far as I can see, this amendment is somewhat of a quibble. If the hon. Member would look a little more carefully at the terms of reference, he would not ask these rhetorical questions with which we have been this morning bombarded. Where are we going? Quo Vadis! What is our aim? Are we going to have Anglicization? Would he look at those last words, "in the interests of Chinese culture and orderly progress towards self- government and ultimate independence"? So the effort is not merely to strengthen Chinese education, but to strengthen it in the interests of Chinese culture within the framework of orderly progress towards self-government and ultimate independence. The Committee, Sir, was chosen with the assistance and at the suggestion of the Committee of Selection of this House, with the particular question of Chinese education in mind, and the terms of reference were so framed that I, for one, though not a Member, would understand that the Members are completely free and, in fact, are compelled, in the interests of strengthening Chinese education within the framework of our movement towards an independent Malaya, to consider not only Chinese education in Chinese schools, but the general education of Chinese pupils in schools teaching Chinese, and within that framework, it seems to me, they would be free to consider and advise on matters of languages to be taught in those schools other than Chinese. It is my view, Sir, that to seek to burden the Committee with parallel issues of vernacular education in other vernacular schools may impede what we desire in the way of rapidity in recommendations and their early implementation. It is unquestionable, Sir, that this House must be seized of the fact that the question of education in vernacular schools, other than Chinese, is under consideration by Government. The reorganisation of our entire educational system is under consideration, but the recent unhappy incidents, indicating an unhealthy position in a very important sector of our community, make it imperative that we should now move with some rapidity in order to clarify the issue and to see wherein lie our immediate efforts to strengthen Chinese education within the framework of an independent Malaya. The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) expressed the fear that we may be seeking to use the Progressive Party as a rubber stamp for our day-to-day problems. Now, Sir, I will confess that I have a high regard for the abilities of the Progressive Party as a rubber stamp, but I can assure them, and every Member of this House, that this Government does not use rubber stamps and has no need for them and, I hope, never will. I am happy to inform the Member for Serangoon that the idea is for long-term recommendations in order to strengthen Chinese education, to strengthen discipline within those schools, and to aim at fusing strong differing cultures into one whole - what my friend opposite, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, describes as synthesising the various cultures. I must confess it is with some surprise that I heard the Member for Tanjong Pagar again speak of the suspicion that we seek to destroy Chinese culture by Anglicization. The Committee, Sir, consists of nine members, of whom seven are Chinese, and eight of them were returned by the people in open elections. Apart from the impossibility of seeking to destroy culture which has survived, I am reliably informed, for seven thousand years, it seems to me the height of absurdity that there should be such a suggestion levelled against such a body, and if so levelled, I cannot see how the expansion of the terms of reference would in any way give it a better basis for working.

On a point of clarification, Sir. I did not suggest that the suspicion exists against the Committee which this House will this day constitute. I say this suspicion existed and still exists against the educational authorities of the former Colonial Government and the present Colonial Government cum Labour Front Government.

Sir, I must confess to a certain amount of, shall I say, unhappiness at the thought that there is anybody of intelligence in this country who would, for one single moment, imagine that the Coalition Government of this territory has any such ideas in mind. All our efforts have been directed toward the interests of the people, and at no time, despite our short life, have we failed them or showed any indication of what is called a colonial Anglicized outlook. However that may be, speaking now, Sir, on the amendment, I cannot see that the burdening of this Committee with the additional terms would, in any way, assist this body in coming to some clear decision on the policy it is necessary to formulate for the future of Chinese education within this territory. I feel, and I hope hon. Members here will agree, that the terms of reference are clear and that the Committee may, if it so feels inclined, recommend features of education in schools dedicated to teaching Chinese students in Chinese as well as in other matters, that they can indicate the languages which they think should be taught, and I am certain that this House will take full note of such recommendations. Other vernacular schools, Sir, will come under review at a later date.

On a point of information, Sir. May I ask the Hon. the Chief Minister whether, in his opinion, the terms of reference as they are would include the consideration of the teaching of the Chinese language in English schools?

May it please you, Sir, I do not know if there is such a thing as a "point of information"?

You need not answer, Mr Chief Minister, if you are not ready to answer.

Not at all, if it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I mean if there is such a thing as a "point of information", I will be glad to answer. I can give my personal view, and it is: the answer is, "Yes, certainly." You are to consider the strengthening of Chinese education -

In English schools!

Naturally! The strengthening of Chinese education is Chinese education, in schools dedicated to Chinese, and in all other schools. Sir, I do not like to say, "Chinese schools", "English schools", "Malay schools". May we say the strengthening of Chinese education in all schools in the Colony?

Question, "That the words 'and to review the whole policy of English and vernacular education in Singapore in order to formulate a considered linguistic policy for an independent Malaya' proposed to be added, be there added," put, and negatived. Main Question, as amended, proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I support the motion, I wish to make it clear to the House that if this motion is approved and carried, despite my appointment as a member of the Committee to investigate the situation in Chinese schools and to make recommendations for the improvement and strengthening of Chinese education, etc., I will reserve the right to express openly in this Assembly all my Party's views on educational policy and recommendations made by the said Committee. I hope and plead that someone who is really interested in Chinese education, someone who really realises the importance of Chinese education in this country should come forward - I sincerely appeal to these gentlemen to study and understand thoroughly the problems of the non-English-speaking people before they may reach any definite conclusions on Chinese education. I sincerely hope that this House will study and give us the full history of the growth of Chinese schools in Singapore. Personally, I much regret the recent trouble over the closure of the two Chinese schools. In my opinion, because I read two papers - English and Chinese - I feel that there is much difference of public opinion regarding this matter. I sincerely believe, Sir, that merely calling those Chinese students "little red devils" will achieve nothing. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Committee be appointed with the following terms of reference - `to investigate the situation in Chinese schools, in Singapore and to make recommendations for the improvement and strengthening of Chinese education in the interests of Chinese culture and orderly progress towards self-government and ultimate independence'; that the Committee do consist of the following - 1. Mr Chew Swee Kee (Chairman) 2. Mr Richard Chuan Hoe Lim 3. Mr Wong Foo Nam 4. Mr Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat 5. Mr Lim Yew Hock 6. Mr Lee Kuan Yew 7. Mr Goh Tong Liang 8. Mr Lim Cher Kheng 9. Mr M. P. D. Nair; that the Committee have powers to send for persons, papers and records; that 5 members of the Committee shall form a quorum; that the Committee do meet inside the Assembly House building.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Commission should be appointed to examine the Public Passenger Transport system of Singapore and to advise on its development. The intention of this Government is to nationalise passenger transport, and I think there is general agreement in this House that that should be done. Indeed, more than agreement, there is impatience in some quarters that that should be done as a matter of urgency. Now, I am moving for a Commission to study the matter before we go too fast into it, and I am aware that I shall be accused of going too slow and that we ought to go faster and instantly sign a notice to the Traction Company, saying that we are going to take them over. Perhaps, to indicate my respect for Chinese culture, amongst other things, I might here quote Confucius, "Do not try to do things in a hurry. Do not be intent on small gains. What is done quickly is not done thoroughly. When small gains are regarded, great things remain unaccomplished." Now, since there has been expressed elsewhere a sense of urgency and hurry in this matter, I feel that I ought to justify the time which will necessarily be taken up by having a Transport Commission to examine this matter, and I think the first thing that hours of gloom fulfilled". In the days I had better deal with is the meaning of the word "nationalisation", or rather the meaning to which this Government would wish to attach to that word. There are numerous meanings which you can attach to "nationalisation", not all of them ones which I would wish to support. It is quite clear from the way some people talk that they do not appreciate the difficulties involved in nationalisation. They envisage nothing more than a simple transaction by which the State purchases an article and then says, "I have now nationalised it." If that was what you are doing with a motor-car, it would, of course, be no more than a simple transaction. If the State wants to buy a motor-car, they buy it and it is then national property. When you are nationalising industry, it is a very different matter. You are not dealing merely with rolling-stock or buildings or stores. You are dealing, much more importantly, with human beings. It is not the mere matter of a transfer of control of the industry from private capitalist bureaucracy to public state bureaucracy. Now, this is where you do want to be careful if you are a capitalist, because capitalists very often tend to talk pure Communism. It is, in fact, the Communist view that that simple transfer of ownership is all that is necessary at the first stage. They do regard it simply as a straight development from private capitalism to State capitalism - I shall come to that in due course - but I do want to make it clear that there is a real difference between nationalisation, as we envisage it, and nationalisation, as capitalist-minded people often envisage it. A friend of mine was saying to me recently, about two days ago, that he could see only a hair's breadth of difference between social democracy and Communism. Now, if he had said there was only a hair's breadth of difference between capitalism and Communism, I should have been very much inclined to agree with him, because both capitalism and Communism seek to have a small powerful group, or gang, which dominates the economy and controls the State. That is the traditional background of both of them. They are sisters under the skin. Social democracy is a matter of distributing freedom and responsibility throughout the social system as far as you can, and does envisage not the maximum control by the smallest group of the elite that you can get together, but the maximum distribution that you can achieve and the continually developing distribution of freedom and responsibility, so that you can, in the end, arrive at your fully free, fully harmonious society. The Social Democrat must reject the Marxist idea of a vast lumpen proletariat and small cadres of the elite who organise it into appropriate demonstrations of support and, if necessary, bludgeon the lumpen proletariat into the policies that they want carried out. So that in this matter of taking over the Traction Company - and I am sure that there are people who, in spite of what I am saying, will want to go in for a State capitalist type of transfer - I think we ought to examine the experience of other countries in regard to State capitalism. And we had better go back, I think, to 1929 where Russia's First Five-Year Plan says that the workers' present-day needs are repudiated in the name of a monumental historical purpose. It is in Russia that the techniques of State capitalism have been developed and it is, of course, in China today, where the Chinese People's Government is seeking to follow in that line. In the 1949 Common Programme of the People's Government, you will find Article 31 which says that "the economy based on co-operation of State capital and private capital is of a State capitalist nature. Whenever necessary and possible, private capital shall be encouraged to develop in the direction of State capitalism." And, of course Li Wei-han, a veteran Communist leader in China, said the same thing again in 1953 - "State capitalism is the first step in the socialist transformation of private industry and private commerce." The Communist view is that when you have completed the process of State capitalism, and taken over the whole economy under the direct control of the State bureaucracy, you then achieve the lower phase of Communism and you will pass on automatically, they hope, into the higher phase of Communism, You can put it more simply, if you like, by saying that their view is that you make the State machine all-powerful and, by doing so, you destroy it. This is not a view that I can accept at all. It is armchair theorising which bears no relation to the findings of modern research. The whole error and evil of capitalist thinking - whether it is private capitalist or State capitalist - is that it values the machine too high and the human being too low. It is too excited about technology and about the possible advances in the use of technology, and it ignores the rights and the needs of the human beings who are involved in technological change. As a result of this sociological ignorance, when you make a transfer from private ownership - as with the Singapore Traction Company - to State ownership, if you make it in this simple State capitalist type of transfer, you are liable to run into very serious difficulties in your labour relations. The State, as it becomes the owner, inherits all the antagonisms which have been built up under private capitalism. The class relations of private capitalism have produced certain attitudes in the workers - attitudes of suspicion, attitudes of enmity, attitudes of fear - and when, by a stroke of the pen and signing of a cheque, you take over this private capitalist enterprise into public ownership, you are liable to carry with your purchase all those ill-feelings which can be so disastrous. Now, the Member for Seletar (Mr M. P. D. Nair), in our debate on the Governor's Address, suggested that the essential test of socialism was whether we were prepared to hurry blindly into State capitalism for this matter of transport. I hope I am interpreting him correctly - he will have an opportunity of interpreting his own words later on if he wants to - but he stressed that the true test was whether we got on immediately with taking over of the Singapore Traction Company, and if we did not do so, he proposed to put up a motion that we should do so. Now, the true test of socialism is not whether you are prepared to jump into a thing without looking at it thoroughly. There are two tests. I think, which meet the Member for Seletar's point. The first test of socialism is that you have a determination to secure a planned economy; and the second test is a determination that the plan should meet the needs of the people and should distribute freedom and responsibility as widely as possible. Well, I presume that there will still be speeches in favour of State capitalism, and I think I had better continue to outline some of its defects by practical examples. I have already told this House that, under the Russian theory of State capitalism, the present-day needs of the workers were, and to a considerable extent are, repudiated in the name of a monumental historical purpose. In theory, the workers accept and endorse this repudiation of their present-day needs. In fact, of course, very severe coercion is needed to compel the workers to accept the low standard of living and poverty in which they are compelled to live, and I will give you a few examples of some of the decrees which, from time to time, have been used. In 1929, there was a Russian State decree imposing a minimum of three years' imprisonment and the maximum of death by shooting for people who damaged transport installations. I am sure that some of the more excitable authoritarians of Singapore would have welcomed the existence of such a decree for dealing with the people who damaged the Hock Lee buses. In fact, there were people who were anxious to have the bullet take the place of persuasion, and I can only say to the authoritarian-minded person that a good Social Democrat does not wish to fly into the powers of coercion. Those powers must exist. You may always come across the man who is quite unamenable to anything except a sock on the jaw, and, if so, you have to give him a sock on the jaw. But they are not normally necessary and they should be kept in the background as far as they possibly can; and we look forward, of course, to a society some day in which those powers will not be used and will not be necessary.

On a point of order.

On a point of order.

I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, to ask whether this schoolmaster's lecture is relevant to this motion -

Objection!

Yes, Mr Ede, you must first withdraw the expression 'schoolmaster'.

I withdraw.

I confess that I am wondering whether what the Minister was saying is, in fact, relevant to the motion. Perhaps he could carry on for a bit, then I will stop him if he is not relevant.

I expected that somebody would rise to object to this exposition. I expected he would appear from the capitalist party! [Interruption.] I expected that the capitalist party would fall into this trap! If I may look a little further ahead, I have provided for myself to say that I expected that there were Members present in the House who were not familiar with this sort of approach to industrial relations and who were not accustomed even to listen to expositions of theory. But I have sought to justify my exposition of theory by indicating the nature of the take-over which ought to take place in your nationalising an industry and by seeking to indicate the defects of the automatic take-over of State capitalism, as compared to the co-operative type of take-over of the Social Democrat; and, subject to your stopping me, Mr Speaker, I will continue with my exposition of these facts, until you indicate that I have exhausted your capacity for objections. A 1940 decree - I am only quoting these instances to indicate that when you take over industry under State capitalist methods, you do automatically inherit a great deal of labour difficulties, and I think that that is obviously a point which must be considered if you are taking over an industry - a 1940 decree in Russia: two to four months' imprisonment for going out for a smoke, or for going to the lavatory without the foreman's permission; corrective labour and 25 per cent cut in pay for coming twenty minutes late to work. Now, that sort of thing does indicate a tremendously bad state of labour relations if you have to have penalties of that nature in order to control your workers and keep them at their jobs. Well, it is a horrible state of labour relations and they ought not to exist. On the collective farms Mr Mgeladze reported in the Georgian Soviet Republic that nearly 25 per cent of the workers were not completing their proper number of labour days. And in the Chinese People's Republic, the Peking People's Daily lists some of the means of conflict employed against the State capitalist system by workers who do not dare have recourse to open sabotage. There again, of course, the workers are compelled to obey by corrective labour. However, I will now pass on to the practical problem before us. The problem is to get a take-over of industry in which you will not have a head-on collision between the workers and the employer who, in this case, will be the Government. When you had the recent Hock Lee trade dispute, it was possible for Members of the Government to intervene and mediate. It would not be so easy for them to do so if the Government was, in fact, the employer. This is not a matter of small importance but a matter of very great importance indeed, one which should exercise the minds of the House. The problem of these industrial relations will occur anywhere. It has occurred in the nationalised industries in the United Kingdom, and is occurring today in the Singapore Harbour Board. The achievement of good industrial relations is basic and vital but it is not easy. Incentive schemes, revisions of pay, working conditions, joint consultation, do not in themselves provide good industrial relations, nor, of course, do the capitalist and State capitalist techniques of coercion, repression, corrective labour, im- prisonment and shooting; it goes much deeper than that. So I hope I have made it clear that I reject State capitalism as the objective in taking over of the Traction Company, and I hope, without prejudging what the experts will advise, that we may look towards what Dr. Ramanohar Lohia, the Indian Socialist, has called 'immediacy'. I am happy to see that the -

On a point of information, Sir, is the motion - "That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Commission should be appointed to examine the Public Passenger Transport system of Singapore and to advise on its development" - or is it a motion on a lecture on socialism, capitalism, State management, industrial relations, Communist Russia, or the People's Republic of China? Which is it?

The point has been raised, Mr Lee.

The point has been raised, but unfortunately the Member for Tanjong Pagar was out of the room! The point I am making, if I may go back to the satisfaction of the hon. Member, is that I am afraid that there may be Members here who will wish to jump into what they will call 'nationalisation' without sufficient thought and without proper planning, and I am trying to argue that that would be a most dangerous thing to do and that a Commission is necessary to advise us before we go too fast into the matter of taking over transport. However, I will pass on, if I may, to a point which was made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar in the debate on the Governor's Address, when he was dealing with this question of nationalised industry; and I may say that, far apart as their political views are, the Member for Tanglin made a point of rising to say that he fully agreed and endorsed the matter which the Member for Tanjong Pagar had put forward. The Member for Tanjong Pagar directed our attention primarily to the profits which might be made - the potential profits which might be made-out of the transport system if it was taken over by Government. He pointed out that nationalised transport everywhere else in the world - so he said - made profits and we could make big profits here too. I was rather surprised at this because it seemed to me to show much less than his usual clear thinking and careful study of the matter under consideration. I should like to say most definitely that the aim is not to establish a monopoly to exploit the workers and to exploit the public. This is by no means our intention, and I hope that you will take note of it and, if you have ever at any time thought that it was, that you will duly repent. The aim is to end exploitation and to produce an efficient service to the public, and I very clearly said so when I was replying to the Address. If we can end exploitation and produce an efficient service, then the public and the whole economy will benefit, and that is the benefit which you seek from nationalisation. It is perfectly true, probably, and I expect Members will agree, that there is no reason, as far as I can see at present, why publicly-owned transport in Singapore should not be, in fact, a sound, economic proposition. It should be able to pay for itself. It should be able to accumulate capital for its own development and expansion and extension and improvement, and it may even be possible for a Transport Authority without exploitation to make a contribution to general revenue. But the revenue derived by Government from it is not the first consideration; it is very far from being so. Now I want to give my most emphatic assurance again that there is no intention to exploit the Government's dominance of the transport situation and there is no intention of repudiating the present-day needs of the workers for a monumental historical purpose. So much for the Government attitude. I would point out that it is not enough for the Government to have the correct attitude. The correct attitude must permeate the whole nationalised industry, and that is the point why you need a Commission, because these matters of labour relations are very, very badly understood in Singapore. There would not be half the strife that there is if there were good labour relations on a proper scientific basis. A lot of ignorant people and excitable people involve themselves on the managerial side and on the workers' side, and muddle the situation up in a quite unnecessary way. I am not saying that everything is well with the workers or with management; the industries are not necessarily perfectly run. But I do say that the methods of joint consultation, methods of industrial democracy, which ought to exist, are by no means fully developed and until they have been developed, you will not get satisfactory labour relations; and I therefore hope that we shall be able to get from this Commission some guidance and leadership on the matter of how the labour relations problem should be envisaged in dealing with the nationalisation of passenger transport. It involves matters of training, selection, promotion, joint consultation, all kinds of organisational matters which are highly technical and which I will not weary this House by attempting to expound. If anybody asks me to, I will be very happy to say something about them. Now there is in the United Kingdom the London Passenger Transport Board. It is one of the largest industries in that country and employs some hundred thousand persons. It has been under national ownership for nearly a generation, and it has an excellent record both for technical efficiency in providing transport services, and for efficiency and happiness and harmony in its labour relations. We are hoping to get, as our expert, somebody who has a thorough knowledge of the working of the London Passenger Transport Board, and of other transport organisations, who will be able to bring to our problems here the expert knowledge derived from long experience elsewhere. I hope that I shall be able to make an announcement about that shortly. Now I will pass on to a matter I will deal with much more briefly, because it is almost purely a technical matter. I have in my office a very nice map showing the present transport system of Singapore Island - the passenger transport system on the roads. I thought of bringing it into this Chamber and displaying it, but I thought it would only cause alarm and confusion. If any Member would like to see it sometime, either call at my office or I will bring it across to this House. All you can say about it is that it is not easy to understand how it arose or why it should exist. In fact, there has been a long outcry against the present system of passenger transport in this country by the public and by the workers, and there is a massive problem before us to bring order out of this state of confusion. This is a technical matter in which we must not seek to prejudge the advice which the Commission will give; it is a matter which should be considered by an impartial expert and not be bedevilled by the various interests that do operate in Singapore. I would like to say this, however, about the transport services - that in the rural areas, there does seem to me a very real need for an expansion of transport services, and I am sure that many Members in this House will agree with me. If you extend the map that I have - it does not cover the whole island - it shows the core of the problem, but, of course, as you extend outwards, you get a thin line leading off to Johore and a thin line leading off to Changi, and so on, and then great masses of the country have, in fact, no transport services at all. They have not even got roads. All they have got are tracks, and pretty bad tracks at that, and I hope that this Commission will be able to take account of that problem, and that we shall be able to do something for the rural areas as part of the general problem of getting the public transport system of this country both into a rationalised state and into a nationalised state. Finally, I must, I suppose, deal briefly with the financial aspects of the takeover. I shall move with the greatest caution in the jungle of case law which is applicable to such matters and which confronts you, because, as soon as you pick up one word of the thing, you find that it has a long string of interpretations behind it which goes back to sometime in the previous century or, possibly, to Magna Carta. I think I had better perhaps read to hon. Members Section 29, because the newspapers do not seem to have read it, and possibly hon. Members are not familiar with precisely what this matter of the take-over of the Singapore Traction Company is. This is Section 29 of the Singapore Traction Ordinance: "The Commissioners may within six months after the fifth day of June, 1955 or within six months after the expiration of any subsequent period of seven years or within three months after the making of any Order by the Governor in Council under either of the two immediately preceding sections by notice in writing to the Company require the Company to sell and thereupon the Company shall sell to the Commissioners (that is the City Council now) the whole Undertaking, land, buildings, generating stations, substations, car sheds, works, materials, stores, rolling-stock and plant of the Company as a going concern. The total price failing agreement shall be fixed by arbitration, and in arriving at such total price the Arbitrator shall have regard to the fair market value of the Undertaking, as a going concern, but without any allowance being made for compulsory purchase." Hon. and learned Members of the House may wish to put their minds to work on what interpretation could be put on that Section when you are trying to fix a price for the take-over of the Singapore Traction Company, or when you are taking over. Or, if you cannot take it over by an agreed price, what interpretation an arbitrator would put if he was trying to decide what the price should be? The phrases "the whole Undertaking" and "as a going concern" are not as simple phrases as they may appear, and I am sure that the lawyers will find plenty of employment in deciding what they mean. I think I might also, in regard to the financial aspects, quote from a Press cutting from the Stock Exchange Gazette. This has the rather rural heading of "Magpie's Gossip". It is not at all rural in its contents. "Rather more than a year ago, I was able to pass on the news that the Singapore City Council had decided to adopt the Report of a Committee which recommended the purchase of the Singapore Traction Company undertaking. On the basis of this Report, the shares looked a most attractive proposition at the prevailing price of around 26 shillings, and the quotation, in fact, soon improved to well over 30 shillings. Legitimate anticipations engendered by the favourable attitude of the Council in the matter of nationalisation of the transport company were, however, knocked on the head."

The Progressives were in then!

Order, please.

Perhaps I shall, Sir, read the end of this article: "At their present price of 23 shillings and 3 pence the shares provide a generous gross yield of over eleven per cent. I have previously estimated the real value of the assets as equivalent to at least 40 shillings, and one may reasonably assume that the figure has been enhanced during the past twelve months. The take-over prospect must now be viewed with circumspection." "Magpie's Gossip" will no doubt be receiving cuttings of reports of this debate. "I am not at all sure that this aspect of the position should be completely set aside. The will to transfer the Singapore transport services to the basis of a public utility is obviously there, and usually where there is a will, there is a way. Furthermore, it may well be that last month's Singapore elections, which have established the Labour Front as the strongest Party, will have an important bearing on future developments. At all events, the Labour Party is strongly in favour of nationalisation of utilities, including transport." So much for "Magpie's Gossip". I do not know anything about it at all myself. I do not deal on the London Stock Exchange. I do not know who "Magpie" is, and I do not necessarily endorse what he says. That is what the Stock Exchange Gazette has to say about the profitability of ownership of shares in the Singapore Traction Company. There is one other point that I think I might let hon. Members know about, if I can find it in my jumble of papers. It is about the Singapore Traction Company Accounts for 1954. I will pass over most of them and turn to the fixed assets which are recorded at the head of the column: "Fixed Assets - Traction Ordinance and Goodwill, �228,144". I leave it to hon. Members to form their own opinions about that. I merely lay it before you as one aspect of the problem which exists, but that is the Singapore Traction Company's estimate of the value of its Ordinance and its goodwill. I make no further comment. I have indicated, at rather great length perhaps, that there is a need for expert advice and consideration before we hurry too fast into this matter of nationalisation. We do not call in a doctor and then decide what we are going to tell him to prescribe for us. I hope that Members will make many comments and have many ideas to contribute to this matter of public ownership of the transport system. The object of this motion is to provide Members with an opportunity for a debate, and you have the opportunity. I hope you will take the fullest advantage of it. Speaking for myself, I shall most certainly welcome all contributions that Members have in the way of ideas, or suggestions, or expert knowledge, and I hope that they will be forthcoming in large quantity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I second the motion. Question proposed.

I thank the Minister for Communications and Works for his very lengthy lecture on social democracy, capitalism and what not, but I must confess that I have learnt very little from it, particularly when he tried to convince me that democratic socialism is much further apart from Communism than capitalism, and that the difference between Communism and capitalism is by a hair's breadth. Now, Sir, there is urgency in this matter, and that has been definitely stated in His Excellency's Address when he says, "The unsatisfactory state of public transport calls for early action, and to this end the Government contemplates the setting up of a Transport Authority which will include in its functions the allocation of routes and the fixing of fares." It is well-known that Government, consisting of the Labour Front and its associate coalition Parties, has committed itself to nationalise the tran- sport system. So why wait and cause all the uncertainty of this unsatisfactory state of public transport that is going on? We all know that no public company can run efficiently if it has the Sword of Damocles hanging over it, a cloud of acquisition in a very, very short time. This cloud has been hanging over the Singapore Traction Company for many years, as a result of which I am quite certain as much money as possible has been paid out in dividends or in other ways instead of being ploughed back into the Company. That is one of the reasons why I think the buses here are now by no means a great credit to our City. We do not see the latest types of buses which are being run in London by the Road Transport Board. What we want Government to do is to acquire the Singapore Traction Company, and you can take all the time you like to straighten out how to take over from the Company, and to go to arbitration for the price they ask for. I admit I have not been able to study the Ordinance particularly well, and I would have liked an opportunity to study Section 29 and speak after the Adjournment; but, to my mind, all these things can be worked out. There is no such thing as no strikes in a Government-owned transport system. When the Labour Government in Great Britain was in power, there were strikes also, and strikes will have to be faced by the present Government if it takes over the Singapore Traction Company. It has got to be worked out, either now or later on, and why should you have all this uncertainty of the public having to suffer a bad transport system which we have in Singapore? Instead of Government proceeding to acquire this Company, it has now just asked for permission to examine the transport system and advise on its development. It appears to me that this is an attempt to build a "red-tape" for the Hon. the Chief Minister to practise, using the pair of scissors given to him by his electors. The urgency in this case is that if we do not exercise the right under Section 29 to purchase the Singapore Traction Company, we may have to wait for seven years before the opportunity arises again, and then you will still have the same prolongation of the uncertainty of acquisition. The Progressive Party, on the other hand, knows its mind and has filed a motion in the City Council asking it to exercise its rights under the Ordinance. That is our complaint today: that the Labour Government, instead of governing the country, is spending its time trying to form committees and commissions. Apart from the Powers and Privileges Bill, there are only three matters of substance in today's agenda - in two, Government is asking for committees to be formed, and in the third for a commission. We want Government to govern us and carry out its duties. Do not be afraid to do things. Acquire first, and then iron everything out later.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very unhappy when I have to agree with any of the remarks made by some Members on my side of the House because they often agree for very different reasons but I am pleased to say today that the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) has given a reason which I think is fairly sound and fairly reasonable. The Labour Front should make up its mind what it is going to do about the Singapore Traction Company. It came out with clear and concise statements on its election platform. If it was thought necessary that we should do research on social democracy, industrial relations, the United States or the Socialist Republic of Russia, all the rest of it, that should have been in the election platform. The long and short of it is this - let us have a Commission because we really do not know what to do about it. Let us therefore take the ipse dixit of someone whom we are going to import from the London Passenger Transport Board and "I will tell you who it is on some other appropriate occasion when I am in an awful situation and then I will bring this rabbit out of the top hat and say, 'I have got the people.' If I have not got the answers I have the people who have the answers." I thought that the Minister for Works was a confirmed Socialist. After what I understand was a lengthy recitation on many other topics besides transport, of which happily I was only able to hear the tail end, I am quite confused now as to where he intends going. Is he going to take the S.T.C. buses and settle "Magpie's" doubts or is he not? Is he deterred from taking over the S.T.C. because he cannot understand Section 29? What is the difficulty? Is it the price fixing? If it is, well the price fixing can always be settled as a separate matter. That has nothing to do with the principle whether or not the Singapore Traction Company should cease to be a private monopoly, and become either a State monopoly or a State corporation. The latter is a completely different problem and when Members on this side of the House also say that it should be so, then I think the Labour Front should have confidence in going boldly forward, quite certain that there will be no sniping at its flanks. What I am really astounded at is that the Member for Paya Lebar had really given us, quite unintentionally I am sure, the evils of capitalism. When a company is faced with a situation which it knew must come sooner or later when it first started, when it must face dissolution or nationalisation, it deliberately sends out capital from the country, and runs buses which in his opinion (and I am glad to hear that he has good taste in buses) are a disgrace. Therefore this disgraceful capitalist should be allowed to leave decently. He should have all his doubts resolved now. Let us take them over and let us pay them the compensation for it. I am quite sure that "Magpie", whoever he is, cannot be altogether unaware when he made his estimate of the worth of buying shares in a company which is going to be taken over, cannot be altogether unaware that the then Colonial Government cum its Progressive Party aides were favourably disposed to the susceptibilities of employers who have to look for further employment in some other part of the world. I do not understand the change in his estimation at the tail end of "Magpie". I should have thought that one of the reasons why the Member for Paya Lebar is anxious that we should resolve the doubts of those who own the Singapore Traction Company is that it is quite likely that if the matter persists long enough the situation may well reach that point where, after an intensive course of lectures on socialism, capitalism, Communism and the differences between them all, that Transport Company will find that its balance sheet is no longer the test of the worth of the Company. The stocks and shares in the Stock Exchange may take very rapid turns long before the take-over. I think we should not be unduly constrained by the thought that if we miss this opportunity we shall not have it again for seven years. Laws are made to be unmade and to be remade. The Hon. the Attorney General has passed one this morning with the greatest of ease. I think we should not have the slightest difficulty in amending Section 29. Let it never be forgotten that this House cannot bind itself. No government can. Certainly I do not believe that any government should bind itself on the question of public passenger transport. There are in fact two very different problems, one - public passenger transport as depicted in this beautiful map with red lines and blue lines growing thinner and thinner as they depart away from the City. Two, the problem of the Singapore Traction Company. One is a long-term problem. The other is an immediate one. In my opinion a Commission is completely irrelevant in so far as it is to help the Government make up its mind on the Singapore Traction Company. No one on this side of the House would deny the Government the assistance of a Commission to investigate and to explore the question of public ownership and public transport. Where the Singapore Traction Company is concerned, that is a different matter. We, on this side of the House, hope there will be a clear and categorical statement of policy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this debate seems to have degenerated into a question of whether we are to purchase a certain commercial concern, which is very much concerned with being bought out at the moment because, as far as I can discover, its shares stand at a low price and because by the valuation which it places based on the interpretation of the section in question, the shareholders will get about four times the money which they can now get in the open market. I think it can be easily realised why there is this anxiety that we should buy the Singapore Traction Company shares. We have the City Council, Sir, coming into it now. They are going to buy the Singapore Traction Company with peanuts, I suppose. I do not quite know how they expect to get the money. Only this Assembly can give them the money, and this Government is not going to give the City Council the money to purchase the Singapore Traction Company. Let that be clear. The Singapore Traction Company is not going to be taken over at this juncture. We regret we are not distributing Hari Raya bonuses to the shareholders in London or in Singapore. We are accused of not running the Government, but of merely appointing commissions. We do not need commissions to help us make up our minds. We need commissions in order to assist us to put into operation the ideas which we have in mind. We do not know all the answers, and we are not ashamed to confess it. We have our policies and they are clear, but we do need assistance in putting them in force. I see no necessity for taking over the Traction Company now. We will take it over in due course, but we will take it over as part of a whole, not piecemeal, to please any individual shareholder. Mr Francis Thomas rose -

Mr Thomas, in reply?

I do not feel that I need say very much, Mr Speaker, Sir, on what the Member for Paya Lebar said about the Sword of Damocles, and not the sword of democracy, hanging over the Singapore Traction Company. He said it could not run satisfactorily. Of course, the Committee that sat on the Traction Company sat for three years holding the Sword of Damocles over their heads. The Traction Company does not itself hold the view on which the Member for Paya Lebar feels so tenderly. "I am unable to say what the policy of the Government may be in regard to public passenger transport. The policy we have adopted throughout is to plan ahead without reference to any possible take-over." That is the Chairman's firm asseveration. He is not worried about the take-over. They are planning ahead on the understanding that the take over may or may not come about. They quite recognise that they do not know what the policy might be; they do not mind about it apparently in the least, and they are quite happy to make 12 per cent dividend. If it is a matter of whether they are ploughing their capital back you can argue about that if you want to. They are ordering 40 Guy Arab single deck bus chassis with Gardner engines, and pre-selector gear-boxes; and a further 18 if they want them. So they are putting a certain amount more into action and, of course, that all increases the price of the take-over if you do take-over. I cannot agree with the argument that we should acquire first and iron everything out afterwards. I have spent a long time in trying to explain why it was a bad thing to do. I am afraid the Member for Paya Lebar admitted that he had learnt very little from what I had said, and I will repeat the old crack about "I can give you arguments but I cannot give you brains to understand them." There is no urgency to make up our minds right now as, though the City Council is rushing into a motion, we have right up to the 5th December to do so. If you want to take it up under Section 29 of the Ordinance, there is no particular hurry to take it up by tomorrow or the next day. There is no reason why you should not have the Commission to give you advice in three months' time and you will still have plenty of time to write a letter if you want to and arrange for the take-over. It is not such a difficult matter as all that to write a letter to the Traction Company if you want to; and I cannot think there is anything else much to reply to. The Member for Tanjong Pagar seems, on the whole, to agree with me. He seemed to start by disagreeing and to finish up by agreeing, I thought; but I did not quite follow his argument, except that he wanted to indicate that we had not made up our minds, and I hope that he now realises that we have.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Commission should be appointed to examine the Public Passenger Transport system of Singapore and to advise on its development. Sitting suspended at 12.34 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in rising to move the motion standing in my name, I wish to state that my colleagues and I do not feel disposed to agree with the Rendel Constitutional Commission's recommendations on local government by which the City and Island Council would become a single local government authority with jurisdiction over the whole island of Singapore and responsible for the majority of local government functions on an island-wide basis. This idea of a single island-wide local authority in Singapore, with a large city population and a not inconsiderable rural population and its admixture of the city area and much larger rural area, does not adequately fulfil one of the primary functions of local government, which is to give the maximum opportunity for the largest number of the community to take part in local government. Local government service is the place where people learn, and this political education is very necessary to the whole process of the democratic state. Therefore, the more opportunities people get of taking part in local government, the better it would be for Singapore. Then, again, I consider that rural and urban interests are conflicting and incompatible and that it is hardly expected of a small City and Island Council of 24 (32 if aldermen are included) to hold the balance between the urgent needs and interests of the urban areas and those of the rural areas. The ideals, ways of life and the conception of the art of living of the urban dweller are diametrically opposed to those of the rural dweller. To rural inhabitants in Singapore, living in areas far away from the centre of activity, the City and Island Council could become an impersonal body. It is also advisable to consider whether it is desirable to have on this island two authorities - the Legislative Assembly and the City and Island Council - of such size and powers. The concept of government in Singapore, in my view, should be to establish the Legislative Assembly as emphatically the responsible body for the welfare of the island as a whole, while at the same time bringing local government matters of suitable character much closer to the real control and interests of the rate-payers. Therefore, in consequence of the foregoing reasons, the whole question of reform of local government in Singapore should be considered afresh. To that end, my motion indicates the lines on which the suggested reforms should take. It is proposed to appoint a committee to inquire into the desirability of decentralising the powers and functions of the City Council and the Rural Board, and inquire into and make recommendations on the desirability of setting up District Councils appropriately named and responsible for local government functions in different geographical areas of the island, having regard to the municipal status of the older parts of the city area. In my view, the Royal Charter establishing Singapore as a city need not, I think, be a block to reorganisation of this kind. As part of the reorganisation, also, this committee is being asked to inquire into and make recommendations on the desirability of establishing statutory corporations responsible for the supply of water, electricity and gas and for any other services now performed by the City Council. I am aware that the Rendel Commission recommended that public utilities like water, electricity and gas should, for the time being at any rate, be placed under the City and Island Council. But it is considered that this aspect of local government reform could be inquired into again. Naturally also, in considering the reform of local government in Singapore, it will be necessary also to inquire into and to make recommendations on the re-allocation of the functions and financial responsibilities between the Government and local authorities. Appendix One of the Rendel Report lists the main functions proposed for the City and Island Council. It appears to me that a number of the larger of these functions could very appropriately be transferred to one or other of the Ministries, while other functions might be retained as municipal by the local councils. Finally, in keeping with this Government's declared intention to introduce multi-lingualism into the proceedings of local authorities, this committee is being asked to recommend the procedure to be adopted and also the languages in addition to English which should be allowed. Mr Speaker, Sir, I now formally move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Committee should be appointed to enquire into the desirability of decentralising the powers and functions of the City Council and the Rural Board and in particular: (a) to enquire into and make recommendations on the desirability of setting up District Councils responsible for local government functions in different geographical areas of Singapore; (b) to recommend names for such District Councils and the boundaries within which they should function having regard to the municipal status of the older parts of the city area; (c) to enquire into and make recommendations on the desirability of establishing statutory corporations responsible for the supply of water, electricity and gas and for any other services now performed by the City Council; (d) to enquire into and make recommendations on the re-allocation of the functions and financial responsibilities between the Government and the local authorities; (e) to make recommendations on the procedure to be adopted to allow the business of the local authorities to be conducted in languages in addition to English and to recommend which languages should be allowed; and to report in accordance with the foregoing provisions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion moved by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing. As Members are aware, I have been for over four years connected with the City Council of Singapore as an elected Councillor. I can therefore claim to have some knowledge of the workings of local government. Local government, by its very nature, is essentially one that is closely connected with the daily life of the people. The decisions taken by a local government body regulate the day-to-day life of the population and so much so that they become part and parcel of the life and habits of the population. It is therefore very desirable that the local government body should be brought as close to the people as possible, and that the public in every part of the island should feel that they are closely associated with and are themselves responsible for taking decisions which affect their day-to-day life, and particularly decisions which affect their own locality. A system of allowing the people in each district to regulate their own day-to-day life to suit their own local conditions would be impossible with the establishment of an island-wide local government authority, as is recommended in the Rendel Commission's Report. Such an island-wide local body could, at its best, be only very remotely connected with the people, and I think this remote connection with the people is the main objection to an island-wide body. I therefore have pleasure in seconding the motion. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have just heard yet another invitation, this time from my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, to avoid the awful moment of decision and at a time when we were promised the First Reading of the City and Island Council Bill, to join a committee for the reconsideration of the entire problems of local government. The hon. Members opposite remind me of the words of the old hymn - "They shivered on the dreadful brink and feared to launch away." An hon. Member: On Progressive waters!

This is the most astonishing about-turn that the Government has yet made in its short life. At least on the question of public transport we had an inkling of what was to come when an election pledge for the nationalisation of transport was watered down in His Excellency the Governor's speech to the establishment of a transport authority to deal with routes and fares, and thence by easy stages to the setting-up of a commission. Let me, however, remind the House of the statements we have already had in this Chamber on the coming City and Island Council Bill. In the Governor's speech we heard that "a Bill to establish the City and Island Council will be ready for consideration by the Assembly in the near future". A few days later the Hon. the Chief Minister, in opening the debate on the Governor's speech, stated as follows: "It had been hoped that today we would have at least one more Bill tabled, the City and Island Council Bill. The Government recognises how urgent is the measure and how important that we should not further prolong the prolonged life of the present City Council." The following day the Chief Minister, addressing the, Member for Seletar (Mr M. P. D. Nair), stated that "there may be room for pleasant surprise in the meeting to come on the City and Island Council Bill." The surprise of indecision and delay after so much promise of prompt performance is an unpleasant one; all the more so because we were only given 24 hours' notice of this retreat from a prepared position. So, instead of carrying on at once with what only a month ago was an urgent measure we are to go three or four years in reverse to reconsider the ground covered by the Hill Report, the recommendations of the Rendel Commission, and all the committee reports and memoranda which have been poured out on all these subjects. I would further add that the present Government has no mandate for such a step from the electorate who put them in power. I do not propose, Sir, to consider the various questions raised by this motion in detail today, nor can I be expected at 24 hours' notice to do so, but one or two points need to be made. As regards the principles of decentralisation of local government functions, as advocated largely by Dr. Hill, it has to be remembered that we are dealing with a small area of about 220 square miles. Will it be economical, will it be expeditious, will it be efficient, to have numerous District Councils dotted over the island to carry on rural administration, and what will the effect be of making the City Council, or whatever the Central Municipal Authority will be called in the future, even more powerful and more of the 'big brother' in its relationship with them than is the case with the Rural Board today? Shall we not have District Councils with different policies on, say, hawkers or attap-housing or water-borne sewerage? And how are overlapping and extravagance and delays in administration to be avoided? For many years we have had the example before us of dual control in traffic matters, the City Council being responsible for certain aspects of traffic control, and the Government Traffic Police responsible for others. And no hon. Member here would care to say that that was an ideal or efficient arrangement. We are in agreement with the view that the rural areas will have a much larger share of responsibility for the administration of the island at the local government level through representation on the City and Island Council, and they will have a large enough proportion of the 24 seats on the Council to ensure that their views are heard to good effect. With regard to paragraph (c) of the motion, the question of establishing statutory corporations responsible for the supply of water, electricity and gas - in other words, the present trading departments or public utilities in the City Council - let me say no more than this: the present system is one of public ownership; the establishment of corporations is another form of public ownership - a distinction with practically no difference. What, then, is to be gained? - little or nothing! Indeed much is to be lost, because as soon as these public utilities leave the control of the City Council, their considerable properties will be subject to assessment from payment of which they at present enjoy complete immunity. The obvious result will be evident within six months or so of the establishment of these corporations, that the prices of electricity, water and gas will have to be increased. It has been suggested on more than one occasion that these public utilities should be removed from political control, but cannot it be fairly argued that in the last few years politics have seen to it that rates have not been increased despite very heavy capital expenditure on these undertakings? As regards paragraph (d) - the reallocation of the functions and financial responsibilities between the Government and the local authorities - I am informed that exhaustive recommendations were made to Government on the whole of this question only last year. Any further survey of this field would be a waste of time and effort. Finally, on the subject of multi-lingualism and the procedure for its adoption, is the Government seriously implying that it has no well-considered plans on how this should be carried out, despite the fact that it was an important plank in its platform? Can it be that the Government, having found it difficult in the last few weeks to make any firm decision of its own in one language, now wishes to pass on to others the responsibility of deciding how to conduct business in four or more? And indeed, Sir, is not this the root cause of this extraordinary eleventh hour motion, namely, that the hon. Members opposite have not got the courage of their own convictions? I say to them, "Get on and govern." If you are convinced that District Councils and electricity corporations and decentralisation are the best form of local government, then it is your job to draft the necessary legislation and bring it before this House and use your majority to get it passed. But do not expect us to do the work for you, so that later you may get all the credit for work that goes on well, and pass on the blame to this side of the House if it does not. We have the remarkable position whereby the Government is trying to have the best of both worlds. Policies are to be worked out in committees by a coalition of Parties, and executive action then taken by the Government Party alone. This is not the way in which democratic institutions operate. This is not the way in which party government operates. We reject this policy of 'passing the buck' and of avoiding responsibility and shirking unpopularity, and we oppose this motion. Let the hon. Members opposite make their own decisions and stand by them, and govern as a popularly elected majority government should govern. And let them realise that there is a growing body of public opinion from every community and class throughout the country which considers that their actions show that they have been in power for seven weeks too long.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must also regret the somewhat hasty about-turn that this Government has found necessary in a matter of two months. It is not a matter which should have been so lightly reversed. When they drafted the Address by His Excellency the Governor, the Government had then taken stock of the position and had at that time decided to go on with the City and Island Council Bill. We must have more explanation why it is now thought necessary that this whole Bill is to be scrapped and a commission instituted. I sympathise with them in viewing the City and Island Council provisions with a degree of suspicion and of unhappiness. That was, with the exception of the present Minister for Labour (Mr Lim Yew Hock), a Progressive Party concept. It had its attractive qualities. It was neat; it was simple. You drop out the 25th constituency, and you have 24 nice, neat constituencies for your City and Island Council. You have the same machinery for elections and you transfer half, or more than half the functions of a little government like that of the Colony of Singapore, to another semi-government body. But there is a lot to be said - and I think it should be said much more fully before this debate closes - for reviewing it from this point of view: that the Government feels that a more democratic framework can be set up to associate more and more people with the governing and regulating of their own lives; and if Rural District Councils is one method of doing it, then Rural District Councils should be created. But I think this matter has been viewed too lightly. It is not a matter that can be resolved just by a committee or a commission, either of this House alone or to include outsiders. Before this motion is passed, we would like to have the Government state categorically why it was that, within these eight weeks, they have decided that there were cogent and strong reasons to abandon the City and Island Council Bill, and we would wish to hear it now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I received this paper only last evening, stating this motion will be moved. I was on the Municipal Commission from 1938 to 1948. We had been always fighting to have co-ordination in this small island of Singapore between the City Council, the Improvement Trust and the Rural Board. In the post-war period we had the Hill Report. Then we had the recommendations by the Rendel Commission. The present coalition Ministry run by two Nominated Members and three Officials decides to put this recommendation into practice and bring the motion before this Assembly. Personally, I will not like to take any interest in this motion because we have not got sufficient notice. If this coalition wants to run in their own way, let them go on. How long can they go on in that way? Personally I would side with the Member for Tanglin and the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I do not think I will take any interest. Let the Government carry on with it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had hoped to spare hon. Members of this Assembly further addressing them today. I must confess that the plea of the Member for Tanjong Pagar for further information is, to my mind, a legitimate one and I would like to ask you - before I do so, I would like to deal with the petulant Member for - An hon. Member: Telok Ayer?

Order, order. Will you withdraw the word "petulant", Mr Chief Minister?

I withdraw it, Sir. He seems to blame the Government for having received the motion paper somewhat late. I should not like to put any blame anywhere, Mr Speaker, Sir. It seems to me that that is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Speaker, and were it out of order, you would have so ruled. I have no doubt, Sir, seeing it as it stands on the Order Paper, that it was given in time - sufficient notice according to the rules was given - and if the Member for - An hon. Member: Telok Ayer?

- Telok Ayer cannot gather his thoughts together in 24 hours, perhaps he would like to move that we should make special rules for Members from Telok Ayer. As regards the somewhat abusive tone of the remarks from the Member for Tanglin, I must confess, Sir, that I can find nothing constructive in them, and I find it not necessary to consider them further. But the request for an explanation from the Member for Tanjong Pagar is a legitimate one, as I have said, and the answer is this: We were appointed as a Government on the 7th April. In, I think, seventeen days we had to go through a great deal in order to acquaint ourselves with our Ministries, work out a new tradition, organise ourselves as a team, because it must be remembered that it is not the Labour Front alone that is the Government, nor the coalition that is the Government - as my learned Friend keeps on insisting and rubbing in to some extent truthfully - and we had to learn to work as a team, and it was then that we understood that there was the City and Island Council Bill ready on the stocks which required but a little amendment for the purpose of adding the multi-lingual sections. Sir, when it came to consider other matters that may be cognate to the multi-lingual sections, I would like to reserve my position on what I had hoped would be a pleasant surprise-and which I hope still will be a pleasant surprise - in matters in relation to the Bills that would be introduced ultimately in connection with the City and Island Council. But it was then discovered that we were creating and perpetuating and strengthening, in a small island, two bodies - the Assembly and the City Council - independent almost of each other, with very considerable powers, and that the City Council, though allegedly parochial in character, would have such considerable authority that it could flout the decisions and impede the execution of the policies of the Assembly. That is a dangerous position in a small island, and we see, to some extent, how it is working today when hon. Members representing the Progressive Party talked blithely - may I say, to my mind, with a certain sense of irresponsibility - about a motion in the City Council to purchase the Traction Company, without seeking to co-ordinate their action with the action of the Government; without seeking to inform themselves as to our views when, having issued that notice to purchase, they come along to us and ask us for money, and find they cannot have it! When City Councillors can descend to the status of irresponsible little children, as has been amply proved here today by the words of the Members of the Progressive Party, you can appreciate how very really dangerous the position would be if the City Council were given powers independent of the Assembly, and authority which could flout our decisions. Now, Sir, we have been attacked for having commissions. One would imagine we had invented them. I, for one, would not be ashamed to have invented commissions. But having come to the conclusion that it was dangerous to have this island-wide authority juxtaposed to this very Assembly, we then went to the Rendel Commission which gave it birth, and from there to the Hill Commission, and from there to certain of our own local experts. The problems are vast ones and a commission can be very helpful, not seeking to avoid our responsibility, as has been so sneeringly suggested, but seeking for the welfare of this country that all should be given an opportunity to co-operate. We have never sought to make political capital - that we leave to the Party that makes the charge - and I would like to add this: that if the Progressive Party and the party representing Telok Ayer do not wish to take part in assisting in these deliberations for the formulation of a policy, of a procedure for the parochial government of this island, they would be very welcome to abstain - we hope they will have the courage to abstain - or disown the hon. Member who has spoken so sneeringly of the commission. That is the explanation of the Government for what is called the volte-face. There is no change in policy. Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat rose -

Inche Abdul Hamid, in reply?

One point that I would like to clarify here, Sir, is this: that I am only seeking the approval of this Assembly for the appointment of a committee and that committee will be appointed by the Government and not by the House. Sir, as regards certain allegations made by Members of the Opposition, particularly the question of time - some Members have said that they received the Notice Paper only yesterday - I would like to refer the Members concerned, with all due respect to you, Sir, to Standing Order No. 22 (3). On question put, the House divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 4; Abstention, 1. Ayes Noes Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat. Ede, John. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Goh Tong Liang. Braga, A. J. Lim Choon Mong. Chew Swee Kee. Lim Koon Teck. Davies, E. J. Goh Chew Chua. Goode, W. A. C. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lazarous, A. R. Lee Choon Eng. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Cher Kheng. Abstention Lim, R. C. H. Jumabhoy, R. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Marshall, D. S. Mohd. Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Ong Piah Teng. Absent Seah Peng Chuan. Lim Ching Siong. Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam. Resolved, That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Committee should be appointed to enquire into the desirability of decentralising the powers and functions of the City Council and the Rural Board and in particular: (a) to enquire into and make recommendations on the desirability of setting up District Councils responsible for local government functions in different geographical areas of Singapore; (b) to recommend names for such District Councils and the boundaries within which they should function having regard to the municipal status of the older parts of the city area; (c) to enquire into and make recommendations on the desirability of establishing statutory corporations responsible for the supply of water, electricity and gas and for any other services now performed by the City Council; (d) to enquire into and make recommendations on the re-allocation of the functions and financial responsibilities between the Government and the local authorities; (e) to make recommendations on the procedure to be adopted to allow the business of the local authorities to be conducted in languages in addition to English and to recommend which languages should be allowed; and to report in accordance with the foregoing provisions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That this Assembly, in accordance with subsection (2) of section 11 of the University of Malaya Ordinance, 1949 (No. 12 of 1949), resolves that the University of Malaya (Staff Transfer) (Amendment) Rules, 1955, made on the 24th day of March, 1955, and published as Notification No. S 106 in the Gazette Supplement No. 26 of 7th April, 1955, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 1 of 1955 be approved. Sir, in comparison with the important public matters that we have been debating today, the subject of my motion is of somewhat minor importance, and should any Members of the House wonder why it is that they have to give their attention to it, I should perhaps explain at the start that it is because the Rule of which I am seeking approval is made under section 11 of the University of Malaya Ordinance, and subsection (2) of section 11 of that Ordinance requires that any Rule made thereunder shall be approved by the Legislature. This matter, Sir, concerns the conditions of service of a number of members of the staff of the University of Malaya. As the House is probably aware, when the University was set up in 1949, the King Edward VII College of Medicine - then a Government department - ceased to exist and was incorporated into the University. That meant that the then Government servants who formed the staff of the College were given the option of remaining in Government service or joining the University; and it was necessary at that time to safeguard the right to pension and other superannuation benefits which those officers had. This was done by some Rules known as the University of Malaya (Staff Transfer) Rules, and they were duly passed and formally ratified. One of the provisions of those Rules was that an officer who had been pensionable in the Government service should continue to be eligible for his Government pension and for an additional pension for the period in which he was serving at the University of Malaya. The University, which does not itself pay pensions, will repay to the Government the cost of the additional pensions. So far, so good; but a number of difficulties were then discovered. One was that those Rules provided that the pension should be calculated on the salary the officer could reasonably have been expected to draw had he remained in the Government service. That, we have agreed, was not equitable, because it meant that, in fact, an officer who joined the University and subsequently obtained promotion, and thereby got a very much higher salary, could not have his pension calculated on that higher salary. Another difficulty was that these posts no longer exist in Government service, so it is really going to be difficult in ten or fifteen years' time to say what salary the Government would have paid to a tutor or a lecturer if the Government had then been employing tutors or lecturers, which it is not, in fact, doing. Yet another difficulty arose out of the apportionment between the Government of Singapore and the Government of the Federation and the University of the financial liabilities. Well, the upshot of all these difficulties, and some rather prolonged discussions, has been that we have found a solution which has been accepted by this Government, by the Government of the Federation, and by the University, and is also acceptable to the people concerned. That solution can be described quite simply: it is that we should tackle this problem in the same way as a similar problem is tackled between different governments. We have what are known as the Colonial Mixed Service Pension Rules, and they provide for exactly this sort of difficulties where an officer has service with more than one government; for example, a man may serve in the Federation, or in Singapore, and then come back to Singapore, and he has mixed service. Those rules provide a satisfactory solution. Without going into technicalities, they provide that when the officer retires, his pension is calculated on his then salary, and it is apportioned between the various authorities who have undertaken the liability. This proposal has been accepted by all parties concerned, and it has been effected, authorised, by the Rules, to which I have referred which were laid in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 1 of 1955. And I now seek this Assembly's approval of that Rule. I should like to add one further point, Sir, and that is I am not quite clear in my own mind, Sir, as to whether it could be held that the Rule of which I am seeking approval commits the Government to additional expenditure. It will, in fact, have the effect of making some light increase in the pension bill - it is extremely difficult to estimate it, because it depends on the age to which officers live and the salaries they draw, and how long they live drawing their pensions. But, peradventure, Sir, you should have any doubt as to whether, under Standing Order No. 33 (2), this does involve a commitment, without prejudice to your ruling on that, Sir, I would like to state that I have the consent of the Governor to move this motion. I therefore move.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 11 of the University of Malaya Ordinance, 1949 (No. 12 of 1949), resolves that the University of Malaya (Staff Transfer) (Amendment) Rules, 1955, made on the 24th day of March, 1955, and published as Notification No. S 106 in the Gazette Supplement No. 26 of 7th April, 1955, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 1 of 1955 be approved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the Government should be empowered to authorise expenditure on new services up to a limit of $10,000 in each case, and revotes of provision approved in the previous year, pending the covering approval of this Assembly. Firstly, Sir, in connection with new services: During the course of the year, the Treasury is presented with numerous requests for small sums for services arising out of the day-to-day routine work of government. These services refer to such mundane matters as the purchase of office equipment, accounting machinery, unexpected repairs to vehicles, the purchase of new vehicles to replace those which have become unserviceable, donations to charitable institutions, supplements to annual recurrent votes such as for telephones, light, fuel, municipal services. The requests involve no principle which is novel or which is likely to be contentious. The requests are complete in themselves and involve no continuing or contingent liability. The amounts are small - $l0,000 would cover the largest of them, and a great majority would be considerably less. I cannot say that any of these items are of extreme urgency. On the other hand, they are all important. It will be convenient, and the machinery of government will run more smoothly, if they can be approved forthwith pending the approval of the Assembly, and if they do not have to wait until the submission of the next schedule of applications for supplementary votes to the Assembly. Secondly, Sir, in connection with revotes: It sometimes happens that capital projects such as the building of a school, a bridge or a road, which it was hoped to complete within one year, cannot be so completed. Financial provision for the project lapses at the end of the financial year, but the work must continue if loss and harm to the project is not to be suffered. Similarly, sometimes goods and equipment are ordered for delivery within a year, and for some reason or other delivery cannot be obtained. Financial provision lapses and delivery takes place perhaps very early in the new year. It is clearly necessary in such cases that the unexpended portion of the vote should be immediately available. Work goes on. Wages must be paid. Cost of materials must be met. Payment must be made when goods are delivered. Sir, I said it was clearly desirable that the unexpended portion of the provisions for the services should be immediately available, and hon. Members will appreciate that considerable difficulties might arise if we had to await the next sitting of the Assembly for approval to incur expenditure. I therefore seek authority to approve unforeseen revotes as and when the need arises. In this connection hon. Members will bear in mind that the projects to which these revotes relate have been considered by the Legislature in the previous year and funds have been voted. No new principle is involved; no new money is required. I would also say that if this power is approved, it will only be exercised in connection with work which has been started, or in respect of goods which have been ordered, and will not of course be exercised in connection with work which, for some reason, has not been started or in respect of goods which have not been ordered. Finally, Sir, I would say that if this delegation of authority is approved, the items for new services and revotes which are approved under the delegated authority will be included in schedules which will be presented to the Assembly for covering approval at the earliest convenient opportunity. Sir, I beg to move.

On a point of information, Sir.

Let it be seconded first.

I second the motion. Question proposed.

On a point of information, Sir. Will the Hon. the Financial Secretary explain whether, in the first instance - the $10,000 for new services - whether that money could be expended for emoluments or salaries of posts created for these new services?

No, Sir. This power will not be exercised for the creation of new posts. The creation of new posts would involve a contingent or continuing liability.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make it clear that we do not doubt the integrity, the honesty, and the careful discretion of the exercise of this power which is being sought, but it is on a matter of principle that I seek, on a motion for amendment, to delete from this motion the words after "in each case" the words "and revotes of provision approved in the previous year, pending the covering approval of this Assembly". Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the fundamental rights of a House of Representatives of the people is the control of finance, and the first principle any student of constitutional law is taught is the right of a House of Parliament to control the Government by the control of the purse. This is not to say that the Government will not exercise and conduct itself in such a manner as to be almost beyond reproach, but if the House of Commons in Britain does not find it necessary to have this practice of the revote, I do not see why, however cogent, however convenient it may be, we should have this system in Singapore. This is a carry-over of the old colonial system where a small Legislative Assembly would resolve itself into a Committee of Estimates; where a small group of four or five unofficials sit on the Finance Committee, and where things are done conveniently as part of the colonial machinery. We are leaving behind that past, and we like to have this first right - on our way to becoming a House of the People, of representatives of the people - to have a say in every expenditure of public funds. If a project is in operation and cannot be completed before the financial year runs out, then it is the duty of the Financial Secretariat and the Hon. the Financial Secretary to see that the matter is put in the present year's Estimates, in time for that project to go on. A procedure whereby the Government can continue with something it started last year on funds which were voted last year, in conditions which may have radically altered, and in which the people and its representatives may feel it necessary no longer to continue expending that money, is not one which I think should be continued.

Sir, I would like to second it. Question proposed, "That the words `and revotes of provision approved in the previous year pending the covering approval of this Assembly' proposed to be left out, be left out."

Sir, I am not an expert on the constitutional procedure in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom but I suspect that work must continue over from one financial year to another in the United Kingdom, and I also suspect, subject to correction, that provision is made in the United Kingdom for revotes. Perhaps I should have explained before what precisely a revote is. As hon. Members are aware, we have a considerable programme of capital expenditure each year. Sometimes the programme of work laid down by the Legislature exceeds the capacity of the Public Works Department to complete, but they do make an attempt to press ahead with what work they can undertake, and it sometimes happens that, perhaps, a school budgeted for in the Estimates for 1955 cannot, for one reason or other, be started until July. Perhaps it was intended that it should be started in March and finished by November. If started in July and it has to continue on till the next year it would be folly to leave that school without a roof until such time as the Assembly met again and would approve funds for the project. I was very careful to point out, Sir, when I asked for this power, that it should be exercised with the greatest discretion, that no new principle was involved, that no new money was involved. The desirability of the project had already been considered by the Legislature and funds approved, and that actually the work was in progress and that we would not exercise the power except in connection with work which had to be started and which, in the interest of Government, should be continued and completed without delay. I can say no more, but I give that assurance. I am as conscious as my hon. Friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar, of the constitutional principles involved. It is, in fact, my earnest endeavour to ensure the financial procedure under this new constitution follows as closely and develops along the same lines as that in the House of Commons. I can only say I have given this careful thought, and I feel constitutional principle is not being endangered if this authority is given, subject to the conditions which I have stipulated. As regards the other portion of the amendment, namely "pending the covering approval of the Assembly", I feel that it is constitutionally proper that, whatever action is taken by the Government under this delegated authority to authorise expenditure up to $10,000, if approved, it should be submitted as soon as possible to the Assembly for its covering approval.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for one who is jealous of the constitutional rights of the Assembly, the Member for Tanjong Pagar has made a startling suggestion, that we should delete from this motion, inter alia, the words "pending the covering approval of this Assembly".

It was quite unintentional.!

You withdraw that?

I withdraw!

Order, please.

I have forgotten the comma!

Order. Carry on, Mr Chief Minister.

In that case, I would like to say this on behalf of the Government and in support of my colleague: that we are very jealous of the powers of this Assembly in controlling expenditure, and we would remind you that it is the duty of the Assembly to control expenditure. It would make government impossible if it were to hobble Government to the point of preventing the necessary revotes at the appropriate time when that expenditure, not having been completed, the work continues, and money is required. Your control is always in this, Mr Speaker, Sir, the control of the Assembly, that we have to come to you and ask for your covering approval. That is your control.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I correct my motion for amendment? In my amendment, I had asked for the deletion of the whole of the phrase which follows "in each case", forgetting that "pending the covering approval of this Assembly", in fact, covered both the first clause - the expenditure of the $10,000 - and the revote clause. Now, I would ask that my amendment be corrected to read "delete 'and revotes of provision approved in the previous year' ", leaving behind "pending the covering approval of this Assembly". That was the amendment I intended.

There is no provision in the Standing Orders to amend an amendment like this, but since there has been an indication that some Members would like to leave in the words "pending the covering approval of this Assembly", I propose to take that amendment in two parts, so that the Question which I will propose is that "the words 'and revotes of provision approved in the previous year' be left out" in the first instance. That Question is now before the House.

Sir, I would propose an amendment to the amendment.

On a point of order, Sir. The amendment not having been taken, can there be an amendment, Sir?

I would add the following words after the word "Assembly", "within one month of the end of the financial year". [Interruption.]

Order.

That is not an amendment to the amendment.

Will you wait until I try and explain it to you? The Question now before the House is that the following words be left out of the original Question: "and revotes of provision approved in the previous year". Now that is the Question before the House. If you want to make any amendment to that amendment, you may do so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer to Standing Orders Nos. 25 and 26? In view of the amendment which my Friend the Member for Seletar (Mr M. P. D. Nair) proposes to move, I would beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

No, you can only withdraw your amendment by leave of the Assembly under Standing Order No. 29. Have you got the leave of the Assembly?

Sir, under Standing Order No. 36, I move the Question be now put.

No! I will not allow that! You understand what I am asking you? Is it your pleasure that this proposed amendment be withdrawn?

No!

Any other person wishes to speak on that amendment? I will put that amendment.

Question, "That the words 'and revotes of provision approved in the previous year' proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and negatived. Question, "That the words 'pending the covering approval of this Assembly' proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and negatived.

You are left with the original Question that is now before the House.

Sir, may I have your permission to move an amendment? I would like to move an amendment as follows: "After the word 'Assembly', add the following words 'within one month of the end of the financial year' ". I think the object of this amendment is quite clear, and I need not emphasise it. We want the -

Can I have it in writing, please? Amendment handed in.

The object of this amendment, Sir, is that the Government should ask for the covering approval within one month -

Order, please. Will the Member please indicate which Assembly he means? Which word does he mean - the first line or the last line?

The last line, Sir.

Right.

The object of the amendment, Sir, is that we would like the Government to ask for covering approval within one month of the end of the financial year and not afterwards.

Have you got a seconder? [Interruption.] Order, order. No seconder? We cannot take the amendment. The original Question is still before the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move that the Question be put.

No, I am afraid not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to second the amendment put forward by the Member for Seletar.

It is too late now. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak on the original Question? The Question then is: That this Assembly resolves that the Government should be empowered to authorise expenditure on new services up to a limit of $10,000 in each case, and revotes of provision approved in the previous year, pending the covering approval of this Assembly. Mr Hart, would you like to reply?

I do not think there is any point to reply to.

Original Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the Government should be empowered to authorise expenditure on new services up to a limit of $10,000 in each case, and revotes of provision approved in the previous year, pending the covering approval of this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, the business of this sitting has been more expeditiously completed than anticipated, and not even the moment of interruption has yet arrived. In these circumstances, Sir, I would ask your indulgence that the relevant Standing Orders be suspended, after the completion of business, in order to enable a motion on the Adjournment to be taken; and after the completion of the business of this sitting, to permit the adjournment to the 29th of June, 1955.

The general assent of Members is required to enable the Chief Minister to move a motion that at the end of today's business, this Assembly do adjourn to the 29th of June. That, I might say, will not prevent anybody from speaking on the Adjournment when, after that proposal has been made and is carried, another motion will be moved that the meeting do now adjourn. Can I have the general assent of Members? Hon. Members indicated assent.

I am obliged to the House, Sir, and I formally move, That at the completion of the business today this sitting do stand adjourned to the 29th of June, 1955.

I rise to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at the conclusion of business today, this Assembly do adjourn to 29th June, 1955.

Motion made, and Question proposed, - "That this Assembly do now adjourn." (The Chief Minister).

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged for having obtained the right to speak on the motion for the Adjournment. The matter which I wish to raise before this House is one of considerable importance not only to this Assembly, but to the people at large. There are approximately not more than one hundred people at any one time watching the proceedings of this Assembly, and it is a matter of vital importance that a fair, impartial and unbiased account of the proceedings of this Assembly should be given by agencies which are within the control of this Government. Neither the Government nor this Assembly have any right to dictate how our newspapers are to give their accounts of the proceedings in this House. But we take strenuous objection when a Government agency like Radio Malaya, both in its news bulletins and in its monthly accounts of proceedings in the Assembly, gives an account which leaves the listener with an impression which is completely different from that which a person sitting in the Strangers' Gallery would obtain. I am not suggesting that either the Chief Minister or the Chief Secretary has in any way been personally responsible for these reports. I would say that it is part of the legacy of a colonial past. [Interruption.] We should not have such unparliamentary language from a person who occupies so high an office in this country and in the hierarchy of the colonial system. He should conduct himself with more propriety and decorum. He should remember that even if he is not personally responsible for these reports, he should not, as the Member responsible for that branch, allow an agency, which in more democratic countries in the world are fair and impartial corporations, to be an instrument of government propaganda. Sir, I do not wish to go too far back into the past, but I think whoever listened to the 1.30 news of Radio Malaya after the emergency meeting last Monday would have believed that the House was filled with nothing but a roaring peroration from the Hon. the Chief Minister reading out his lurid account, unchallenged, of what took place. [Interruption.] I beg the Chief Minister's pardon, but one finds it difficult to overcome the habits of a colonial past. It is not the Chief Minister. When one thinks of the person in authority one always thinks of the colonial official as that person, the person who directs the course of affairs. The Chief Secretary spoke approximately for some seventy minutes in this House. I could not believe that report over Radio Malaya, and I therefore went back to check my facts. I discovered that I spoke approximately five minutes less than the Chief Secretary, and the Chief Secretary's tirade received almost ten minutes over Radio Malaya's 1.30 p.m. news, and the Opposition, the answer to his speech, was dismissed in fifteen seconds. Now, Sir, if the English Press, or the Chinese Press, or the Indian Press, were to do that, we would make no complaint. We believe in Democracy. We believe in the right of a free Press. But we believe in a fair, unbiased public radio corporation. We do not want the wireless to become an instrument of government propaganda, particularly in reporting accounts of what took place in this Chamber. The only way in which a fair and impartial account can be given, other than by the Hansard publication of this House itself, would be through an agency such as Radio Malaya. This raises important matters of principle, which previous governments had neither the inclination nor the will to face. It is only in colonial territories, or in Fascist countries, or totalitarian countries that radio stations are part of the government machinery of propaganda. In more democratic countries they come under the control of a board of trustees of impartial men of integrity, who run it in the public interests. Whilst talking on this point, E would draw the attention of the Chief Minister to what he must know is a very important matter, which should receive his early attention as soon as he has settled the more urgent matters which now bedevil his Cabinet. But this is a matter which must be tackled. I reliably understand that the present Director of Broadcasting in Singapore is going home on leave for consultations with the Colonial Office about the creation of such a public corporation for Radio Malaya. It is a good sign that even colonial officials can learn and can try to live up to democracy, but I think it is more important that we in this Chamber, who represent the people, should take the initiative, and not leave it to some energetic colonial official. I would also like to make another point in relation to proceedings in this Assembly. The Public Relations Office is rightly an instrument for the dissemination of the Government's point of view and for the providing of facilities to foreign correspondents and other newspapermen just as the Central Office of Information in Britain. But when foreign correspondents, immediately after the debate in this Assembly, go to the offices of the Public Relations Department, and can pick up the speech that was made by the Hon. the Chief Secretary, and pick up the speech that was made much later in the day by the Hon. the Chief Minister, but are unable to find any scripts of speeches made by Members of the Opposition, I think the process of using the Public Relations Office as an instrument of government propaganda is carried a little bit too far. Here again, I wish to make it clear that I make no charge against either the Chief Secretary or the Chief Minister personally. But I wish to draw the attention of this House, publicly, and on the floor of this Assembly to say that that should not be the case. We are not saying that it was wrong of the Public Relations Office to provide scripted copies of the speech made by the Chief Minister, nor that of the Chief Secretary, but they should not have done that to the exclusion of speeches made by Members on the other side of the House. I can quite believe that the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister are completely unaware of this. But I hope, now that I have brought these matters to their attention, that such a very undesirable bias, both in Radio Malaya and in the Public Relations Office, should not be allowed to continue. They are matters which relate very intimately to this Assembly. I think the Assembly has the right to ask the Government that all proceedings in this House, if they are reported in any way through any agency, or through any medium, over which this Government and this Assembly have any control, however remote, such reports should be fair, impartial and unbiased. I would say last week's Radio Malaya's commentary on the proceedings, where eleven speakers who spoke on the motion were dismissed in one line and which said "eleven other people spoke", is not one that can be called fair or impartial by any stretch of the imagination.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am quite confident that the Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary will look into these complaints, but there is one point I should like to mention, and that is that it is not necessary that long speeches made in this House should be lengthily reported through Radio Malaya or in the papers. Long speeches which contain long repetitions might be cut down to one single sentence, and a short speech which contains more substance and more facts might occupy much longer space both through Radio Malaya and in the local Press.

It just occurs to me, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this was the occasion, I think, when the People's Action Party was unable to make up its mind and had to abstain from voting. If, following a 65-minute speech which apparently led nowhere, neither he nor his Party knew which way to vote and had to abstain, it hardly seems to me deserving of report in that case.

Mr Speaker, Sir, much of my thunder has already been stolen. I fully share some of the view expressed by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) that it is important that the proceedings in this House should be fairly, accurately and impartially reported. It is particularly important at this time, Sir, when in certain quarters of this country there is not that degree of freedom of speech which we enjoy here. I support that, and I am quite sure that you, Sir, will be jealous of that principle, and that should you ever feel that it is being abused by any of those who sit in the Gallery, you will not be slow to exercise the powers given to you under Standing Order 75. Having said that, Sir, I regret that the Member for Tanjong Pagar should be so upset, not I think really at his lack of publicity, but at his bad publicity, and that in his vexation he should feel justified in trying to put the blame on to two really fairly innocuous Government departments. I realise that the colonial legacy hangs round our necks like a millstone, but I hope and trust that other Members of this House are not so obsessed by the bogey as the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I do assure you, Sir, and other Members of the House that Radio Malaya seeks to cover the debates in this House with a purely factual summary of those debates. It refrains from opinion, and it refrains from comment. It endeavours to favour neither the Government nor the Opposition. Whether or not, of course, it succeeds in this, to me, very difficult task must be a matter of opinion, and I should expect that after any given debate the opinions of each Party in this House probably differ. After our sitting on the 26th of April quite a number of people criticised to me the then report given by Radio Malaya of our debate and made the most unwarranted suggestion that the People's Action Party had got hold of Radio Malaya. That was how it was that the Member far Tanjong Pagar got such a tremendous publicity. I had no hesitation in saying then, as I say now, that there was no question of Radio Malaya being nobbled by the People's Action Party. They were doing their best to give a factual report of what had happened, and I think we are all agreed on that day the hon. Member did put up a very good and convincing performance. Well, now, after our last sitting apparently, he does not think he got sufficient publicity. He makes the suggestion that on the half-past-one news, I think it was, I got ten minutes, and lie got fifteen seconds. Well, I would point out that he finished speaking - if I remember rightly - at about twenty minutes to one of the clock in this House, that the bulletin put over on the half-past-one news had to be prepared and ready for that half-past-one news; and that whilst it did naturally devote a good deal of its time to a speech which had been completed in time for it to be summarised, the bulletin went on to say that a full report would be given later in the evening. So that I would say that they did their utmost, again, to be quite fair. But I do not for one minute accept the criterion that because the hon. Member speaks for sixty-five minutes the length of coverage in Radio Malaya or in the Press should be directly related to the length of time he takes to tell us what is in his mind. We have also a very real check. We are not solely dependent on Radio Malaya. We have a very strong and representative Press section to listen to our debates, and I think we can rely upon them to correct any unbalance or any human failure on the part of Radio Malaya. As regards the Public Relations Department, as I see it the position is slightly different. The primary function of the Public Relations Department is to inform the public of Government policies and Government decisions, and to give explanations of Government's actions. I think it is a well recognised part of that function in most territories that the Public Relations Department should endeavour to get out texts of important speeches made by Ministers. I know this is not an easy task for them to discharge. They did make a very creditable effort at our last debate, and they managed to get out fairly full texts of the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Chief Minister and by myself. It would have been quite impractical for them to have attempted to perform that service for the Member for Tanjong Pagar, and I do not think, Sir, that that is strictly part of their functions. I would like, Sir, in conclusion, not I hope appearing to be an arrogant colonial official, to try, if I may, to speak as one who has had now quite a number of years' experience of speaking in Legislatures; somewhat rashly I would venture to give three tips to the Member for Tanjong Pagar. The first tip is that he should not expect that the coverage he will get in the Press and radio will be related to the time it takes him to speak in this House. The second tip I would give him is that he should endeavour to marshal his arguments and his sentences shortly, so that it is easy not only for this House, but for our guests to understand what he is driving at. And, thirdly, when he indulges in one of his cold, penetrating rapier thrusts at Ministers on the opposite side of the House to himself, he should make certain, when he drops his voice, that he drops it into the microphone and not on to the middle of the Table.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at 4.15 p.m. to the 29th of June, 1955.

Wednesday, 25th May, 1955

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether, in view of Government's declared policy "to foster the expansion of our great entrepot trade" and "to encourage in all practical ways the development of local industries", he will consider expanding the Agricultural Fair, announced to be held this year, into a Trade and Agricultural Fair, giving special emphasis to local agricultural and industrial products.

While it is Government's policy to foster the expansion of our entrepot trade and to encourage the development of local industries, it is not considered that a combined Trade and Agricultural Fair is desirable. Participants prefer specialised Fairs catering for their specific needs. This approach is also more beneficial for visitors to the Fairs. Government has already announced that an all Island Agricultural Fair will be held during the course of the present year. Plans are already in preparation for this Fair. Meanwhile arrangements have been made for an Agricultural Show at Bukit Panjang in July. Successful Trade Fairs require careful organisation and in most cases at least one year's notice is necessary in order to attract overseas participants. Local interests are at present endeavouring to arrange an International Trade Fair in Singapore during the coming year. The Government is anxious that this Fair should be organised in conformity with internationally accepted standards and the organisers have been assured that, subject to Government satisfaction that these conditions will be fulfilled, their plans will have Government's approval. It is anticipated that local industries would wish to be fully represented at an International Trade Fair and Government would wish to encourage their participation.

asked the Chief Secretary if he will state, (a) the number of expatriate officers appointed by the Government since the adoption of his motion on the survey of needs for trained personnel in Divisions I and II of the Public Service by the then Legislative Council on 18th November, 1952, to this date; (b) how many of these, if any, are on -

To give a balanced picture, this answer includes figures for both expatriate and locally domiciled officers. The details are as follows: -

asked the Chief Secretary what steps are being taken by Government to revise and improve in accuracy the present electoral registers; and whether he will guarantee that the necessary steps are taken before the City and Island Council elections.

The following steps are being taken to revise and improve the accuracy of the present Legislative Assembly Electoral Registers: -

asked the Financial Secretary if he will state the combined or respective hard currency earnings of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya for the years 1952, 1953 and 1954, what amount was allowed to be spent by Singapore importers, whether the Colony derives any direct benefit by handing its hard currency earnings to the United Kingdom, and whether such earnings are credited at the current market rate so that Singapore and the Federation can benefit thereby. (Question No. 2, Official Report, 26th April, 1955; Volume 1, No. 2, column 1).

pursuant to his reply [Official Report, 26th April, 1955; Volume 1, No. 2, column 1] supplied the following information: Official records indicate that the value of exports to hard currency countries (American Account Countries and Canada) from Malaya, including re-exports, for the years 1952, 1953 and 1954 were as under: - 1952 M$792.1 million 1953 M$590.0 " 1954 M$585.4 " There are also certain receipts from tourists, for services rendered, and in respect of personal remittances made to Malaya, but detailed information is not available. Direct imports into the Federation and Singapore from hard currency areas for the years 1952, 1953 and 1954 were as under: - 1952 M$172.7 million 1953 M$ 87.5 " 1954 M$ 92.7 " Large remittances are made to American and Canadian Accounts in London for invisible imports. Film royalties payable to American companies represent a considerable item under this heading. These payments are of course the equivalent of hard currency expenditure. Arrangements have also been in force for a number of years to reimburse Indonesia in dollars for the re-export to the U.S.A. of rubber imported from Indonesia. Substantial annual payments are made under this heading. Finally, in order to obtain a complete picture of Malaya's dollar expenditure it would be necessary to take into account the hard currency content of manufactured goods imported by Malaya from other members of the Sterling Area. A typical example is tobacco. Figures for these are not available but it is certain that the gap between hard currency earned and hard currency spent by Malaya is much narrower than the figures for visible exports and imports suggest. There is no fixed allowance for such imports. The policy in the Federation and Singapore, as in other countries of the Sterling Area, is to permit imports from hard currency sources of any commodity regarded as essential for local economies. In the years in question, a wide range of manufactured products and materials for local industries and of general consumer goods have been purchased. Arrangements exist to enable specific items to be considered on the basis of individual applications. The Sterling Area dollar pool is a central reserve maintained by the United Kingdom into which member countries credit their dollar earnings and from which they are provided with dollars on the basis of the particular needs of each territory. This procedure ensures that the essential hard currency needs of Singapore and the Federation are met, and that full use is made of the hard currency earned by the Sterling area as a whole. Pooling of gold and dollar reserves strengthens sterling, enhances its international status and brings nearer the prospect of full sterling convertibility. These factors are all of vital interest to an international trading centre such as Singapore. Canadian and U.S. dollar earnings which accrue to Malaya from the activities of individual traders are sold to banks in Singapore and the Federation at the official rate ruling at the time of sale. These rates are in fact the current market rates.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare whether he will state -

The number of labourers (as defined by the Labour Ordinance) employed in Singapore on -

asked the Minister for Education whether he will state the numbers of applicants received for evening classes in each of the 16 subjects in the Junior Technical School for the school year which commenced on 2nd May, 1955.

The numbers enrolled in the various evening classes were: - Building Construction 169 Building Quantities 100 Surveying and Levelling 45 Structural Engineering 80 Mechanical Engineering 97 Radio and Telecommunications 158 Refrigeration 10 Mathematics 75 General Science 24 Technical Drawing 56 Plumbing 181 Carpentry 24 Gas Fitting 4 Motor Vehicle Work 73 Electricians 86 Brickwork - ----- 1,182 ----- All who applied during the week specified in the press notice were admitted.

asked the Minister for Health whether he will state how many school-children, expressed (i) in terms of the total number of (a) boys and (b) girls and (ii) as a percentage of (a) boys and (b) girls at school, have been X-rayed for signs of tuberculosis in 1952, 1953, 1954 and the first four months of 1955 respectively; what percentage of the total were X-rayed (a) in Government clinics and (b) at the S.A.T.A. clinic on behalf of Government; and what is Government's policy in this matter.

The number of school children, expressed separately for boys and girls (i) in total numbers and (ii) in percentages, who have been X-rayed for signs of tuberculosis in 1952, 1953, 1954 and the first four months of 1955 is as follows : - Year. Boys Girls Estimated No. Estimated No. Total No. X-rayed Percentage Total No. X-rayed Percentage --------- ------- ---------- --------- ------- ---------- 1952 102,200 2,939 2.87 52,900 3,643 6.88 1953 110,400 2,642 2.39 59,550 2,316 3.89 1954 113,300 4,860 4.29 64,650 2,480 3.99 First 4 months of 1955 129,400 1,014 0.78 77,900 1,038 1.33 (b) The percentage of the total X-rayed in Government clinics was 61.2 and at the S.A.T.A. clinic on behalf of Government 38.8. (c) The present policy of Government is (i) to X-ray all school-children who on general medical examination show reasons to be suspect of tuberculosis infection and (ii) to X-ray all school-children who are known to have been in contact with a proved case of tuberculosis. This work is carried out to the limit of the capacity of X-ray centres in Singapore, and Government is grateful for the assistance given by S.A.T.A. in this matter.