Hansard, 1955-08-24

Hon. Members, I have received two messages from His Excellency the Governor in connection with Bills which have already been passed by the Assembly. These are the messages: "Government House, Singapore, 20th August, 1955. The Hon. the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Assembly House, Singapore, 6. Sir, I have the honour to inform you that in accordance with the provisions of Section 62 (2) of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, on the 24th day of June, 1955, I reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure the Bill intituled:- An Ordinance to declare and define certain powers, privileges and immunities of the Legislative Assembly established under the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, and of the members of such Legislative Assembly, to regulate the conduct of members and other persons in connection with the proceedings thereof to give protection to the persons employed in the publication of the reports and other papers of the Legislative Assembly and for purposes incidental to or connected with the matters aforesaid. I have the honour to be, Sir Your obedient servant, R. B. BLACK, Governor." ------- "Government House, Singapore, 21st August, 1955. The Hon. the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Assembly House, Singapore, 6. Sir, I have the honour to inform you that in accordance with the provisions of Section 62 (2) of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, I assented on the 1st day of July, 1955, in Her Majesty's name and on Her Majesty's behalf to the Bills intituled:-

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the object of this Bill is to replace the present system of Registration of Deeds affecting land, with a system of Registration of Title. Of the jurisdictions throughout the world which have inherited English Law, Singapore must be one of the last to follow this course of certifying or guaranteeing the ownership of land. Last year, the Government succeeded in obtaining the services of Mr John Baalman, Barrister-at-Law and Senior Examiner of Titles to the Registry of Titles, New South Wales. Mr Baalman is an expert on the Torrens System of land registration. The Bill before this Assembly is his work. The advantages of the system of Registration of Title over the present system of conveyancing by deeds are now almost universally recognised. As long ago as 1891, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council stated that the object of the Torrens System is "to save persons dealing with registered land from the trouble and expense of going behind the Register in order to investigate the history of their author's title and to satisfy themselves of its validity. That end is accomplished by providing that anyone who purchases bona fide and for value from the registered proprietor and enters his Deed of Transfer or Mortgage on the Register shall thereby acquire an indefeasible right notwithstanding the infirmity of his author's title." More recently, Sir, a leaflet published by Her Majesty's Land Registry in the United Kingdom explained that the Registration of Title "gives finality". The new Register will afford conclusive proof of the ownership of land, by an instrument called a Certificate of Title. The difference between the Title Register and the present Deeds Register is the difference between the positive and the negative. The Registration of Deeds Ordinance, in effect, says, "If you do not register your deed, it will be bad." The Land Titles Bill says, in effect, "If you do register your deed, it will be good." Between the economic consequences of these two effects, there is a wide gulf. The advantages to Government and to statutory bodies of having readily accessible evidence of the ownership of land are obvious, but the major benefit will be enjoyed directly by private owners and purchasers. The public at large will also derive an indirect benefit; because when any necessary activity in the life of a community is performed at less expense and in less time than it has hitherto taken, a change must react to the advantage of the overall economy of that community. The opportunity has been taken, incidentally to the improvement in the system of registration, to modernise certain aspects of the Law of Property generally, as, for instance, that relating to mortgages. I do not propose to go into the details of the Bill as these are dealt with at length in the Objects and Reasons attached to it. It is not, of course, possible, Sir, to introduce a new system like this overnight. The intention is that the present Register of Deeds and the new Register of Title shall continue to exist side by side until the former is ultimately absorbed in the latter. The function of the Register of Deeds will be to feed and gradually to transfer its substance into the new Register until the old one can be safely laid to rest. I think I have said enough, Sir, to convince hon. Members that this long overdue measure, which will bring great benefits to the people of Singapore, should not suffer any further delay, but should be proceeded with at once and it is my intention, Sir, immediately after the Second Reading to commit the Bill to a Select Committee. I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill before us, beyond question, is a complex one. Even if it is not controversial in principle, it is certainly so in regard to several details and in the interpretation of many of its clauses. It is a Bill which, in particular, needs the skill and experience of conveyancing lawyers to examine and, if need be, amend. It is therefore quite clear that this Bill, in order to become a satisfactory and more or less watertight piece of legislation, needs to be sent to a Select Committee of this House. We welcome the fact that this step is being taken, and we are glad to support it.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, under Standing Order No. 48, I beg to move, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee with the Speaker as Chairman and members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee with the Speaker as Chairman and members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this is a short and straightforward Bill. It is a temporary measure, which the Government intends to replace at the earliest possible date by comprehensive permanent legislation designed to freeze the values of all immovable property. Government has already secured the services of an expert from Australia who will advise it on the introduction of such legislation. In the meantime, it is a matter of urgency that the interim legislation now under consideration should be enacted in order to make possible the publication of the Master Plan for which there is provision in the Singapore Improvement Ordinance. This Plan has now been lying idle for two years owing to the reluctance of the previous Government to enact legislation for the stabilisation of land values. This Government will not tolerate any further delay and intends to see to it that the Plan is published at the earliest possible opportunity. There is a growing public demand that this Plan, which will vitally affect forward planning not only by Government but also by private developers, should be brought into the open. The effect of a comprehensive Master Plan, covering the whole island, will be to sterilise some areas for green belts, to allocate some for agriculture and channel development into certain districts. This will mean that some land will depreciate in value, while other land will have its value greatly increased. When Government comes to acquire land in development, it will find that the planning for which it is responsible has put prices up against itself. It is to avoid this that prices must be pegged to a date before values start shifting from one area to another. Compensation for land to be acquired by Government must be related to a date prior to the publication of the Master Plan. Clause 2 of the Bill is designed to peg prices to the 22nd April 1955, the date on which the Government first announced its intention to introduce such legislation. Clauses 3 and 4 seek to give the Governor in Council power to acquire land for comprehensive development as new or satellite towns. Doubts have been expressed in the past whether such acquisitions could properly be carried out under the Land Acquisition Ordinance (Chapter 128). There are two further matters to which I should like to refer. It has been suggested to me that legislation of this nature is likely to hit the small man hardest of all. Well, Sir, my information is, and this has been confirmed by a leading estate agent in the local Press, that the majority of landowners in Singapore are wealthy men. However, if any cases are brought to my notice in which it can be shown that a smallholder is likely to suffer hardship as a result of this legislation, I assure hon. Members that his case will be given special consideration. The other point is this: the fear has been expressed that this Bill, if it becomes law, is likely to prove a hindrance to private development and may even bring it to a standstill. It has been said that no private developer will buy land in future for residential or industrial development because he cannot be certain that Government will not take this land away from him at the pegged price. The answer to that, Sir, is that the publication of the Master Plan should quickly dispel any uncertainty that may be felt on this account since the Plan will indicate what land will be required for public development. And, as I have said before, Sir, the main object of this Bill is to make possible the early publication of the Master Plan. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak, not merely as a Member of the Opposition whose duty is to oppose, but as a responsible Member of this House anxious to see that the development of Singapore under the Master Plan will be for the benefit of all the people and not at the expense or to the detriment of a section of the community. The post-war development of Singapore has proceeded at a tremendous pace, and none of us question the fact that such development without a Master Plan would lead to chaotic conditions which would be impossible to solve within the next hundred years. We accept Sir George Pepler's idea that Singapore should have satellite towns all over the island, consisting of industrial and residential areas surrounded by green belts, so that workers will not have to spend many hours each day going to and from their place of employment. We do not think, however, that Sir George Pepler has, paid sufficient attention to the financial aspect, nor has he shown that it is necessary to freeze the price of land to stabilise its value. In fact, similar legislation in England has proved otherwise. This proposed Bill is an improvement on the last one in that it fixes land values for the purpose of the Master Plan as on the 22nd of April, 1955, and does not take advantage of any drop in the price of land after that date. Secondly, it is a temporary measure for five years only instead of for an indefinite period. The previous Bill brought in by the last Government was committed to a Select Committee which produced a very interesting report, with three members of the Committee for the Bill and three against; but this Bill has died a natural death with the election of the new Government. Undoubtedly it was this report that has produced the two improvements mentioned by me. If so much improvement has occurred after one report, is it not possible to put further thought on this matter and avoid the freezing of the price of land? Sir, I would ask that Members of this House for the time being forget election pledges and look at this matter with an open mind. Everyone is agreed that speculation in land and fortunes made as a result of the Master Plan should be prevented at all costs. With the knowledge that this Government is prepared even to prevent the operation of the law of supply and demand, he would be a very daring man who would today indulge in operation of land values at this juncture. In any case, it would be very easy to prevent this, and all that is required is a Bill to provide that any increase in the value of land, either as a result of the Master Plan or as a result of the development by and at the expense of Government, shall not be added to the market value of the land if acquired for public purposes. With this protection, there will no longer be any necessity for secrecy to be attached to the Master Plan. By implication, the public already knows that the Master Plan has been in operation for some time, as plans for development have been turned down in the last year or two without reasons being given. I can see no reason why the Master Plan cannot be published forthwith. That freezing of land values is impractical is clearly shown by what has happened in England during the last ten years. In 1944, the Town and Country Planning Act froze land values for the purpose of compulsory purchase as at the 31st of March, 1939. This became more and more unrealistic and was finally abandoned when the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 was passed. Under this Act, a most complicated system was established by which the State in fact acquired the development value in all land, and anyone wishing to develop his land would have to pay towards a fund the difference between its value in its existing state and the developed value of his land. For example, when farmland is approved as a satellite town, then he has to pay the sum of £300 million set aside to meet all claims of owners of land, which has to be restricted in use or development. Much trouble and litigation arose out of this law, as a result of which the Town and Country Planning Act of 1953 abolished the development charges and postponed payment out of the £300 million, and published a White Paper stating that Government proposed to bring fresh legislation to use the value of land fixed under the 1947 Act as the upper limit for compensation for planning restrictions as and when development of land is prevented or severely restricted. So far, to my knowledge, no new legislation has been passed in England. Therefore, the position in Great Britain is that there is no restriction on the value of land today. But there is a suggested restriction on the limit of compensation payable based on the potential use of the land in 1947. Shall we not therefore profit by the mistake made in England and follow the latest legislation instead of rushing into the same position she was in in 1944? Even with all the goodwill of a Socialist Government in providing compensation for those whose land has to be necessarily restricted in usage under nation-wide planning, the scheme was not a success. How can we succeed when no thought has been given under this proposed legislation, not only to large owners, but to owners of small plots of land? One particular case comes to my mind. Two years ago, a fire destroyed about 50 huts built on two acres of land at the junction of Aljunied and MacPherson Roads. The owner of this piece of land, who inherited it from his father, was a poor man and his house, together with all the huts on this land, was wiped out. He was getting a ground rent of $250. That has completely gone, and he is now living in a little shed built with the remnants salvaged from the fire and roofed over with flattened kerosene tins. He has tried to build huts and even to lease this land for building low-cost houses, but his application has always been turned down. Perhaps the Chief Minister at his next Meet-the-People meeting can help him? Let us take the case of others who have invested their savings in some piece of land and have mortgaged it. So far, investment in immoveable property has been the soundest investment when the value of money depreciates. When their land is sterilised under the Master Plan, they will not only have to pay interest, but also annual assessment based on 5 per cent of the purchase price. Are such people not entitled to relief? They are now faced with having to part with land at its frozen value, though they might have paid a much higher price for it, plus loss of interest, and payment of assessment. It is not true that only rich owners are affected by this legislation. There are many thousands of smallholders who are vitally affected and whom it is your duty, sitting on the Government Bench, as well as ours to protect. I submit that as soon as land is prevented or severely restricted from development, it should be acquired by Government and compensation paid therefore. Recently the Chief Minister announced in the newspapers - and he has been supported by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat) today - that he has engaged an expert from Australia and that he intends to bring a total freeze Bill which will freeze the value of all immoveable property, including houses built thereon. Such statements made before full investigation as to the workability of total freeze in Singapore are bound to scare away investment, and I would commend to him the wise words of the Secretary of State for the Colonies: "Do not spoil the future of this great place by scaring away capital and investment." Now that he has got his way by the concession granted to him of 'shall' reading for 'may' in the constitution, we hope the Chief Minister will settle down to work and clear the cloud of uncertainty that has gathered as a result of the series of crises during the short life of this Assembly. If he does not produce shocks and unholy marriages, we promise we shall not produce any. I say total freeze is unworkable because I have been reliably informed that freezing of land values in Australia The Chief Minister (Mr D. S. Marshall) rose-

Point of order?

Cannot the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) stick to the point, Sir?

We are now, on the Land Acquisition (Temporary Provisions) Bill. We are not on a total freeze Bill. Will the hon. Member please keep to the Bill before the House?

Very well, Sir. I would also point out that since the liberation some 7,000 families in Singapore have put their savings into home ownership, and about 6,000 of these families have mortgaged their homes to the building societies, insurance companies or banks, and are paying instalments instead of rents so that in ten or twelve years they will be the absolute owners of their homes, free from mortgage. These people are the salt of the earth, as they have a stake in the country and will support a wise and stable government against the forces of anarchy. Are these people to be penalised by having the value of their holdings fixed at a certain price should they be unfortunate to have to sell their homes? Facts and figures have more than once been published showing that Government will not be able to cope with the houses required for the normal increase of the population by birth, let alone that back-log required for those living in the slums. I suggest that we should not in any way discourage people who want to help in the development of housing for those who can afford it. To sum up, this is a measure restricting the right of free trade, a cornerstone laid by Sir Stamford Raffles when he founded Singapore, on which depends the prosperity of this city, as we know it today. This is a measure recently tried and discarded in Great Britain. It savours of measures shielded by curtains, Iron, Bamboo or Paper, in that the development of the State is made at the expense of a section of the public, consisting not only of owners of large pieces of land, but small pieces of land as well. It seeks to prevent owners of property from obtaining the benefit of any development under the Master Plan but does not make any provision for owners of land whose property is sterilised. What is required is not a hasty temporary measure, but a full comprehensive scheme so that the planned development of Singapore can be carried out for the benefit of all and not at the expense of one section of the community, without creating uncertainty and fear in the minds of potential owners of homes and persons interested in building houses for people with modest incomes, or in building new factories. Unless their confidence in the future is assured, the Master Plan will remain merely as a Plan to be carried out by Government alone, without the co-operation of the people who are in a position to help in the development of Singapore. Sir, I give notice that I intend to move, after the Second Reading, that this Bill be committed to a Select Committee with the object of producing a comprehensive scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this measure, which the Member for Paya Lebar damns as a hasty temporary one, has been, it is true, in the making for only two years. I can appreciate that the group, which seeks and needs 24 hours to say 'Thank you', finds considerable difficulty in considering any measure sufficiently mature which has only taken two years of thought. I can appreciate that this group, which asks us to settle down to work, should quite logically suggest that if one report improves a Bill, let us sit down and produce another report, and after that another report, and maybe another report, Sir, and so on ad infinitum, for a Bill that consists of four short clauses! It is fascinating, Sir, to consider this speech, peppered with inconsistencies, coming from an hon. Member who, speaking on behalf of his Party, says that it is his duty, as a Member of the Opposition, to oppose - a fallacious theory out of which I hope one day he will educate himself. Sir, it has been suggested that we should slavishly follow what England does. Now, I have the greatest admiration for many of England's institutions and traditions of which not the least is this very Assembly; but I would suggest that we have problems and we have conditions which are perhaps just a little different from England, such as, for example, a little island, an island of no more than about 90 square miles -

200 square miles!

200 square miles! But I think you will find that out of that there are only 90 which can be utilised.

No!

Check your figures from your Annual Report! Sir, I say in this small island we have to support 1,200,000 people, and I trust it is acknowledged that these are, human beings entitled to reasonable homes and reasonable accommodation, both in earning their livelihood and in their family life. The Member for Paya Lebar, speaking for the investment class, says that immoveable property has been the soundest investment that we have ever had. Sir, my late father, for whom I had the highest regard at all times, used to tell me that in Singapore there were two things which were certain to go up. One was a balloon, and the other was the price of land. I would ask you to look no further than my own home. In 1932 this plot of land, on which I rent a house, was sold for $12,500. In 1939, without finding any gold there, that plot of land with the same house was sold for $37,500 - only three times. In 1954, I had the temerity to suggest to my landlady that I was interested in purchasing the house. I was told it would cost a quarter of a million dollars! What had been done to that land? Neither gold nor silver nor anything else was found there! But what had happened, Sir, was that our population had increased, and all a landowner has to do in this country is to sit on his bottom, sit on his title deeds, and the price will go up! No man has a right to hold society and posterity up to ransom to satisfy his extraordinary lust and greed for wealth. The increase in the price of land in this territory is something that is quite unbelievable until you examine the evidence. I would be only too happy if the investors were satisfied with a law, which gave them a five, or six per cent return; but, Sir, on the basis of what we know has occurred in this territory, landowners expect an annual return of approximately 100 per cent. It is a very modest return for these pathetic gentlemen for whom we weep today! In England, Sir, there is enough land to satisfy the needs of its population. In Singapore there is not, and what there is must be reasonably rationed; and in so far as this Government has any power, it will be reasonably rationed, and there will be no crocodile tears for those who have indulged in such fantastic exploitation of the basic needs of humanity. Legislation in England is of a totally different character from that which we seek. It is true that we ultimately seek a complete property freeze as of the 22nd of April, 1955. Full notice of that has already been given in His Excellency's speech on that date, and I merely repeat it by way of confirmation. This present measure, however, is a modest and temporary one that says, 'We will take nothing from you that you have got today. What the price is today, that you will receive; and if you have made any improvements to your property and we should require it for a public purpose, you will receive the full price. But we will no longer accept the position that, because of the pressure of population and the consequent pressure of demand which is far greater than supply, you should be able to hold us up to ransom and demand fantastic profits year by year.' We read, I think it was in March last, of a very prescient gentleman who bought some land near Paya Lebar for $100,000. That was in 1954, Sir, and in 1955 he made the Government pay him $400,000 for the same piece of land! That is the type of gentleman for whom the Member for Paya Lebar weeps, and asks us to join in mourning as we kill this body of speculators. Let us get this clear: The red herring of the small man is nothing but a red herring. Under the Land Acquisition Bill that is before you, there can be no question of our wanting to take the homes that have recently been built, and that are being owned by the small man. Those homes have been approved by the Singapore Improvement Trust and form part of our development schemes, and it comes ill, Sir, perhaps it was unintended, that this House should be misled into thinking that this Bill could ever cover any question of acquisition of those newly built houses. This Bill is intended to make it possible for Government in the name of the people to take such lands for roads, for public building as may be necessary, in order to fulfil the needs of the people, without having to pay through its nose, without having to pay such fantastic sums that Government, like the people of this country, will be no longer able to utilise the land for its primary purpose - the purpose of serving the people. The Member for Paya Lebar asks us: but what about the poor man who has to pay his mortgage interest? But that poor man, Sir, if he has utilised his land for the appropriate purpose, will be earning enough income to pay for that interest. We are not depriving him of any means of earning his income. We are merely depriving him of the right to hold the people up to ransom. It is suggested that this is a restriction of the right of free trade. This is a restriction of the right to highway robbery in which the people, for whom you weep, Sir, have been indulging for the last 50 years. I can but regret that the hon. Member, who considers himself a responsible Member of this House, should find it possible to attack a Bill so eminently reasonable and so absolutely necessary for the welfare of the common man.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to freeze the value of lands in Singapore, and is the third attempt made by the Government of Singapore. The first attempt was made in 1949. It was by a Bill called the Singapore Development Bill, clause 212 (1) (a) of which attempted to freeze the value of land acquired by Government from 1st December, 1949. May I therefore, Sir, be allowed to quote the opinion of very learned and responsible persons on the principle of freezing land values? I quote, Sir, with your permission: "This sub-section fixes the value of land for the purpose of determining compensation at its market value on the 1st December, 1949, with the addition of the value of certain permitted improvements. The object of this, we are told, is to protect "the public" against inflation of values in land dealings. The expression "the public" for this purpose means-" The Chief Minister rose -

Point of order, Mr Chief Minister?

Point of information, if I may, Sir.

Has the Member for Telok Ayer given way? Mr R. Jumabhoy resumed his seat.

May I ask who these eminent gentlemen are, Sir, before you give him permission to quote these excerpts?

Mr R. Jumabhoy?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will read out the names of these learned men: Mr M. W. Gulliford Mr R. M. Meyer Mr G. A. Cessford Mr S. H. Peek Mr D. S. Marshall (I believe he is the same person as the Chief Minister) Mr Ong Yan Keng Mr Chin Chye Fong Mr F. N. Glineur.

Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I refer you to Standing Order No. 31 (9)?

I have it. Mr Chief Minister, what is your point?

My point, Sir, is that the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) has no right to refer to what I have said outside, unless you see, Sir, that I should be given the right to reply.

Certainly, I think so.

Standing Order No. 31 (9) reads as follows: "The personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose." As I see it, the Member for Telok Ayer is about to quote something which the Hon. the Chief Minister said sometime ago. Whether that is "personal conduct" or not I do not know. I have not heard what the hon. Member is going to quote; but if it is a quotation which perhaps needs explanation by the Hon. the Chief Minister, he will certainly be allowed a chance of explaining what he said on some other occasion.

Thank you, Sir.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. There is nothing in what I say about "personal conduct". It is only the valuable opinion of a learned gentleman by the name of Mr D. S. Marshall that I am quoting on a very important subject - the freezing of land values in Singapore. I am glad, and I want to hear - because my mind is quite open on -

Will the hon. Member please continue with his speech?

Yes, Sir. To continue: "It is desirable to protect these people against undue inflation of land values. We are doubtful whether their interests are sufficiently protected by the sub-section as drafted. Although there may be a balance of probability that land values will tend to rise in Singapore so that the Board would get land for less than its market value, there is at least a possibility that land values will fall. There is no doubt that Singapore has experienced since the Liberation a prosperity that cannot be expected to last forever. When this comes to an end, it may have an adverse effect on land values. If so what would the Board do? Purchase at a price above the market? Abandon or delay development? Or would it persuade the Government to amend the Ordinance so as to reduce the value at which it compulsorily acquires land? Almost certainly, it would adopt the last of these courses. Owners of property are entitled to proper protection and this section appears to us to introduce a new and iniquitous principle whereby partial confiscation is cloaked by fixing an arbitrary date of valuation for compensation which does not take into consideration normal changes in market values. There are bound to be cases where injustice will result from the adoption of 1st December, 1949, as the date for fixing market values. There have already, to our personal knowledge, been transactions since that date at prices in excess of those ruling on 1st December, 1949. We must also draw attention to widespread stagnation in land dealing, and consequently in private land development that must result from the attempt in the Development Board Ordinance to freeze land values at the level they had reached at 1st December, 1949. If land values are left to be determined by the market, they may go up or they may go down: the one thing that is certain is that they will not remain stationary. Suppose in a free market land values would have gone up; what is the effect of the Ordinance? People owning land that is acquired by the Board have part of their property expropriated. Apart from the manifest injustice of this another consequence ensues: people who might have bought land for private development, fear that if they do so the Board may prefer to develop it, and in the process of acquiring it, inflict a loss on them of the difference between the market value at the date of acquisition and the value at 1st December, 1949. In short, people who might benefit Singapore by private development of land are deterred from doing so. We have already reached the conclusion that the housing targets of the Board cannot be financed unless private builders are permitted and are given every possible encouragement to undertake a large share of the work. It is clear from what we have said above that the attempt to freeze land values will tend to deter private builders from taking part in the project. We consider that the protection of the Board's operations would be achieved by providing that land is to be acquired by the Board at its fair market value at the date of acquisition, such value not to include any appreciation, which is attributable only to the operations of the Board. In other words, landowners should receive the fair market value of their land excluding any extortionate increase arising from anticipation of development by the Board. It may be difficult but it should be impossible to determine such fair market values. The provisions as to the value at which land is acquired would result in the Board doing practically all the future developments of the Island. To make it impracticable for the citizens of a free country to use their vision and energy in developing that country, and to assume that a monopoly of these qualities is possessed by a handful of officials, is not only unjust but absurd." As I have said before, this opinion has been delivered by a body of learned persons whose names I have already quoted, Sir. It will be most interesting to hear what the Chief Minister has to say about the opinion expressed by Mr D. S. Marshall. My mind is quite open, and I would like to hear it, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members here present no doubt are aware of considerable public feelings against the proposed Land Acquisition (Temporary Provisions) Bill now before this House. I would state at the outset, that my Party is not opposed to "enforced" acquisition of land or property by Government strictly for public purpose, but will be opposed to such acquisition by Government for "commercial" purpose. In the case of enforced acquisition by Government of land for public purpose, a Land Acquisition Ordinance already has been in existence for many years. The proposed Bill, now before this House, neither repeals nor amends any part of the Ordinance, and the provisions are in part repugnant to the Ordinance. For instance, clause 3 of the proposed Bill enables acquisition by Government for a new town site. This is not for a public purpose. It enables the Government to acquire land for the purpose of reselling it to private ownership in part or as a whole. Clause 3 further enables the Government to obtain what is in fact a statutory opinion over the land to be acquired, but does not require the Government to proceed with the acquisition nor to pay for the land until the same is eventually and actually acquired. Under such circumstances, a piece of land may be rendered useless to the owner as long as such option continues. This, I suggest, is unjust. The proposed Bill, it is claimed, is necessary in order to enable the Master Plan to be implemented, but I am of the opinion that this is not the case. In the first place, the Bill is in no way restricted in its scope to dealing only with those cases in which the Master Plan comes into question. In the second place, it should be asked what the real problems are which should be considered so far as the Master Plan is concerned. These may be summarised under three headings. (1) To defeat speculation, (2) To prevent the public from having to pay the landowner compensation for any "windfall" which might accrue to him as a result of the publishing of the zoning provisions of the Master Plan, and (3) To ensure that in dealing with points (1) and (2), no injustice is inflicted upon the landowner. Point (1) is already provided for by the existing legislation and it does not require the present Bill to meet it. Point (2) is one, which could be easily dealt with more fairly and equitably by a different form of legislation. In this regard, reference is made to the Minority Report published by the Select Committee, which was appointed to consider the Land Acquisition (Amendment No. 3) Bill, 1953. After reviewing the whole problem, three unofficial members of the Committee made alternative suggestions, which appear to be fairer and more satisfactory than those, proposed in the present Bill. As regards point (3), it may be pointed out that, if land values rise during the next five years for some reason unconnected with the Master Plan, the landowner whose property is to be acquired is not going to receive the fair value for his property. It is therefore extremely probable that the Bill will result in serious injustice, which could be avoided by some alternative form of legislation. Finally, if it is the intention of Government to freeze values of land which comes within the Master Plan, it would be fairer and more just that only values of such land should be frozen and not every inch of the entire island! In this connection, it should be possible to publish the Master Plan simultaneously with the implementation of the Ordinance. It is difficult to see any justification in freezing values of property or properties which are not required by Government. In the proposed Bill, certain points require explanation and clarification. Under clause 2 (f), "capital value" of buildings and improvements is, I suggest, not capable of interpretation. Does it mean cost or a number of years purchase? There should be a definition to this. Similarly, under the same sub-clause of the same clause, the phrase "buildings bona fide erected" sounds nonsensical. Perhaps the draftsman has in mind some provisions similar to those contained in section 25 (2) (a) of the existing Ordinance! Finally, the true value of land is always bound to fluctuate according to the operation of the law of supply and demand, to the economic condition from time to time, and to the true value of the country's currency. These natural processes have nothing whatever to do with the provision of any Master Plan, which may be produced by Government. Any attempt to disregard them can only result, over such a lengthy period of five years, in producing highly unrealistic, artificial "values" for the lands affected. In the long run, this will not be in the public interest and will cause serious injustice. Furthermore, the effect of the proposed Bill may seriously discourage investments in land and landed properties. This, in fact, is already apparent in the recent lack of interest in real estate investments after the announcement of the proposed legislation. Perhaps more careful and exhaustive consideration may be given in this matter as a whole or at least improvements to the Bill itself should be made before legislation may be adopted.

Sir, I rise to support the Bill. This Bill, Sir, has a very long history. In October 1953 my hon. Friend the Attorney-General (Mr E. J. Davies) introduced into the then Legislative Council a Land Acquisition (Amendment No. 3) Bill, the object of which was to stabilise land values and to effect a few minor amendments to the original Ordinance, and to enable the Master Plan to be published. Before the Second Reading of this Bill took place, it was referred to a Select Committee. For about nine months this Committee deliberated on this Bill, and finally, on the 27th of July, 1954, made its Report. It was not unanimous as was expected. My attempt in December last year to force the Bill through all its remaining stages during the life of the then Legislative Council failed, and the then Government felt that the Bill should be passed on to the newly-elected Government of Singapore which would have by then a clear mandate from the people on the future of land policy in Singapore. Soon after the election, Sir, the newly elected Government made it quite clear that it would seek additional powers for the acquisition of land for public purposes, and powers for the freezing of values of immoveable property. It also declared that it was the firm intention of the Government to ensure that land was used in the best interests of the people. I am indeed glad, Sir that the first step towards this process has now begun and the Government has now translated its policy into action. It is my considered view, Sir, that it is our duty to take urgent steps to make provision for the housing not only of the homeless of today, who live in extremely unhappy circumstances, but of the expected increase in population in the coming years. We will be doing a great disservice to the people of this territory if we are complacent of our duty in this direction. The land of the Colony is limited in amount, and on it must be found suitable space for such major land projects as housing, industry, education, agriculture, recreation and communications, etc., for our rapidly growing population. There can be no matter of more importance to the inhabitants of Singapore than the land upon which they live, work and have their recreation, and the policy should be so framed as to secure that each piece of land is used in a manner which will best serve various interests. Vested interests are apt to object to this Bill, as they have done in the past. They are only a handful. Their objection is not unnatural as their personal interests are involved, but I am sure, Sir, that all those who believe in Singapore and have consideration for the thousands of their less fortunate fellow citizens, who are landless and are compelled by circumstances to live piled up in hovels, will sacrifice their personal interests for the happiness of the community as a whole. After all, all lands belong to the people. The Land Acquisition (Temporary Provisions) Bill, which is now the subject of discussion, aims at stabilising land values in the Colony. The method adopted is identical with that adopted in very many other countries in implementing any planning scheme of this kind that we have here, that is, fixing the value of land at a date prior to the publication of that Master Plan. There may be an interregnum between the publication of the Master Plan and the time acquisition is necessary, during which land may change hands several times at a rocketing price, and the aim here is to prevent this tendency. An upper price limit is necessary in order to prevent exploitation at the expense of the community on the land planned for development in accordance with the needs and requirements of the community. Sir, stabilisation of land values is a prerequisite to successful town and country planning. The Master Plan, Sir, is flexible and is subject to revision every five years. The fact that the duration of the proposed legislation is also five years should satisfy those objectors who believe that the fixing of land values should not be for an unlimited period. The directions to the Courts in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded and the considerations to be accepted must, I think, assure the landlords that the Government is not being unfair to their interests. In fact, the terms of compensation are indeed liberal. I am sure, Sir, that the landlords will realise that it is essential that every piece of land should be put to the best use in the interests of the community, and that it cannot be treated as an ordinary marketable commodity. The earlier we give consent to this Bill, the better it is for our country and the people. I do hope, Sir, that although some people might object to this Bill, they will live to realise that the implementation of this Master Plan will give them the joy and inspiration of seeing a happy and prosperous Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill under consideration, in my opinion, is not a satisfactory Bill because it does not provide for what everyone agrees needs to be provided. What is needed, as my hon. Friend here has said, is a Bill to provide that any increase in land values arising from the Master Plan, or from development by and at the expense of Government, shall not be added to the market value of land if acquired for public purposes. If a simple Bill of this sort were introduced, it would be legislation of a practical and realistic kind, but the whole principle of this Bill is entirely different. Under this Bill, persons owning land, whether they be rich or poor, are going to have burdened on them the cost of the future development of land and the rest of the community is going to benefit. What is more, can the Minister offer any guarantee that this Bill will not result in more land deals beneath the counter than above it, with the effect of causing more contempt than respect for the law? If he can, I might be more willing to support him. The Minister, in his speech in this House last April, said that land-freezing legislation was necessary if the Government is to keep its pledge of "improving the standard of living of the poorer classes and providing them with adequate low-cost housing". These sentiments are well understood, but what about the poor smallholders of land and the effect of this Bill upon them? How can you draw the line between the poor and the more well-to-do and give special consideration in some cases without creating invidious distinctions in others? Turning to various clauses of the Bill, I wish to make a few comments. Firstly, this is a Bill to stabilise the value of land. This surely is really a misnomer. You cannot, in point of fact, fix the value of land. Land must always get more valuable or less valuable according to circumstances. You can only, if you insist, fix its price, but can control of price any more than rent control stamp out the tea money racket? Leaving terminology aside, we should like to know under clause 2 (a) whether Government will pay the 22nd of April value of land even if the price has dropped lower, and the events of the past four months have in many cases produced this situation. If Government does this, paying more for the acquisition of land than the current value, public money will be wasted. To avoid such waste, are we then to find the Government rushing through an amending Bill to amend the 22nd of April date -

Wait till then!

- to a date more favourable to them? Such a situation breeds so much uncertainty that there will be no dealings in land whatever and there will not merely be a freeze in land but a deep freeze. I hope that we can expect some explanation from the Minister on this question. Again, under clause 2 (a), let me quote an example of a person owning a piece of land who dies, say, in August 1956. The trustees pay estate duty on his property based on values prevailing in August 1956, at, say, $3 a square foot. Before the trustees can dispose of this property, Government acquires it, compensation payable under this Ordinance being based on $2 a square foot, being the market value on the 22nd of April, 1955. Will Government refund the death duty on the difference, namely a dollar a square foot? Clause 2 (f) seems to be most unsatisfactorily drafted. What is meant by "the actual capital value"? Is this the actual cost at the time of building, without taking into account the fact that building costs can rise? And what is meant by "bona fide erected"? All buildings are bona fide erected in the sense that they are approved first by the Singapore Improvement Trust, the City Council or the Rural Board. But if Government means that owners might make improvements in the hope of getting better compensation at the time of acquisition, this, I submit, is nonsense, because, in view of the provision "less an allowance for depreciation", nobody is going to erect a $20,000 house on land likely to be acquired if he is to get only, say, $18,000 for it a short while later. Under this same clause 2 (f), what happens to the owner of a low-lying piece of ground who bona fide has started earth-filling operations prior to the 22nd of April 1955? Supposing $25,000 worth of filling has been done before this date and the balance of $10,000 afterwards. If the Government acquires this property in October 1955, will he receive compensation for the $25,000 spent before the 22nd of April? Coming to clause 3, we find that Government will be able to acquire any area of land it pleases by designating such an area "as a site for a new town". This gives the Government exceedingly wide powers and makes all ownership of land insecure. And governments have been known to change their minds before now. Are we to see large areas of land acquired for new towns at the 22nd of April price, plans later abandoned, and the land sold again at a much enhanced price? I turn to another point, concerning the making-up of private roads. There are many owners - some quite poor owners - who are frontagers on private roads shortly to be made up and taken over as public roads. These frontagers have to pay for the making-up of their roads. They will also have to pay extra assessment once the road is completed. The annual value will increase as each new amenity is brought within their reach, such as electricity, water or sewerage. Despite this increased valuation and extra expenditure on rates, will the Government still acquire their properties at the 22nd of April market value? Will this not be a case of great hardship, indeed injustice, to numbers of by no means well-to-do people living on private roads? Sir, I have said, I hope, enough to show that this is not a very desirable Bill in its present form - vague, full of loopholes, made all the more undesirable if it is to be pushed through this House without proper consideration. I repeat, nobody wants to see speculation arising or special advantage gained as a result of the publication of the Master Plan; but a much simpler Bill than the present one is all that is needed to see that this is prevented, and to prevent an otherwise inevitable black-market in land transactions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) in his speech just now said that this is the third time that the Government has tried to impose a Land Freeze Bill on the public. It is utter nonsense, Sir. This is the first time that this Government is introducing a Bill in the interests of the public. The two other times, in 1949 and 1953, I think - I may be wrong, but anyway those are the years - were attempts made by past administrations, and they were frustrated because of the presence of the so-called representatives of the people, as represented by the Party opposite. The Member for Telok Ayer in his speech read out a statement attributed to Mr D. S. Marshall, together with a few other names. I will follow his style, and will therefore read newspaper reports in connection with what Mr Marshall said before Mr Marshall ever thought of even contesting the elections. The Sunday Standard of January 31, 1954 - there was no thought of election in his mind then:

"The history of profits made by landowners over the past 50 years and the exclusion of small income groups from possession, or even rental, of a bit of roof will 'shock the conscience of the Devil' charged Mr D. S. Marshall, a prominent member of the Singapore Ratepayers' Association yesterday. Championing land acquisition, Mr Marshall said that the attack on the Colony's Bill was not by small landlords, but "exclusively by individuals and groups owning land by the hundreds of acres and houses by the dozen and who utilised such land exclusively for personal profit." The first thing I wish to make clear to the public is that this Bill does not seek to stabilise land values. All it seeks is to stabilise the price, which Government will have to pay for land which it may acquire in the future for public purposes", he pointed out. Mr Marshall emphasised that transactions between private individuals and organisations were not affected. "The Master Plan", he said, "will be providing satellite towns to 'siphon' off the dreadful overcrowding in the city." He added that for these satellite towns Government must acquire land for roads, schools, police stations, swimming pools, civic centres and other amenities. If Government had to pay the increased price brought about by the publication of the Master Plan and the pressure of increasing population, these satellite towns would be rendered an impossibility. The Bill, Mr Marshall explained, sought to pay the maximum price of October 1953, which, in his opinion, was a very high price indeed. "Where is the confiscation? Where is the suffering?" he asked. He added, "The Bill is timid. It does not go anywhere near far enough. There should be an immediate overall freezing of all land values so that human beings of today and of posterity may be able to afford a bit of roof over their heads without having to pay ransom to owners of land, not by 100 per cent but by thousands and tens of thousand per cent." Mr Marshall then explained his stand in the Singapore Ratepayers' Association. "I was in Kuantan when the Association, on an urgent 48-hour notice, called an emergency meeting to seek approval of a memorandum to the Colonial Secretary in respect of the Land Acquisition Bill." Mr Marshall immediately sent the Association a telegram in which he expressed disapproval of any condemnation of the principle of freezing land values. "With a rapidly growing population in a limited area", the telegram stated, "healthy development required restrictions on uninhibited exploitation by land-owners. There is no sacred right to hold posterity up to highway robbery in return for the opportunity of a roof. When requested to weep for land-owners look back fifty years and their swollen profits look forward fifty years and the growing legions of wretched homeless", the telegram added. The meeting of the Singapore Ratepayers' Association held on November 11, 1953, by a majority vote decided to condemn the Bill." This is in reply, Sir, to what the Member for Telok Ayer has said in connection with the stand of Mr Marshall on the Land Freeze Bill. I would like, Sir, with your permission to quote extracts from a joint memorandum to the Chairman of the Select Committee of the Legislative Council on the Acquisition of Land (Amendment No. 3) Bill, 1953, in which Mr Marshall is a signatory. I find it necessary because this is in reply to the attack from the Member for Telok Ayer - Mr R. Jumabhoy rose-

Is it a point of order, Mr R. Jumabhoy?

Sir, I never attacked anyone. I only asked the opinion of Mr Marshall now as the Chief Minister.

Mr Lim Yew Hock.

Mr Speaker, Sir, he attacked by insinuation. In a memorandum to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Acquisition of Land (Amendment No. 3) Bill, 1953, Mr Marshall stated the following: "We have followed the controversy over the principle introduced by Section 9 of the Bill, and are all too conscious of some of the one-sided representations made to you by interested parties whose occupation it is to make profits out of land and who could, and did, give considerable time and spend money on legal advice and representation to present their sectional view. Each of us is a domiciled British subject keenly interested in the welfare of this Colony and with no axe whatever to grind in the matter now before you. We view the provisions of this Bill against the background of certain basic factors: -

Order, please. I think the Minister has possibly said quite enough in explanation of the memorandum that was read, unless, of course, he is adopting those views as his own opinion on this particular Bill.

I share the same opinion, Sir; so, may I be permitted to continue? I have read it through and I share the opinion, Sir.

In that case, you must not read!

This is the last sentence, Sir " - This is strenuously denied by the objectors, but we accept it as logical and empirically valid." Mr Speaker, Sir, as late as January and February of 1954, before the Hon. the Chief Minister ever thought of contesting the election, he already held such views. Now that we are returned to serve the people as a Labour Coalition Government, we were returned with a mandate to see that the Land Acquisition (Temporary Provisions) Bill becomes law. We have this morning heard from the Opposition Members their views that although they support the Bill, because they feel that they cannot object to the Bill, they raise various points which make one think that their support for the Bill is just sheer nonsense. The Member for Telok Ayer, Sir, has said that two attempts failed. These two attempts failed because of similar tactics adopted by members of the same Party during the previous administration. The Hon. the Chief Minister has, in his reply to the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck), covered almost every objection that can be raised against this Bill. Are we to look after the poor and needy, or are we to look after the handful of rich landowners who do nothing but suck from the poor?

Mr Speaker, Sir, some 2,000 years ago or more there was in China a utilitarian philosopher called Ho Kuan-tze, and I recollect one of his sayings which seems to me highly in point in this debate. He said, "Seek nothing for yourself. Only what is for the general good is permissible." If we apply this to land policy, it will have most far-reaching effects; and it has been applied. Historically, you can say that there has been through recorded history a struggle between the powers that sought to treat land as the basic necessity for human life and therefore a thing which must be shared equally and fairly, and the people who say that land is a basic necessity of life, and we will grab it and exploit our position and compel people to pay the maximum rent for it that we can extract. That has been a long and historical struggle, and you will find traces of it in the laws of England. The original theory there was that land was held in trust, not for the purpose of private profit exploitation, but when a man had proved himself to be a good and worthy servant of the King, he then received a grant of land which was held in trust in relation to his past and future services. He was not there to exploit the land, but to use it as a means of service. You can find the same idea in my small reading in the subject in India and in Egypt, in China and in the Western European countries generally. The fact is that land is not a proper commodity for trade at all. I know that Members of the Opposition will very much resent that view. They feel that it is a highly proper commodity for trade because it is extremely profitable. It is profitable to the individual, but it is disastrous to the community. I expect nearly everybody in this Chamber knows what a traffic block is, and the whole basis of our traffic blocks in Singapore is uncoordinated development by private individuals on the basis of profit. Instead of having your streets developed as traffic arteries down which traffic flows, they are developed as trading centres in which people are seeking to exploit preferential positions; and as a result of that attempt at exploitation, you have streets obstructed and blocked, and it is extremely difficult for vehicles to move. In the same sort of way, I expect many of you look at your consolidated bills from the City Council, and say, 'Well, that is an awfully expensive bill.' It would be a great deal cheaper if the town had been planned as an overall development instead of being developed by private enterprise for private profit. The cost of your City Council, both in its capital cost and in its recurrent expenditure, derives very largely from having to lay their underground pipes and that kind of thing through a maze of ill-planned streets and unco-ordinated development. We have had some pitiful words about the hardship of the man who owns a little bit of land. In many cases, it may be true, and the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing is perfectly aware of it. He has referred to the possibility of there being hard cases of that kind, and has said they will get special treatment. But I would like to point out to hon. Members opposite that a small piece of land can still be extremely valuable. A piece of land the size of a badminton court down in this part of the town will have a much greater value in the market than a very large area of land in the middle of the Sahara desert. It is not the size of the land that necessarily produces its exploitable value, but it is its position. When files come across my desk in my office, I am continually seeing how the overall development, one service or another, is held up by the fact that somebody is sitting on a piece of land and he cannot be moved; and when you want to move him, you find that somebody else is sitting on another piece of land and you cannot move A to B because B will not get to C. The public interest is continually obstructed by people who have some sort of tenancy right; they just sit there and you cannot move them out. It is absolutely essential, if you are going to get development that can possibly cope with a population coming up to 2,000,000, that you should have very wide powers indeed - powers both to secure land when necessary and see that the small man does not suffer hardship as a result. When you have to transfer the small man from one piece of land in order to get a new road, you may have to put him on another piece of land. You are not going to pay some rich landlord a very large sum before you can transfer your squatters there. The Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede), I think, said that he did not object to the principle that there should be no profit made out of increases in value arising from the Master Plan, but he did not apparently object to people making profits out of a rise in population. A population increase is the essential thing that will produce higher land values, and the man who makes profit out of that factor is like a fireman who would refuse to rescue a baby from a fire until he had extracted the last possible dollar from the parents as a sort of reward. The situation is that we are going to have an increasing slum population, and everything that blocks the provision of proper homes for these people is a horrible exploitation of the misery of hundreds of thousands of people. There are other points which he raised which I think perhaps could be dealt with more profitably in the Committee stage of the Bill, but he did note various complications which arise, particularly from the bad inheritance of the past - private roads for example. There are private roads in Singapore that are a shocking blot and disgrace, not to the Government or the City Council, but to the landlords. Very often, they managed to get through ill-co-ordinated plans and they also managed to get people to buy a house in the expectation of a road going through, and they left the road as a morass instead. They did nothing about it. I do not think, therefore, that you can rightly raise the bad practices of the past and say, because these foolish complications have risen up through the errors of the past, proper planning for the future cannot be allowed. There is one final quotation that I will make, not from 2,000 years ago, but from I think it is at the end of 1950 or the beginning of 1951. I do not recollect the date perfectly, but I do recollect the words. It was a United Nations Commission that came to this happy island, and they remarked, when they left: "Singapore is being strangled in an iron ring of landlords and land-owners": and it is that iron ring that has to be broken.

Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I expected opposition from the Benches opposite me, particularly from the Members of the Progressive Party. I have always maintained, Sir, that apart from representing themselves, they also represent that section of the community, which has always thought of themselves more than they think of others. The Bill before us today, Sir, was published almost two months ago, but no attempt was made either by the Members of the Progressive Party or the Democratic Party, or for that matter any representative of the land trade in Singapore, to submit their opinions and their criticisms to me. As I see it, Sir, their action today is nothing short of an attempt to stifle this Bill, just as their predecessors in the previous administration had stifled other Bills that would have brought great benefit to the vast majority of the people of Singapore. Sir, as I propose to commit the Bill to a Committee of this House, I do not intend to reply point by point to the objections raised by the Opposition. These will be dealt with in the Committee stage if they are brought up again.

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

Division, Sir.

You are a bit too late, Mr Chief Minister!

Sir, I move, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee with the Speaker as Chairman and Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Question put, and negatived.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

I understood that the Minister for Lands was going to give some explanation?

No, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "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 Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether I can open my remarks by saying how welcome it is to see you in that seat!

Thank you!

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I do not think I shall have to take up a great deal of the time of the House with this Bill. It is simple and non-contentious, and thoroughly amiable in character. It derives from the fact that we have on the streets of Singapore some 50,000 or 60,000 deadly weapons which people take around with them and from time to time kill each other with. These are the motorcars, and whilst it is perhaps fair enough that one adult should kill another with his motorcar, it is right that children should be protected if they can. The object of this Bill is to ensure that, where you have numbers of children moving at fixed times across the road, there should be adequate control to ensure that they are protected. As a motorist myself, I think that motorists also will derive some protection, and they will no longer have miniature Belles of St. Trinian's trotting across the road in front of their wheels and scaring their hearts into their mouths! A third advantage to be derived from the Bill is that it will set free some of our hard-working Police Force from tedious and onerous duties which are not really part of their job, and which will enable them to devote themselves more effectively to policing this city. I do not think I need say more about this Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, except that I will certainly welcome any suggestions or improvements or amendments, which can be brought to it in the Committee stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not rise to criticise the Bill. This legislation is long overdue. I notice, however, in the Objects and Reasons attached to this Bill the following sentence: "An estimate of the probable cost of the scheme would be subject to a wide margin of error but, on the basis of present plans, it is expected to be of the order of $55,000 per year." This is very interesting as far as it goes, but is it not an innovation to introduce this type of information in the Objects and Reasons? It certainly is not an object, nor is it a reason. I suspect it is an interloper! [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this House has a happy faculty of denoting support by keeping silent! I notice that nobody wishes to speak, and I feel that this occasion should not pass without an expression of appreciation for a Bill that has been suggested to have been long overdue, and one, which would be very helpful, I feel, to the schools. As regards the minor criticism indicated by the hon. Mr Sutherland, it was put in because Government was of the view that perhaps hon. Members would wish to know how much this service would cost, and however worth while it may be, they may want to balance it against the cost to the people. I quite agree that from the purist's point of view, it is neither an object nor a reason, but it is information which we thought might be helpful to hon. Members in deciding whether they would wish to support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill is a good one and the Government Benches must be congratulated for bringing this along, but I would like to have one point of information. Under this Bill, school children are now authorised to do traffic duty. That would be the duty of regular paid men employed by the Government. I feel that people who are in the service of the Government should receive compensation if any misfortune should occur to them while performing their duty. I do not say that it is likely that school children would be mowed down by cars, but there is always this possibi- lity when doing traffic duty. For that reason, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to know whether the Minister for Communications has provided compensation for such an eventuality.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think it would perhaps be quite right if I gave the hon. Mr Sutherland what the details of this $55,000 are approximately. If anybody wants to know them, he can get them any time he wants to. It is a matter of top-boots and coats and things like that. On the point of compensation: if a patrol is knocked down by a car, compensation is not included in the Bill most certainly, but as the person would normally be a Government employee, presumably there will be adequate arrangements to meet this eventuality. This can be looked into. It does not affect the principle of the Bill. It is not envisaged that traffic patrols should be school children, though it would, of course, be possible. The wording is "person". In fact, it is more likely that fairly elderly people who are not up to heavy work and could still earn a useful little addition to their income in their spare time, and probably people who are living anywhere near the schools, who could have an opportunity for this employment.

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

Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2-

Mr Deputy Chairman, I have an amendment to move, After the definition of "road", to add: "school" includes a children's social centre run by the Department of Social Welfare in Singapore. The purpose of this amendment is to enable children attending private classes at the social centres to get the same protection that children in the more formal schools get.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, with an Amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time."

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I, under the provisions of Standing Order No. 7 (4), move the suspension of this sitting up to 2.30 p.m.?

I second it.

Question, "That this Assembly be suspended till 2.30 p.m.," put, and agreed to. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.03 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek leave to withdraw this Bill for the time being. I have referred it to the Trade Advisory Council and would like to have comments before I proceed.

Will you move?

Is a motion necessary, Sir?

Yes, under Standing Order 57, Mr Chief Minister.

I do apologise. In that case, Sir, I formally move, That the Rubber Shipping and Packing Control (Amendment) Bill be withdrawn.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Rubber Shipping and Packing Control (Amendment) Bill be withdrawn.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This, I have no doubt hon. Members will agree with me, is not a contentious Bill. The Objects and Reasons of this Bill are clearly set out there. The amendment is necessary so that 78 nurses can be registered owing to a defect in the previous Ordinance. Under section 4 (2) (c) of the present Ordinance, "existing nurses" were enabled to apply for registration within a period of two years after the date of coming into force of the Ordinance, which, in effect, meant that those who applied before the 15th November, 1952, could be considered for registration. Now there are 78 persons who, owing to the fact that the Registrar of the Nursing Board had lost sight of the date, are unable to register.

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

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Bill considered in Committee. Clauses 1 and 2 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.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my privilege today to move a message of greetings that stands in my name, namely, That Mr Speaker do convey to Mr Speaker of the Federal Legislative Council the following message of greetings and good wishes for the inaugural meeting of the Federal Legislative Council: "On this historic occasion, the Singapore Legislative Assembly on behalf of the people of Singapore sends fraternal greetings and good wishes to the Federal Legislative Council and the people of the Federation. "In the dawn of this new era in the political history of the separated parts of this Malayan territory we of the Singapore Legislative Assembly look forward to the closest co-operation and co-ordination with the Federal Legislative Councillors in building up a Malayan outlook and loyalty and in the achievement of our common aims for freedom, economic security and social welfare of the peoples of this territory, and extend to our brothers across the Straits our good wishes for their success in the way ahead." The 31st of August, 1955, is a day of great rejoicing for our brothers across the Straits. On that day, by the inaugural meeting of the Federal Legislative Council, a new era will dawn which must inevitably culminate in complete independence. The people of the Federation, by their massive voting attendance unparalleled, in so far as I am aware, in any other democratic country, by their unique unity and their intransigent non-communalism, have dramatically demonstrated their inflexible will to independence and their capacity for independence. That day of rejoicing, Sir, for the people of the Federation is a day of inspiration and rejoicing for us. Whatever misunderstandings there may be today or tomorrow - and misunderstandings there can be even between loving brothers - our fate in Singapore is inextricably woven with that of the Federation, and I would not have it otherwise. From what I know of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, I believe that the Federation and Singapore will march together towards self-government and together we will achieve independence. These two territories, joined by a short causeway, are a geographical, economic and ethnic entity. Political unity is essential for our mutual welfare. In so far as lies in my power, the door on this side will remain permanently wide open for the achievement of a political unity that alone can make possible real independence. At every stage of our political development in Singapore, I envisage the closest and friendliest co-operation and co-ordination in all aspects of major policy and legislation between us, because, to the extent, Sir, that we drift apart, to that extent shall we be weakened. To the Federal Legislative Councillors, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I say you have our warm and sincere good wishes and our boundless goodwill. To the Federation I say 'Merdeka!'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion. The Hon. the Chief Minister has already explained to us how the political development of Singapore and of the Federation of Malaya is woven in such a pattern that we must march together towards self-government and towards independence. It is therefore most fitting that, when they have the inaugural meeting on the 31st of August, we should send fraternal greetings to our brothers across the Straits. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I, on behalf of my Party and myself, would like to associate ourselves with this motion. Indeed, we send to the Federation our best greetings. It is a big step forward. The Federation of Malaya is now embarking on the road to self-government. We know that the Federation Government will lead the people on to peace and prosperity, and we hope, and with it our prayer, that from this constitutional step they will work towards self-government and independence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand to support the motion of the Chief Minister. This is the first time in the history of Malaya that elections have taken place. We wish them every success and may they proceed on the road towards independence justly proud of the inheritance of all free countries.

I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my Party, to associate myself with all the kind things that have been said in this Assembly on the occasion of the inaugural meeting of the Federal Legislative Council. We are today on the threshold of events leading to self-government and independence, and look forward to closer co-operation with the Federal Legislative Council on matters of common interest to both territories. My Party wishes the Federal Legislative Council every success in its future and associates itself with the greetings that have been extended by Members of this Assembly to their friends and colleagues in the Federal Legislative Council.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the Chief Minister in extending the hand of friendship to the Federal Legislative Council. As leader of the Alliance in Singapore, I take great pride in the fact that the composition of the Federal Legislative Council is symbolic of the understanding the peoples of the Federation have in their elected representatives. I wish them success. Singapore and the Federation of Malaya are on the threshold of a new era, an era fruitful of prospects of self-government and independence. My only hope is that some day in the very near future, we in this Assembly may be able to stand and extend and receive greetings from the Federation of Malaya as free and independent nations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to associate my Party and myself with this motion. The people of the Federation of Malaya and the people of Singapore are more than brothers. They are part of the same body. Our common goal is independence. Therefore, the victory of the people of the Federation is our victory. Without them, independence for Singapore is impossible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I, on behalf of the workers of the Naval Base and the people of Sembawang, fully associate ourselves with this motion which has just been moved by the Hon. the Chief Minister. Though I must say it is in some ways inadequate, nobody can believe that Singapore is not a part of Malaya. We are only separated because of a tricky history. Many of us look forward to the day when our country will be united and free. It is regrettable that this aspiration of the people is not included in the message. I think that we should, in our message, express our desire for unity and not just for co-operation only. It is inadequate just to extend our hands in co- operation across the Straits of Johore. What we really want is that the Straits of Johore should cease to be a political boundary. This is surely one of the important objectives towards which both the Legislatures should work. What more opportune moment can we get to state this than the occasion of the inauguration of the Federal Legislature?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to associate myself warmly with this message of goodwill and greetings. It is very nearly 21 years since I first came to this country as a very young and shy man, and, since that time. I may say that I have made very many friends amongst the generous and kindly people of Malaya, that I have set down my roots and have established myself as a Malayan, and that I look forward with great happiness to the most fruitful co-operation and ultimate unity between the two territories. I do not think that our message, however, should carry the word 'unity' as though we were attempting to give directions to the Federation. I do not need to talk in terms of which is the senior partner, I hope, on an occasion like this; but they are, anyhow, a larger geographical entity with a very much larger population. It is not for us to convey to them any implied directions as to what should be done. That is a matter for their good judgment and ours, working in brotherly harmony.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to speak on this motion but, in case any silence might be interpreted as disapproval, I should like to say that I, too, as a nominated Independent, associate myself with this motion, with particular emphasis on the phrase 'economic security'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let no one imagine that since I am speaking last in my Party, it is a case of backseat driving. We support, in the warmest possible terms, the greetings that we are sending to the Federal Legislative Council. It is an historic occasion, because, with this Council, a new political situation of intense interest opens up. It is in the Federation more than in Singapore that the final battle between the British, the nationalists, and the Communists will be fought, and won, or lost. It is comforting to us here to remember that, whatever mistakes we may have made and may make, they will not be fatal. A very far from weak British administration is manipulating, very delicately and very skilfully, the upsurge of nationalism that has caused the emotional fervour which nationalism means today in Malaya, as it indeed means in every part of Asia. It is negotiating with skill between the U.M.N.O.-M.C.A.-M.I.C. Alliance, which has taken over part of constituted authority, and the armed forces of a militant Communism. Sir, the next three months are exciting because they are potent with decisive developments. Is the shooting going to go on? Is it going to stop? If it stops, what then? These are questions, which every one of us asks ourselves. These are the questions which will decide not only how Malaya goes, but how Singapore goes in the next four years. The Chief Minister of the Federation is a very different man from our own illustrious Chief Minister. He is a much more quiet and a much more amiable gentleman. He is a gentleman in every sense of the word. As one historian on the Malays has said: 'Nature's perfect gentlemen'. Of the Tunku, speaking for myself, I would say: 'He is a perfect gentleman.' And he has got, what I am sure our Chief Minister must envy him, an enormous and efficient Party machine. He has got the undoubted support - and no one challenges that - of some three million Malays in the Federation -

And Chinese!

- and Chinese -

And Indians!

- and Indians, and it is important and exciting to see how things will turn out. It is important that we should send them not just our warm and heartfelt greetings but an assurance that, in their fight for 'Merdeka' - an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya - we are solidly behind them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of my Party, I would sincerely like to associate ourselves with this motion and gladly extend our warmest greetings to our brothers across the Straits. Once again, we congratulate them for their unique success in the recent elections.

Question put, and agreed to, nemine contradicente. Resolved, That Mr Speaker do convey to Mr Speaker of the Federal Legislative Council the following message of greetings and good wishes for the inaugural meeting of the Federal Legislative Council: "On this historic occasion, the Singapore Legislative Assembly on behalf of the people of Singapore sends fraternal greetings and good wishes to the Federal Legislative Council and the people of the Federation. "In the dawn of this new era in the political history of the separated parts of this Malayan territory we of the Singapore Legislative Assembly look forward to the closest co-operation and co-ordination with the Federal Legislative Councillors in building up a Malayan outlook and loyalty and in the achievement of our common aims for freedom, economic security and social welfare of the peoples of this territory, and extend to our brothers across the Straits our good wishes for their success in the way ahead."

I shall take great pleasure in conveying to Mr Speaker of the Federal Legislative Council the resolution of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my privilege today once more to give expression to the voice of the people and, in this instance, to express the appreciation of the people of Singapore for what Malcolm MacDonald has been to us. I confess, Mr Speaker, I find it most difficult and embarrassing to praise a friend publicly - particularly if that friend is still alive and walking on his hands. When perplexed, Sir, I usually seek the counsel of precedent but I have, in this instance, been unable to find any guide. The Clerk of the Assembly, very learned in the lore of Parliaments, has assured me that he knows of no instance in which a Parliament has so honoured a man who is alive and a man who has never been a Member of the Legislature that seeks to honour him. But if the motion is unique, it is because the man is unique, Sir, and his uniqueness lies in this - that he is a warm human being whose humanity has transcended the pomp and the ceremony of his exalted position, and has melted the icicles of protocol that traditionally surround the Sons of Heaven who rule us. I find, Sir that I have referred in my motion to Malcolm MacDonald. This is not because I am unaware that he has been a Secretary of State for the Colonies, and a Privy Councillor, and is therefore a right honourable; nor am I unaware, Sir, that he is Her Majesty's foremost representative in this territory and therefore entitled to the honorific of Excellency. It is simply because to us in Singapore, the man is immeasura- bly greater than all his richly deserved honours. When he received the Freedom of the City - I think it was last week - Malcolm MacDonald threatened to exercise the privilege of a birthday boy by coming in his birthday suit. And it is in his birthday suit as plain Malcolm MacDonald that we have enjoyed knowing him. For 9½ years, this man has been with us, holding the highest office in the territory and yet, he has been at all times the humblest, the friendliest, the most courteous of all the expatriates. It does seem a little unfair to refer to him as an expatriate, for if any man is a universalist, Malcolm MacDonald is certainly one. Despite the twinge of nostalgia with which he might greet the call of the bagpipes, he is at home everywhere, because he loves human beings, and differences of colour and differences of custom merely make them more interesting to a man big enough to love all humanity. Sir, it is as a man who loves his fellow-men and who recognises the equal brotherhood of all human beings that Malcolm MacDonald has succeeded in being a one-man civilising factor of colonial rule in this territory at a crucial stage of our development. As the most delightful speaker we have ever known; as an ardent supporter of our national sport; as a judicious and generous patron of our artists; as a gay friend, a wise counsellor and a most unconventional ambassador, he has been a refreshing humanising force in an era of hidebound officialdom. The political activities of this laughing diplomat, as the Straits Times so happily calls him, are the well-kept secrets of Phoenix Park, but I have had glimpses of this man, so much at home in a bevy of lovely women, working arduously and tirelessly through long hours at affairs of state. I believe, and I say this in all sincerity, that his efforts have been consistently directed to help us to stand on our own feet - a free and a happy people. I am satisfied, Sir, that in the recent constitutional crisis, his experience, his wisdom and his love for the people of Singapore, were material factors in assisting us in our legitimate aspirations. To this man on the eve of his departure to wider pastures, I ask that this Assembly, in the name of the people of Singapore, should say: "Malcolm MacDonald, it has been good knowing you - Selamat Jalan and Selamat Kembali!" Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That we the members of the Singapore Legislative Assembly, on behalf of the people of Singapore, do place on record in the following terms our recognition of the unique services rendered to Singapore by Malcolm MacDonald as Governor-General, and then as Commissioner-General for the United Kingdom in South-East Asia: - "Holding the highest office among Her Majesty's representatives in South-East Asia, you have interpreted your duty to represent Her Majesty not only to Governments and with Governments but to the people, and we the people of Singapore have been impressed by your wide and warm sympathies and sincere friendliness as you move freely among us. You have appreciated the liberating and creative forces of democratic nationalism in Asia, and have understood that democracy in practice among us means its interpretation in the distinctive way of life of each of the peoples of South-East Asia, and in this way you have forged lasting links between the democratic traditions of East and West. We believe your influence has always been to build our self-confidence and the confidence of others in us which has helped speed our political advance. We are deeply grateful for your understanding and friendliness to the people of this territory, and your constant readiness to give us advice and assistance in matters great and small. Not only are you the first of Her Majesty's representatives but the first among those who have shown understanding of the people of this territory and our needs, and the first in helpfulness in achieving our legitimate aspirations." And that Mr Speaker do convey to His Excellency this message of our appreciation and gratitude and our best wishes for his success in his high post in India, our great neighbour.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my pleasure and the pleasure of my Party to second this motion. Malcolm MacDonald has been a friend to all. He has admitted in many gatherings that his friends are not only those with high and big coats on, but also those without any shirts on them! Indeed, Sir, to consider other people his friends is one thing, but he has been considered by all concerned as their friend. We witness, before his departure, many parties given in his honour, and you have to book in advance or else you may not get a date. Higher circles have their say; trade unionists call him 'the greatest trade unionist'; youth movements with their little boys and girls have always looked towards him as a friend and he has always been their very sincere friend. Malcolm MacDonald, in contrast to a few expatriates, I should say, is about the best Britisher we have known in recent times. I think he is a shining example of what a Britisher should be. I therefore, Sir, take pleasure to second the motion. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir that must have been the longest of all the messages which you have recently been asked by this House to carry to various persons and parties. In so far as we are being asked to wish Mr Malcolm MacDonald well in his new post in India, we join in the valedictions which, by local custom, accompany the departure of popular British officials. Sometimes even more so, these valedictions accompany the departure of unpopular British officials. But Mr MacDonald need have no fears under which category he falls. Had this motion confined its eulogies to a recital of the charm and grace with which he moved amongst the Asians, it would have had a completely smooth passage in this House. It is to his credit that he bore the burden of empire without the air of a tin god, moving disdainfully amongst we benighted heathens. He took the stuffing out of the stuffed shirts, a felony for which many members of the Tanglin Club have not quite forgiven him. Much to the dismay of the white aristocrats, he started to break down the barriers, which kept the heaven-born in their place - the Putney-born and the London-born - and the Asians in theirs. As I said, had this motion confined itself to this aspect of his contributions to Malaya and to South-East Asia, it would have had our unanimous blessings. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, unfortunately, we are also being asked, if I may read the words of the motion: "on behalf of the people of Singapore, do place on record our appreciation" of the political activities of the right honourable Gentleman, His Excellency the Commissioner-General for the United Kingdom in SouthEast Asia - the instrument of British foreign policy in this part of the world. My Party thinks it is unfair, both to the people of Singapore and to the Commissioner-General, to link up a message of goodwill with an unnecessary endorsement of British foreign policy in SouthEast Asia. It may be that the Government has its reasons for approving the political activities of Phoenix Park. The Government is entitled to its opinion. But there are other opinions. There is the opinion of the People's Action Party shared by a not inconsiderable portion of the population. Although we all want to convey to His Excellency our best wishes, we cannot place on record something with which we profoundly disagree. This motion attributes to the Commissioner-General an appreciation, if I may read it from the text of the motion, of "the liberating and creative forces of democratic nationalism in Asia." This is a claim, Sir, which I feel the Commissioner-General would be the first to repudiate as having erred on the side of effusiveness. Such an assertion might pass in an after-dinner speech when sentiment is what matters. But when something is to be put on record in this Assembly, and after ten days' notice has been given of the terms of the motion, we feel a greater degree of objectivity would not be uncalled for. The British Government's appreciation, through its political representative, of the liberating and creative forces of democratic nationalism in Asia has not been all it could and should have been, and indeed can yet still be. I am willing to concede that, as a person, Mr MacDonald may have appreciated these things differently. There is the case of His Majesty the Emperor Bao Dai, whom Mr MacDonald, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, recently had to present as a great Vietnamese patriot who was going to save Indo-China from Communism for democracy. The only thing that that gentleman has saved is himself, and I understand he is now languishing in the casinos on the French Riviera. I had the singular experience of being present at a Press club luncheon when His Excellency, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, described this same monarch as "His Majesty the Emperor Bao Dai - a great statesman, cool, calculating and courageous". A short while later, when the Communists were sweeping down from North Vietnam and the patriotic Emperor had packed up his extensive luggage and left the country even before the French quitted, it occurred to me that an alliteration, equally euphonious but more accurate in describing that gentleman, would have been cold, calculating and callous. Mr Speaker, Sir, in so far as this motion appears to seek approval - I would like to be very fair to the Hon. the Chief Minister - for British foreign policy in South-East Asia, we must record our complete dissent. We disagree with the policy which Phoenix Park has been responsible for executing in this part of the world. We disagree with the support of the French for Bao Dai which has led to the Communist victory in Indo-China. We disagree with the creation of Bangkok as a military base in S.E.A.T.O. This motion also propounds another thesis of doubtful political validity. It says: "We believe your influence has always been to build our self-confidence and the confidence of others in us which has helped speed our political advance." Speaking for the P.A.P., at no time has the Commissioner-General given us self-confidence, nor has he strengthened the support of our followers in our Party -

He is not a P.A.P. member!

No, he is not indeed! The P.A.P. draws its inspiration from the people and its self-confidence is the confidence that comes out of conviction. We cannot - Mr Francis Thomas rose - [Interruption.]

I beg your pardon?

Carry on, Mr Lee. Order, Mr Thomas.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indebted to you for protecting me from an attack by the Hon. the Minister for Communications but if he would make his interruptions more audible, I would be -

Mr Lee, I am protecting order in this House.

As you please, Mr Speaker, Sir, I submit. If there are Parties in this House which feel that it is necessary to confess to an appreciation of the services which the Commissioner-General has rendered them, then, of course, they must make their own appreciations and pay their own respects. We have at no time, in the words of the motion again, sought "advice and assistance in matters great and small". Sir, it is the fortunate position of my Party in not having to bother about small matters such as the one about the four Assistant Ministers. We do not have to seek advice on matters big and small. But, of course, it may be that some acknowledgments must be made by those who are indebted to him. We feel confident that Mr Malcolm MacDonald, who more than any one Britisher, I should think, in Malaya believes in a self-reliant and self-respecting Malaya, would be the last to censure us for this affirmation of our independence and self-reliance. He would understand why the People's Action Party, or, for that matter, any self-respecting nationalist Party cannot subscribe to such a statement. In any case, as our Chief Minister has publicly pointed out just now, it would have been most embarrassing for him if we were publicly to put on record our thanks for his having given the P.A.P. advice and assistance. It might jeopardise his somewhat delicate position -

The P.A.P. is not the people of Singapore! [Interruption.]

Order, please.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the wording of this motion has made it impossible for us to give it our unqualified assent.

More shame!

Had it been confined to Malcolm MacDonald the man, we would have joined in without reservation. He, more than any other British official, is loved by all the men and nearly all the women in Malaya. He, more than any other British official, has never allowed the people to forget that a high British official is human. Indeed, it was only recently at a dinner with the gentlewomen of the Chinese Ladies' Association that he went on record as saying that he would be quite happy if all the husbands there left their wives and that he stayed on with the ladies for breakfast! Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, in so far as this motion records our personal esteem for Mr Malcolm MacDonald, the man, we endorse it whole-heartedly, but we cannot endorse the policy of Her Majesty's Government in South-East Asia for which he has been the political instrument.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are all aware of Mr MacDonald's qualities as a gentleman, and his reputation as a gentleman has spread widely throughout South-East Asia. If this was an occasion for wishing him farewell in other surroundings, I would have no hesitation in associating myself with the kind things that have been said of him today; but we are now speaking on a motion before this House and I, for one, do not believe that it is quite proper in this place to eulogise Mr MacDonald in the terms of the motion before this House. I do not think that Mr MacDonald has always been right in his political judgment. About political events in this country, if I might be pardoned for using an expression, which is better used elsewhere, Mr MacDonald has, in my opinion, on many occasions, backed the wrong horse. Political events in this country have not turned out as Mr MacDonald would have liked, and I am sure that he would be the first person to admit this. I say again that if this was an occasion to wish him God-speed in other circumstances, I would be only too glad to join in the kind things that have been said of him. I am, however, not prepared to associate myself or my Party with the motion before this House.

Shame!

Mr Speaker, Sir, it gives me great pleasure to rise to support the motion of the Chief Minister. In doing so, I am sure I will also have the support of many of the hon. Members of the Opposition and even the members of the public in the Strangers' Gallery. No praise for Mr MacDonald is high enough. The good work that he has done in Malaya and South-East Asia is known throughout the length and breadth not only of Malaya but all over the world. He is liked by one and all, rich and poor, and the continuous stream of functions in his honour is evidence of his popularity with all the people of Malaya and which the P.A.P. cannot deny.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to associate myself with the motion put before the House by the Hon. the Chief Minister. Mr MacDonald, during his stay here for the last 9½ years, has endeared himself to the hearts of the people, whether they be rich or poor. He has never let stand between him and the people barriers of class, or creed, or race, or colour, or even for that matter, of station of life. He has always broken down such barriers. He has never stood on false dignity. He has always come out and met the people as a human being. Sir, he has been an ambassador of goodwill and friendship, and no better proof of the success and appreciation of his work can be found than in the unanimous voice that was raised about three years back when it was thought that he was about to be transferred. One cannot, Sir, always keep a good thing to oneself and today we are reconciled to having to lose him, but I must say that we feel sorry to lose him.. As a diplomat, Sir, I must say that he is one of those few high British officials who have really understood the aspirations of today's nationalist Asia, and I think he has done the best he can to help us to achieve our goal of self-government and independence. Sir, about his personal qualifications, a lot has been said but there are three words in the English language which express emotionally a great deal more than an expression in detail, and I will end, Sir, with those three words - that he is a 'jolly good fellow'!

Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, though he did not name me, undoubtedly included me in the stuffed shirts of Tanglin Club of which I am admittedly a member, although it is not my constituency. There are many people who like bush shirts and open shirts but I personally like being as well-dressed as possible. However, I am happy to say that Mr MacDonald happens also to be my personal friend and I am one of his greatest admirers. Many Britishers have asked the question - I have heard them ask many times - 'What does Mr MacDonald do?' I think the answer is contained in the Chief Minister's motion and, in my opinion, there is no exaggeration in it at all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully associate myself with the remarks made by the previous speakers with the exception, of course, of the Members for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) and Ponggol-Tampenis (Mr Goh Chew Chua) Apart from the qualities of His Excellency expressed by the previous speakers, he has made much effort in improving the conditions of service of the civilian workers in the Armed Forces in Singapore. As an ex-President of the Federation of Services Union, I have known that, on many occasions, he had been very successful in negotiations between employers and employees of the Services, and on behalf of the civilian workers of the three Services, I wish to place on record the appreciation of Mr MacDonald's services and wish him every success in his new appointment.

Sir, I attended a lunch party today in which Mr MacDonald spoke and a vote of thanks was proposed. It is the vote of thanks that I wish to refer to, because it was wrong in my opinion. He was described as an empire builder comparable to Stamford Raffles. I do not deny him equal status with Stamford Raffles, or greater, but I do not personally regard him as an empire builder, and when the Member for Tanjong Pagar referred to Mr MacDonald as having borne the burden of empire, I thought we were falling back into days which are really past already. 'Empire' is a concept, which is collapsing all around us and there is one empire-building force in the world today and that, I am afraid, is building itself fairly fast and has its centre in Moscow. The other empires are not expanding; they are contracting and they are going into liquidation. I cannot feel that it is right to describe Mr Malcolm MacDonald as an empire builder. I think it is much more appropriate to call him a world builder, one who has sincerely attempted to do something for the world in which he lives and not for the country to which he belongs. It is because of that feeling about him that I have personally thought that this was a sound and right motion to support. We do not always want to infuse party politics into this Chamber and though I could make some wounding remarks if I wanted to, I also -

Please do.

Order, Please

I thought it was rather far-fetched for the Member for Tanjong Pagar to make this firm assumption that MacDonald the man is also a sort of Whitehall in himself. No doubt he has to carry out the policies of Whitehall, just as the Member for Tanjong Pagar has to carry out the policies decided for him by the members of the People's Action Party. He has not much option about it. He has to do as he is told but I think we can further say this: whilst I have not a very high opinion of the policies adopted by Great Britain or by the U.S.A. in this part of the world - and I associate myself largely with the views that the hon. Member has expressed - whatever we may think of British foreign policy in this part of the world, I think one thing is certain: it would have been a great deal worse without Mr Malcolm MacDonald. I think we can also say, as a compliment to the Member for Tanjong Pagar, that the policies of the P.A.P. would have been a great deal worse without Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

I cannot help but feel a little sorry, Sir, for a people who are congenitally incapable of saying 'Thank you' and having the courage to say 'No'. I think we will have to invent a word which will suit the warped and tortuous mentality which has been displayed across the floor. I do not know whether it was not perhaps a desire to display erudition in foreign politics which brought about these fireworks from the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I must confess that, as I heard him, he seemed to me to know a great deal more about Bao Dai than about the English language, because nowhere in this motion is there any question of asserting concurrence with the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Bao Dai's territory; and where we express appreciation for his influence in building up our confidence and the confidence of others in us, the protest of the Member for Tanjong Pagar comes from this basic confusion - that he thinks the P.A.P. is the people of Singapore. Sir, may we tell him a simple truth: that the people of Singapore are far greater than the P.A.P., and the 'us' is not the P.A.P. but the people of Singapore. He has influenced, I am satisfied, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office - the people in whose hands, to some extent, lies our destiny - to an appreciation of our capacity and our desire for political freedom. His activities have been very considerable in so far as this particular area is concerned and I believe they have at all times been for our good. At first, I felt more than a little chagrined that a motion of this nature should meet with what seems to be - if you will forgive the phrase - somewhat churlish opposition, but on reconsideration, Sir, I believe that, on balance, the views of the other Members of the House are heightened by the depths to which wilful misunderstanding has proved itself capable in this debate. I reiterate, for myself and my Party and the people of Singapore, our appreciation and our gratitude for the presence of Malcolm MacDonald in Singapore.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That we the members of the Singapore Legislative Assembly, on behalf of the people of Singapore, do place on record in the following terms our recognition of the unique services rendered to Singapore by Malcolm MacDonald as Governor-General, and then as Commissioner-General for the United Kingdom in South-East Asia: - "Holding the highest office among Her Majesty's representatives in South-East Asia, you have interpreted your duty to represent Her Majesty not only to Governments and with Governments but to the people, and we the people of Singapore have been impressed by your wide and warm sympathies and sincere friendliness as you moved freely among us. You have appreciated the liberating and creative forces of democratic nationalism in Asia, and have understood that democracy in practice among us means its interpretation in the distinctive way of life of each of the peoples of South-East Asia, and in this way you have forged lasting links between the democratic traditions of East and West. We believe your influence has always been to build our self-confidence and the confidence of others in us, which has helped speed our political advance, We are deeply grateful for your understanding and friendliness to the people of this territory, and your constant readiness to give us advice and assistance in matters great and small. Not only are you the first of Her Majesty's representatives but the first among those who have shown understanding of the people of this territory and our needs, and the first in helpfulness in achieving our legitimate aspirations." And that Mr Speaker do convey to His Excellency this message of our appreciation and gratitude and our best wishes for his success in his high post in India, our great neighbour.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly, in accordance with subsection (3) of section 3 of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, 1948 (No. 17 of 1948), as amended by the Emergency Regulations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1948 (No. 39 of 1948), and the Emergency Regulations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1951 (No. 9 of 1951), adopts the Proclamation made by the Governor in Council on the 16th day of July, 1955 and published as Notification No. S 199 in the Gazette Supplement No. 58 of 22nd July, 1955, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 23 of 1955, prolonging for a further period of three months commencing the 22nd day of July, 1955, the period specified in the Proclamation of Emergency made on the 21st day of April, 1955, and published as Notification No. S 113 in the Gazette Supplement No. 30 of 21st April, 1955. The effect of this motion is to ask this House to approve the Proclamation made by the Governor in Council on July the 16th last, which extended for a further period of three months from July the 22nd the period of Emergency and so continue in force for that further three months the Emergency Regulations. It so happened. Sir, that the last two or three sittings of this House have been preoccupied by other more exciting and probably more important matters than this motion to continue in force the Emergency Regulations. So it is nearly four months this afternoon since my hon. Friend the Chief Minister last moved a similar motion in this Assembly. When he did so last April, he promised that, within the next three months, the Government would exhaustively investigate whether there was any necessity for continuing the state of Emergency and, even if that should be so, whether there was any necessity for continuing the Emergency Regulations as a whole. He undertook that, within three months, the Government would make a clear declaration of policy on this matter. Now, Sir, much has happened since the day when that promise was made. Almost at the time that it was being made, there were forces at work, inflaming the passions of decent ordinary workers and inciting students to agitation, the result of which was that in May, we had ugly riots and four deaths. The Government then was faced with a very real and pressing Emergency. Far from making progress in our examination of the Emergency Regulations and the need for them, we were obliged to come to this House to get approval to restore to the Commissioner of Police the power to impose a curfew, the power which we had ourselves revoked only three weeks previously. Against that background of a most dangerous threat to the public security of Singapore, our examination of the Emergency Regulations became unreal. Then in June, we hoped that law and order and the innate decency and good sense of the people of Singapore had prevailed over those evil influences which seek to create disorder and violence here; but again, we found ourselves faced with a serious threat to the well-being of this island in a general strike. Once more, we had to face the grave responsibility of ensuring the public safety - the primary responsibility of any government - the responsibility of seeing that its citizens can go about their lawful occasions without danger to life and property and without risk of mob violence. In speaking in this Assembly towards the end of June, the Chief Minister gave an account of the measures which the Government, under his leadership, felt that it was right to take to safeguard the situation then. Having thus overcome these two threats to law and order and the whole fabric of our Government here, we were able then to turn to the task of reviewing the Emergency Regulations and the need for them, and as I think hon. Members will be aware from public statements which have already been made, we have reached a firm decision on the policy which we consider it is our duty to follow. Our policy is to embody in new legislation such of the provisions and the powers of the Emergency Regulations as we consider to be needed for the good government of Singapore. We have decided our policy and we have carried out the bulk of the work necessary to put that policy into execution. At the last sitting of this Assembly, we introduced seven Bills, and in those seven Bills will be found the majority of the provisions and powers which, in the view of the Government, are required in the present circumstances here in Singapore. As this legislation is enacted, we shall then allow the present Emergency Regulations to pass out of force. In this way, I very much hope that this will be the last time that I shall have to move in this Assembly this motion asking for an extension of the period of the Emergency Regulations. Much, of course, will depend on the progress that we can make in this Assembly in dealing with the new legislation, which is already before you and with at least one more important Bill, which we shall be introducing. That is the Bill for Social Security Registration which we shall ask this Assembly to enact, and we shall then allow the present provisions in the Emergency Regulations, providing for registration and identity cards, to lapse. If we can get this legislation enacted, then the Emergency Regulations will lapse. It seems to me probable that this House will wish to give its attention mainly to our new legislation and that this motion today, seeking approval for the extension of the Emergency Regulations while we consider the new legislation, has become, shall I say, of less burning interest than it usually is. I think perhaps, Sir, the House will wish me to give some brief account of the extent to which, during the period since I last spoke, we have found it necessary to make use of the powers of arrest and detention in the Emergency Regulations - those being the powers which arouse the greatest controversy, and very rightly naturally arouse the greatest repugnance amongst us all. When I last spoke, Sir, I reported that during 1954, we had made 69 Detention Orders and that during the first three months of this year, we had made 17. During the second three months, that is from the middle of April to the middle of July, again. 13 Detention Orders were made and in the next month which has since gone by, a further 4. So the total number of Detention Orders in the four-month period I am now reviewing comes to 17. Of those 17, 4 persons have been convicted in court, and one more is awaiting trial. Three have since been released subject to certain conditions of residence, and one has been released unconditionally, leaving 8 persons who are held now in custody purely on Detention Orders. I hope, Sir, that when those figures are considered in the light of the very serious events which have taken place during the last four months, this Assembly will agree with me when I say that the Government has exercised these powers with restraint and with judgment. We, on this side of the House, fully share the repugnance that all people feel to having to keep a person in custody without bringing him to trial in an open court under the ordinary procedure of the law, but I do submit, Sir, that as a Government, we have to weigh against that repugnance our bounden duty to safeguard the public peace and the welfare of the state, and on that issue, I am quite clear that the Government has discharged its responsibility with complete integrity. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion and reserve the right to speak. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Government will insist that I speak for five minutes before I am interrupted, or else keep silent for ever more, I must rise to say my piece on behalf of the People's Action Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chief Secretary has pointed out that what we will quarrel, or may quarrel, about is no longer or will no longer be the Emergency Regulations. As he has pointed out, some Bills or series of Bills have been tabled in this House. Before I proceed may I, on a point of information, ask him when we could expect to receive copies of these Bills? The Chief Minister rose -

I will take that, Mr Chief Minister. These Bills are in the process of being printed, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and as soon as they are ready, they will be sent out to Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could we be given an indication as to when we would be given the first opportunity to study them?

I can only inform hon. Members that the proofs have not come back to us, so that all I can say is that it will be done as soon as possible.

Quantitatively, Sir, in point of time, what would "as soon as possible" mean? Qualitatively, I can appreciate the fact that the printers will be rushed as quickly as we can expect them to be rushed as Government servants. It would be of assistance in this debate if we could know when we would be able to discuss the changes that are being proposed.

If it please you, Sir, I will answer that question. It is proposed that the Second Reading will take place on the 21st of September. Now, the Bills were tabled last week and, in the normal course, I think it will take about ten days for the Printer to return them to you - they are in your hands and no longer with Government - and for you to distribute them to Members. So, if they are given to us, say, in three days' time, we shall have more than three weeks to study them for the Second Reading.

Well, Sir, I do not propose to lose my right to speak tomorrow, and I do not at the same time wish unnecessarily to filibuster this House. I would say this to the Chief Minister - that if we want to be unkind, which is not always, we could point out the delay that all this amending legislation has taken. In the first sitting of this Assembly, when we had the privilege of the Chief Minister moving an extension of the Emergency Regulations, he promised us that when he came back again here in three months' time - that is, in July - we would have those amendments. This is August and we still have not got them -

You have got them -

Order, please. Yes, it is quite obvious, Mr Chief Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chief Minister is always quite right. But I am sure we are equally quite right because we are quite in the dark as to what he proposes to do until we receive copies of these Bills. Until we receive them, we do not know whether we shall be able to congratulate him and to wish him well -

Wait till the 21st of September!

Order, please.

- or perhaps -

Order, order. Moment of interruption. Debate to be resumed, what day?

Tomorrow, Sir, at 10 a.m. Remaining items on the Order Paper read and ordered for the next day.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That this Assembly do now adjourn.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Four o'clock p.m.