Hansard, 1955-09-22

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like formally to move that, at the termination of business today, the Assembly stand adjourned to the 12th of October, 1955, at 10 a.m.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising today the Assembly do stand adjourned to the 12th of October, 1955.

"to amend the Merchandise Marks Ordinance (Chapter 157 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Assistant Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 12th October, 1955, and to be printed.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate - [21st September]:

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I explained yesterday, this Bill is divided into six Parts dealing with a number of different matters which all have this in common: that they are additions to our permanent criminal law which we consider necessary in present circumstances, and they are all measures which we hope will only be required for a limited period. So we have brought them together in this Bill making temporary provisions to amend our criminal law. I referred yesterday evening, Sir, to Part I, the Definitions, and to Part II, which contains stern measures directed against Communist terrorists and secret plots. We now come, Sir, to Part III of the Bill. This also is directed against Communist terrorists, but against those in the Federation. It is designed to give full assistance to our friends in the Federation in denying supplies to the terrorists in the jungles of Johore. It provides for control of the movement of persons and vessels in the Straits of Johore. Clause 10 (1) prohibits movement in the main Strait between the island of Singapore and Johore during the hours of darkness. Clause 10 (2) prohibits absolutely at all times, whether by day or night, movement between Pulau Ubin and Johore. Clause 10 (4) exempts from that control the area south of Pulau Ubin which is roughly opposite to Changi Point. The effect of clauses 11 and 12 is to declare this area in the Straits a port under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance, and to apply to it certain provisions of that Ordinance which relate to administrative control of shipping and the issue of clearances and so on. Clause 12 gives power to the Harbour Master, who is, in fact, the Fisheries Officer, to issue permits to fishermen and other people who need to use these waters. The areas to which these various clauses refer are described in the first five Schedules of the Bill. Those descriptions are not very easy to follow, and I have had a map prepared, a copy of which I will table, Sir, and another copy I have had placed in the Library in case Members wish to refer to it. These areas have been prescribed now for many months and are, I think, well known to all persons who use those areas. All these arrangements have been working for some time, and we are confident that they have achieved their main purpose of denying supplies to the terrorists in Johore. It is necessary that this control, which was imposed to help the Government of the Federation, should be continued as long as the authorities in the Federation are carrying out food denial measures in Johore. Part IV of the Bill, Sir, is quite simple. It prohibits the public display of foreign flags, except by accredited Commonwealth and consular representatives. Part V is more controversial. It makes it necessary to give 14 days' notice of a strike or lock-out in an essential service. The essential services to which this Part applies are listed in the sixth Schedule. We have, Sir, limited that Schedule to services which we consider to be vitally necessary for the health and life of the community. Hon. Members will probably notice that we have not included in that Schedule public transport. Now a sudden stoppage of public transport in this city, as we know from experience, must cause very grave inconvenience and hardship to the community; but, nevertheless, we reached the conclusion that we should not regard it as being vitally necessary to the health and life of the community, and so we have not included public transport in the Schedule. I would emphasise that this Part of the Bill does not, of course, prohibit strikes. It only requires that 14 days' notice should be given so that some sort of emergency arrangements can be made to ensure a minimum service necessary for the well-being of the public. I expect it will be argued that this Part is restriction on trade union activities. Of course, that is so, but it is our view, Sir, that workers in these essential services, and indeed the Government, have an obligation towards the public which must be recognised, because a strike in these services does not only affect the workers in the industry, but it affects the daily life of everybody in the community. A strike in these services can only be carried out at the cost of harm to the public. These workers, after all, are, in the main, the employees of responsible organisations - the Government, the City Council, statutory authorities - organisations which can be expected to follow a good employer policy. They are primarily concerned with service to the public rather than with seeking profit, and their general policy is considerably under the direction of the Government. It is true, of course, that this period of 14 days gives the employing organisations time in which to arrange to carry on their services to some extent, and to this extent the sharpness of the strike weapon is blunted. But, as I have said, we feel that the over-riding interests of the general public cannot be ignored, and I think the House will agree that recent experiences in strikes in the City Council have shown that the strike is still a very potent weapon and must still cause great hardship, and, ultimately, a danger to public health, even after the 14 days' notice has been given. I think it is right, too, that in these services where so much more is at stake than the interests of the employers and the employees, there should be a compulsory period during which efforts at conciliation can be made and during which the full implications of a strike can be appreciated. In these days, unfortunately, we have hot-heads amongst our labour leaders who, for their own ends, will provoke strike action before all efforts to reach agreement by negotiation have been tried and exhausted. Their technique is to reach a quick snap decision and force an immediate strike. Surely these tactics should not be allowed in essential services, and the l4-day period may well give time for wiser and more moderate counsels to prevail over irresponsible leaders without, I suggest, doing any damage to the real interests of the workers. Part VI is general and contains powers of search and arrest, and provides for matters of procedure. I think the most important clause is clause 30. That gives a special power to disperse assemblies at times of tension when passions are being aroused and there is a danger of a crowd being turned into a rioting mob, as we have experienced recently and in 1950. The clause provides that whenever the Chief Secretary declares that an immediate threat to public peace exists, then any police officer not below the rank of Inspector may disperse any assembly of ten or more persons. The point of this clause is that there must be an immediate threat to public peace. There must be a situation where tension and emotions have been aroused and there is an atmosphere of crisis, and there is a danger that a spark could set light to a serious conflagration - circumstances in which any gatherings present a real threat to public security. Then the declaration can be made. The provision is designed only to deal with an immediate threat, to provide time for passions to cool off, and so Members will see that subclause (2) provides that the declaration can only remain in force for a maximum of 48 hours, though it can be renewed. The powers and penalties provided throughout this Bill, Sir, are, as I have said, supplementary to those contained in the permanent legislation dealing with these matters, and we have deliberately refrained from amending the permanent law in the hope that these new powers and penalties will only be required for a limited period, because we hope that as the people of Singapore gain experience of the working of democracy under the wise, restrained and sound leadership of Members of this Assembly and other leaders, and as workers and their trade unions gain experience of sound and effective trade unionism and begin to appreciate the danger to their own interests of violent and precipitate action: - as these things happen, Sir, we hope that the people of Singapore will no longer be at the mercy of Communist terrorists and will no longer be stampeded by irresponsible leaders headlong into hasty and violent action. In order that hon. Members of this House can have full time to consider these clauses in the light of this debate, I shall not ask to take the Committee stage today but shall put it down for our next sitting on 12th October. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Sir, on a point of elucidation on the sixth Schedule. The Chief Secretary put forward a point that all the services there listed are either under the Government or City Council or public corporations; and that they are model employers and unlikely to behave as employers solely out for profit. Will he explain the appearance in that Schedule of No. 11 - "Bulk distribution of fuel oil and lubricants"?

I may have been guilty of a slip of the tongue, Sir. What I meant to say was they are "in the main". Whether I left "in the main" out or not I cannot recall, but, of course, the employees in the bulk oil fuel industry are not Government employees, or employees of statutory corporations. They are, on the other hand, employees of very large and responsible concerns who do have the interests of the public very much before them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to direct my remarks on this Bill to the section which deals with strikes and lock-outs. To take the point which the Chief Secretary has just taken, I must say that I profoundly disagree with his view of the responsibility and good conduct of the organisations which distribute fuel oil and lubricants in bulk. As a matter of fact, I am closely associated with the unions in two of the companies which distribute these lubricants and fuel oil in bulk. I must say that my experience of them has been somewhat disappointing. To begin with, the moment a union was formed in their companies, the employers issued, without consultation with the union or union officials, a directive listing the employees who, in their opinion, should not join the union, the people they considered either supervisors or confidential stenographers, who should not participate in trade union activities. In the light of the somewhat acrimonious correspondence that arose between the union and these employers, my impression is that to allow such a company the added protection which the Chief Secretary has justified on the grounds that the employers are more or less model employers - to allow them to have this added protection is, in my opinion, completely unwarranted. The second point is that the Chief Secretary in his remarks has completely overlooked the main point - his omnibus point - that all the sections have been collected together in one Bill because they are of a temporary nature, and that with a change of circumstances in the, we all hope, not too distant future, they may become unnecessary. But when he propounded his arguments why in these services the strike instrument should be blunted, he did not indicate that it should not be blunted when the Emergency has passed away. The arguments that he propounded would hold equally well if there were no emergency situation. His view is that these services are essential to the life and benefit of the community and that, therefore, there should be a time-lag to allow this strike weapon to be blunted and to allow conciliation proceedings. It is pertinent to remind him that if his main argument still holds that this law is only for the period of the Emergency, then all those other arguments that he has put forward are irrelevant and cannot hold water as they stand, because they contradict his main point. As more or less a trade unionist myself, one who has been in close association with the unions, I cannot, of course, subscribe to the view the Chief Secretary has expounded, that the leaders in many of these unions in the essential services are irresponsible hot-heads. Very often, my feeling was that the venerable and elderly managers, who met the workers over trade disputes, were quite ignorant and foolish people who did not know that they were dealing with a human problem. These people are only concerned with their workers as cogs in operating their purely mechanical system for which they are responsible. The Minister for Labour will be the first to agree with me when I say that the strike weapon can be abused by anyone - responsible or irresponsible leaders. I think he will also agree with me that the leaders in these unions - water, gas, electricity, public health - are not irresponsible leaders. I should hate to imagine the fire service leaders are irresponsible, because if they are, then a prominent member of the Labour Front must be responsible for that. We have nothing to do with that. Postal and telegraph services and undertakings, port, dock, and harbour services and undertakings - to many Members in this Assembly, they just list up particular categories and groups. But to me and to my colleagues, they refer to certain persons and certain committees, and I resent very much the suggestion that they have in the past acted in an irresponsible manner, or that they are likely in the future to act in an irresponsible manner. I think some of these unions, like the water, gas, electricity and public health unions, were former clients of the Hon. the Chief Minister, and he would be the first, I think, to stand by the good conduct in the past of his clients. If the Government feels that it is necessary to take this step, we shall not resist it, but we ask them to remember that it is not democratic, that it is not fair to blunt the strike instrument, and that all these extraordinarily stringent regulations should be set aside as soon as conditions permit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, talking on essential services in reply to the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) who brought attention to bear on item 11 in the sixth Schedule -"Bulk distribution of fuel oil and lubricants" - the answer to that is this, Sir, that it would not be possible to maintain all the other essential services - all the other ten listed - if distribution of fuel oil and lubricants is not also under similar control. To my mind, Sir, the best solution to this question of strikes in essential services could be resolved in a different manner, instead of having it in a temporary provisions law. As far as strikes in essential services are concerned, I think, in the interests of public health and public life, that they should not be allowed to take place without a notice period, but protection for the worker should be provided for by compulsory arbitration. That is the only solution. There should be compulsory arbitration in essential services, and if the awards of the arbitrators are not satisfactory to the unionists, then, of course, the unionists will want to strike; but before then, there will be that safety valve - that all disputes as regards conditions of employment could be referred to a compulsory arbitration board where all matters could be resolved in a friendly spirit, or in a proper manner, instead of having to resort to a strike. The Member for Tanjong Pagar has said that I know that the leaders in the unions in these essential services are not all irresponsible men. Sir, there are all types of leaders - some are responsible, some are not responsible, no matter in what organisation they may be. The object of this measure is not to blunt the strike weapon at all. In fact, the strike weapon has never been blunted in so far as the essential services are concerned. A 14-day strike notice is necessary in order that my Ministry can bring both parties together in an endeavour to settle the dispute amicably. When that cannot be done, then, of course, the workers will go on strike.

The employers have got a separate labour force!

No. The City Council, for instance, Sir, have had two strikes - one last year and one this year. The labour force that they employed was not meant to break the strike. It was meant to look after the health of the public, so much so that even with the employment of a temporary labour force, this did not prevent the City Council Labour Unions Federation from winning their strike last time. More-over, Sir, these requirements do not deprive the workers of the strike weapon at all.

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

Committee stage, what day?

12th October, Sir.

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 Bill which is designed to make it an offence for any person to make, print, possess, post or distribute, or have under his control, any document containing any incitement to violence or counselling disobedience to the law, or to any lawful order of a public servant, or any document likely to lead to any breach of the peace. It is, Sir, a simple Bill which I hope requires little elaboration. I would, however, wish to add this in moving the Second Reading, and that is that the making and circulation of documents of this kind, which is not by any means uncommon at the present time, and indeed, Sir, it is an activity which finds much favour with the Malayan Communist Party - such an activity, Sir, clearly constitutes a threat to law and order. On this ground, I venture to hope that the Bill will commend itself to this Assembly. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a very simple Bill which requires little elaboration, as the Hon. the Attorney-General said, but I cannot understand why it should have been necessary to include it, first, in the Penal Code, and next, after section 151, which deals with unlawful assemblies: "Whoever knowingly joins or continues in any assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace, after such assembly has been lawfully commanded to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both." That is just a preliminary point. My point of substance is that it should not be necessary to tamper with the Penal Code which is part of the permanent legislation and of the normal laws of this country more than is absolutely necessary. Anything special which we all hope will become unnecessary in a few years time should not be included in the Penal Code. The Indian Penal Code is a much more comprehensive piece of legislation than our own, and even they have not included this, or any such section, in their own Penal Code. Mr Butterfield rose -

Mr Butterfield, in reply?

In reply, Sir. With regard to the first point which was raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, that is, the place of the proposed new section in the Penal Code, that was a point which occurred to me too when I first saw this Bill; so I examined the Penal Code and considered where it might more conveniently come. It seemed to me, all things taken into consideration, that it appeared to be a most suitable place. But I do not propose, Sir, to move that this Bill should go to the Committee of this House until 12th October, and I should be very glad to reconsider that and possibly move an amendment to put the clause into what may be a more suitable part of the Penal Code. With regard to the point of substance which was made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, the Government does not accept the view that a provision of this kind need only be temporary. The position, as I understand it, Sir, is that neither the Sedition Ordinance, which, of course, deals with seditious publications, nor the Undesirable Publications Ordinance adequately covers activities of the kind which this Bill is designed to meet. I think, Sir, that is all I wish to say now with regard to the points made by the hon. Member.

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

Committee stage, what day?

12th October, Sir.

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 enable the Governor in Council to make better provision by rule to give effect to the provisions of the Arms and Explosives Ordinance. It is, of course, an Ordinance which regulates the manufacture, use, sale, import and export, and so on of arms and explosives in the Colony. Sir, the particular purposes for which it is desired that there should be power to make rules should, I think, be referred to by me at this stage, and they are three in number. Firstly, the regulation of the transport of arms; secondly, the authorisation of officers by name or office to arrest without warrant, and to search persons who are reasonably believed to have committed offences against any rules made under the Ordinance. The third purpose for which it is desired that there should be power to make rules is the provision of increased penalties for offences against the rules. Those amendments, Sir, are provided for by clause 3 of the Bill, and I think I should refer to the amendment which is proposed in clause 2. Quite shortly, Sir, the effect of that amendment will be to provide that no dealing in or handling of arms and explosives on behalf of the Crown shall be exempt from the operation of the Ordinance, as is at present the case, unless it is in accordance with rules made under the Ordinance. So, shortly, Sir, the purpose of this measure is to enable control over arms and explosives to be more effectively exercised in Singapore. I hope, therefore, that this House will give the Bill its Second Reading.

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

Committee stage, what day?

12th October, Sir.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill is designed to provide specifically for a most aggravated type of assault - that is, acid throwing. It is, Sir, a type of assault which all must regard as of a most cowardly and revolting kind and one which merits severe punishment. So, Sir, what this Bill seeks to do is to create certain offences relating to the throwing of acid and to provide penalties for those offences. First of all, Sir, and I am now referring to clause 3, the Bill seeks to make it an offence to carry any corrosive substance in circumstances which raise a reasonable presumption that the corrosive substance is to be used for the purpose of causing hurt. The penalty prescribed for that offence by clause 3 is a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years. The second offence which the Bill seeks to create, Sir, and I now have in mind the provisions of clause 4, is the actual or attempted use of a corrosive substance for the purpose of causing hurt; and the punishment prescribed for that offence is a term of imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life. The clause also prescribes that the convicted person shall also be liable to whipping. Sir, the Bill also seeks to create two further offences which are connected very closely with the two offences to which I have referred. They are the offences of consorting with, or being in the company of another committing one or other of the offences referred to in clauses 3 and 4. The consorting, Sir, must be in circumstances which raise a reasonable presumption that the person consorting intends to act, or has acted, with that other person in the commission of one of those offences to which I have already referred. In such cases, Sir, the person consorting will be liable to the same punishment as the person with whom he has consorted. There are two other provisions, Sir, of the Bill to which I would wish to refer, and I refer to the provisions of clauses 6 and 7. Clause 6, Sir, is designed to confer wide powers of search on any police officer who has reason to believe that an offence under the Ordinance - and I refer now to the words of the clause - "has been, is being, or is likely to be committed." The provision of clause 7, Sir, relates to statements made by accused persons. That clause provides that a statement made by any person charged with an offence under the Ordinance to any police officer of or above the rank of Inspector, shall be admissible in evidence provided that it has not been induced by any threat or improper inducement, and that the accused has been cautioned at the earliest possible time. Members may wish to notice, Sir, that it is expressly provided by the Bill that a person accused of an offence under the Ordinance shall not be obliged to answer any questions at all. As I said a few moments ago, Sir, the type of offence dealt with by this Bill is a most cowardly one, and I therefore ask this House to accept this Bill as a proper measure to deal with offences of that kind. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Committee stage, what day?

12th October, Sir.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill is designed to make permanent the provisions of the Protected Places Ordinance which was enacted in 1948, and, in addition, to provide for the protection of areas in which special measures are required to control the activities of persons who are in those areas. What the Bill therefore provides, Sir, is that the Chief Secretary may declare any premises or any area to be a protected place, or a protected area, as the case may be, if he considers it necessary or expedient in the case of any premises or any place to prevent the entry of unauthorised persons into that place; and if in the case of an area he considers it necessary or expedient to control the movement or conduct of persons within that area. Sir, the consequence of such a declaration by the Chief Secretary is that, in the case of a protected place, special permission is required before a person may enter and in the case of both protected places and protected areas, any guard on duty is empowered to fire if necessary on any person attempting to enter, or who is in a protected place or area, if that person fails to stop after being challenged three times. Under the Bill, Sir, too, there is a further power conferred on the Chief Secretary - and I am referring to clause 9. The Chief Secretary, Members will see if they care to look at that clause, is empowered to authorise the use of methods of protection for any protected place or area which may involve danger to life to persons entering or attempting to enter. Sir, there are numbers of premises in Singapore which require special measures for their protection of the kind provided by this Bill, and this protection, Sir, has been found to be very effective in the past. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise not to speak against the Bill but to point out that sometimes powers which are given in this way can be abused. When they are, they have very unfortunate repercussions, and the person against whom the powers have been used in an improper way loses all confidence in the whole process of law. I like to bring to the attention of whoever may be responsible for gazetting these protected places, a particular incident which arose in the case of the recent City Council strike. It concerns the City Council gas works which, quite properly, is a protected place. In a corner of the gas works is a block where some 20 to 25 families reside. They work in the gas works and they are completely fenced off from it. There is a concrete wall which cuts them off from the gas works, a wall in which there is a solid steel gate. There is also a corrugated metal fence, fencing the quarters from the road. Sir, ordinarily a person who works in the gas works and occupies these quarters has to go to his place of employment not through that special steel gate, which seals him off from the gas works, but he goes out through the normal corrugated fencing gate, goes round to the front along Kallang Road, and then enters the gas works. When he finishes his work, he goes out by the main gas works gate and then back to his quarters. When the strike began, the employers sealed off the quarters from the road. They closed the corrugated fencing gate and opened the steel gate which was in the middle of this concrete wall between the quarters and the gas works, and no worker who was on strike could leave his quarters, or, having left the quarters and gone out, was allowed to return. Now, Sir, it was a fine point, first, whether or not the quarters form part of the protected area; and, in fact, the employers tried to bluff their way through and said: "Well, it is part of the protected area." Of course, had that point got known to the workers - that protected areas and boundaries of protected areas were elastic things which could be pushed backwards and forwards as the employers choose - then I would say the result would have been unfortunate, to say the least. An injunction was threatened against the City Council for preventing their men who were on strike from going back. Their solicitors were consulted. The question whether they were licensees or tenants arose; and very fortunately just at about the time when action was going to be taken which would have brought quite a lot of publicity to this high-handed action, which was quite unlawful, the strike was settled. The point is that it is important that when a piece of legislation has given certain powers to a Government department or a Government official, these powers should not be abused in any circumstances. If they are, then you are likely to bring the whole process of your legislation and your whole process of law into disrepute.

I would like to make one comment, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the very admirable speech which the Member for Tanjong Pagar has just made, because I do feel that he has gone a little bit too far. He has himself just demonstrated that the legislative process can take note of wrong or doubtful actions by employers. He has raised a most interesting point with reference to this corrugated gate that was sealed off, and - correct me if I am wrong, Mr Speaker - it is within the power of any Member of this House to raise any matter of that sort by way of a question or a motion or in other ways to bring it before the Legislature and have public attention drawn to it and, if necessary, to get the assent of the House for necessary action. There is no reason for saying that the whole democratic process is brought into contempt because some junior official has acted in a foolish way. It is this House that has the over-riding authority and can control the junior official.

They were going to extend the boundary!

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

Committee stage, what day?

12th October, Sir.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill is designed to remedy two defects in the Undesirable Publications Ordinance, 1938, which, in its present form, is designed to prevent the importation of undesirable publications from abroad. Sir, the first of these defects is that the Ordinance does not apply to undesirable publications made within Singapore by the use of unlicensed printing presses, and clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill are designed to remedy that defect. Sir, the second defect is that the Ordinance does not provide for action to be taken in respect of publications which constitute a danger to security where they are made outside Singapore until after they have been imported. That is because, Sir, it is not till then that they ordinarily come to the notice of the authorities. Clause 5, Sir, has therefore been drafted to remedy this second defect. What that clause does, Sir, is to provide machinery for the examination of packages coming into Singapore, and also for the examination of travellers entering Singapore, together with their baggage. It further provides, Sir, for the detention and confiscation and destruction of publications which may be found during the course of such examination if those publications are, in the opinion of the Controller, - and I use the words of the Bill - "prejudicial to public safety in Malaya and the maintenance of public order therein." In this connection, Sir, I think I should invite the attention of this Assembly to the concluding provisions of the Bill - the last part of the proposed new clause 13 - which provide that in the exercise of their powers and in carrying out their duties under the Ordinance, Controllers shall be guided by such general or special directions as may, from time to time, be given by the Chief Secretary. To conclude, Sir, the Bill is designed to prevent the importation, sale and circulation in Singapore of documents prejudicial to public safety in Malaya and the maintenance of public order therein, and the need for this, Sir, I hope, requires no emphasis. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is difficult to disagree wholly with this Bill. It is difficult also to agree to give such wide, discretionary and absolute powers to officials whose sense of what is likely to be prejudicial to public safety may not coincide with that which obtains amongst right-thinking domiciled persons in this country. There should have been some check on the exercise of these discretionary powers, some check by which this House and the public can be acquainted how these powers have been exercised from time to time. There is nothing in this Ordinance, as it stands, which requires the Chief Secretary or the Controller to say what particular publication or publications, document or documents he has impounded or sent back to its place of origin, or destroyed. There is no reason if the powers are properly exercised why the public, and in particular this Legislature, should not be informed of the manner in which these powers have, in fact, been exercised. I hope that the Government will give this matter further thought so that it can be considered at the Committee stage of the Bill.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indebted to the Member for Tanjong Pagar for drawing attention to that aspect of the Bill. I can assure the House that there is never any question of this Government seeking lightly to give any officer, whether domiciled or expatriate, wide powers without some curb. I can also assure hon. Members - not only the Member for Tanjong Pagar - that any amendments of which they may care to give us notice, will receive the most careful consideration in order to meet the quite legitimate objection raised by the hon. Member in his speech.

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

Committee stage, what day?

12th October, Sir.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill, Sir, is to deal with and protect the public from unscrupulous vendors of medicines and quacks. It requires vendors of medicines to publish the ingredients of the particular medicine they sell. Advertisements in the Press, and particularly in the vernacular, of secret remedies make fantastic claims in the treatment of certain diseases. These are likely to beguile persons suffering from these diseases and to deter them from seeking proper medical advice. These advertisements are a danger to the public. Another important aspect is the extraordinary claims on wrappers and pamphlets which go with the medicines. Fantastic prices are also often charged for these medicines. If a proprietary medicine is a genuine product, with reasonable therapeutic action in the treatment of an ailment for which it is recommended, then the makers have no excuse whatsoever for not disclosing its contents. Even before the 1941 Act was passed in England, most medicine manufacturers had already taken steps to disclose the formula and to sell under a protected trade mark. It may perhaps be said that the disclosure of the composition of a medicine may mean very little to the general public. This may be so, but it certainly does mean something to the medical profession as a whole, and, furthermore, the public will gradually be educated and pharmacists will be in a position to advise their customers of the value of the medicine. It is not unknown for proprietary medicines to be made to two different formulae according to the market, especially if the medicine contains substances which are scheduled as poisons in any particular country. For example, one aphrodisiac preparation states that it contains Yohimbine. But Yohimbine is not scheduled as a poison. In Malaya, however, Yohimbine is a scheduled poison, and the formula is not disclosed here. Another preparation - Strychnine - is distributed not only by pharmacists, but also by unlicensed medicine vendors under two different formulae. There is another which purports to have encased in its capsules cosmic rays falling from the outer depths of space and blessed with miraculous curative powers for T.B.! On examination, only oils mildly carminative are the ingredients used which could be purchased for a few cents! This so-called marvellous medicine - a miraculous cure, as is claimed - is being sold at $40 per bottle. It is also a practice for local patent medicine importers to import tablets and pills from the United Kingdom or elsewhere, or from the continent, in bulk and to pack them in small quantities, selling them with extravagant claims. Sometimes indecent advertisements assist the sale and high prices are charged for such products. There is no disclosure of the formula, and the health authorities have no idea what these medicines contain. The disclosure of formulae would considerably assist Government to check medicines for poisons, and the food and drug authorities could more readily be ensured that the medicine, in fact, is in accordance with the disclosed formula. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Bill considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 -

Mr Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to clause 4 by adding the words "or high blood pressure" after the word "blindness" in page 3, line 5, subclause (1).

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

Sir, may I move that consideration of this clause be postponed under Standing Order 51 (5) until we have dealt with the other clauses?

Is that the wish of the Committee, to postpone this clause to the end? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Clause 4 is accordingly postponed. Clauses 5 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

We now come back to clause 4. The Question before the Committee is that in page 3, line 5, after the word "blindness", the words "or high blood pressure" be there inserted.

I am a little unhappy about that phrase. It seems to me that it may require definition, and I do not think that, medically, there is such a thing known as high blood pressure, with respect to the mover of the Bill. I should like to enquire, Sir, whether it is possible - should we find that there is a better phrase for what is intended and one that does not require definition - at the Third Reading -

"Hypertension".

Yes. Sir, I move that the word "hypertension" -

Can we first deal with this amendment? [Interruption.] Mr Chief Minister, I will give you a few moments to consider the amendment, unless, of course, you propose to accept -

Sir, I move the substitution of the word "hypertension" -

Will you then withdraw your amendment, Mr Lim?

I withdraw my amendment, Sir.

The amendment is then withdrawn with the leave of the Committee? Hon. Members indicated assent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

If it please you, Mr Chairman, I move that the words "or hypertension" be inserted after "blindness" in line 5, page 3, of the Bill. Amendment handed in.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I think this amendment is unfair to those who- are suffering from low blood pressure! Sir, it is true there is low blood pressure. It is real because a doctor told me that I have it! I think that may be the difference in the policy and practice - At this point Mr Braga proceeded to leave the Chamber. - [Interruption.]

It is all right. We know the word is "hypotension". - [Interruption.]

Order, please.

If we are concerned with the exploitation of those gentlemen who, either for reasons of too good living or otherwise, have to seek a remedy for their ills through advertisements in the newspapers, surely one should also give thought to those who suffer because they are not so flamboyant or impetuous? These, I believe, according to a little booklet I read, are the manifestations of "hyper-" as opposed to "hypo"-tension, which is what I am supposed to have, Mr Chairman! Those who suffer from this other kind of disease, of course, are much more phlegmatic and naturally much slower in reaching decisions. But I am told, Mr Chairman, that it is safer, on the balance, to be "hypo" than "hyper". For that reason I would not move an amendment to this amendment. I would not add the word "hypotension" too, because, being phlegmatic and somewhat slow, we are unlikely to respond to blandishments made in advertisements as to how we can be cured by the purchase of a bottle of expensive tablets! However, I do wish to point out that there are people who suffer from just the reverse. They should not pass without notice. Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer) rose -

Yes, Mr R. Jumabhoy?

Sir, I am one of those who suffer from low blood pressure!

Curiously enough, Mr Chairman, I think I can associate myself in the same category with the Member for Tanjong Pagar!

You are in the wrong Party then!

It seems, hon. Members, that we are all hypos!

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, with an Amendment.

Mr 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 Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolve that the sum of $2,000,000 should be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure and for the Services specified in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 19 of 1955. Sir, a very full explanation of the reasons for this request for funds is given in the Sessional Paper, but hon. Members will perhaps wish me to draw attention to the main points in the Paper. When the War Damage Fund was drawn up in 1949, the Malayan Governments were hard pressed financially. Her Majesty's Government, although itself hard pressed, agreed to finance the Fund. This financial assistance took the form of a gift of $171.4 millions and an interest-free loan of up to a limit of $160 millions. It was understood that, when the time came to draw the interest-free loan, the financial position of the Malayan Governments would be reviewed. If the financial position had changed for the better in the meantime, they would be expected to contribute to the Fund, thus easing the heavy burden on Her Majesty's Government. At the same time, Her Majesty's Government agreed that a sum of $19.4 millions should be paid from the War Damage Fund to the War Risks (Goods) Insurance Fund to enable the latter Fund to meet its estimated liabilities. This payment was agreed on the understanding that the Malayan Governments would, between them, contribute $8.6 millions to the War Risks (Goods) Insurance Fund. Singapore's share of this contribution was estimated at $4.3 millions, and this sum was actually voted and placed in reserve in 1949. The position in these two connections has changed materially in the meantime. In the first place, the finances of the Colony have improved greatly since 1949 and substantial reserves have been built up. In the second place, instead of the $4.3 millions which Singapore originally undertook to contribute to the War Risks (Goods) Insurance Fund, only $1 million has, in fact, been paid, due to the fact that in the event the liabilities of the Fund have fallen short of the estimate. When the question of drawing the last instalment of the interest-free loan, amounting to $21 millions, was raised earlier this year, Her Majesty's Government drew attention to the improved financial position of the Colony and to the fact that the actual contribution made to the War Risks (Goods) Insurance Fund had proved to be considerably less than what had been agreed when the contribution of $19.4 millions from the War Damage Fund had been decided upon. Her Majesty's Government therefore asked if, in the circumstances, the Government of Singapore could see its way to make a contribution to the War Damage Fund, thus easing the burden on Her Majesty's Government. In view of the improvement to the financial position of the Colony since the War Damage scheme was drawn up, and the heavy burden which Her Majesty's Government has borne and continues to bear in connection with Commonwealth defence and economic development, the Government has come to the conclusion that it is under an obligation and that it would be in fulfilment of the understanding reached in 1949 to make a contribution to the War Damage Fund at this stage. With regard to the amount of this contribution, it is considered that it would be reasonable to contribute the balance of the sum which would have had to be paid to the War Risks (Goods) Insurance Fund if the liabilities of that Fund had, in the event, proved to be as large as was originally estimated. As I have said, this sum amounts to $2 millions, has already been voted, and is now held in reserve. Lastly, Sir, I would like to make it clear that this contribution will go to reduce the Colony's liability in respect of repayment of her share of the interest-free loan. The total amount of loan money required for the Fund is estimated at the present time to be about $140 millions, of which Singapore's share will, I think, be of the order of $35 millions. This contribution of $2 millions will reduce the liability by a corresponding amount. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I entirely agree with this motion. It will be a good gesture on our part, because we have had considerable help from Her Majesty's Government at a time when the finances of the Colony were low. Now that we are in a fortunate position where we have built up a considerable reserve, I agree that we should do what we can to reimburse Her Majesty's Government.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolve that the sum of $2,000,000 should be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure and for the Services specified in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 19 of 1955.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolve that the sum of $1,289,359 should be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure and for the Services specified in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 18 of 1955. Sir, the purposes for which provision is required are explained in the Sessional Paper, but I shall be glad to answer any questions which hon. Members may wish to raise. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Financial Secretary for some information regarding item No. 292 - Subhead 44 - Singapore Polytechnic - for $290,000? I see that there is provision for the purchase of six flats at $255,000. I would like some information as to where these flats are, and for whose occupation they are intended. It is stated there that it is meant for the staff of the Singapore Polytechnic, but I would like some information as to the class of staff occupying these flats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the provisional plans for the construction of the Singapore Polytechnic were drawn up, a liability in respect of quarters for the staff of approximately $1,000,000 was noted. At the present time, steps are being taken to recruit the Principal and four principal teaching officers of the Polytechnic. It is hoped that they will arrive in the Colony early next year, and these quarters are required to house them. The quarters themselves are, I think, situated somewhere in the Grange Road Chatsworth Avenue area. They have been designed by an hon. Member of this House. They have been examined both by the Government Valuer and by the Government Architect, and are regarded as suitable for staff of the Polytechnic. The price which has been asked is regarded as fair.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolve that the sum of $1,289,359 should be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure and for the Services specified in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 18 of 1955.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 102 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1947 (No. 39 of 1947), as amended by the Income Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1948 (No. 20 of 1948), the Income Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1950 (No. 44 of 1950), the Income Tax (Amendment No. 2) Ordinance, 1950 (No. 46 of 1950), the Income Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1952 (No. 29 of 1952), the Income Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1953 (No. 40 of 1953) and the Income Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1954 (No. 34 of 1954), resolves that the Singapore Telephone Board be added to the First Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1947. Sir, an application has been received from the Singapore Telephone Board for exemption from income tax under section 13 (1) (e) of the Income Tax Ordinance. This exemption is effected by inclusion of the name of the Board in the First Schedule to the Ordinance. For this purpose, a resolution of this Assembly is necessary, in accordance with section 102 (1) of the Ordinance. The Singapore Telephone Board was set up under the Singapore Telephone Board Ordinance, 1953 (No. 21 of 1953). The Board consists of five persons - a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman, two members appointed by the Governor in Council, and the Financial Secretary. The main functions of the Board are, firstly, to operate a good and sufficient telephone service in the Colony for the Government, public bodies and the public generally; secondly, to promote the economic development of the telephone service in accordance, as far as practicable, with the recognised international standard practice as public demand; thirdly, to make regulations governing the telephone service. It is the duty of the Board to exercise and perform its functions under the Ordinance so that the total revenues of the Board, which consist mainly of charges for telephone services and the hire of equipment, are sufficient to meet its total expenditure properly chargeable under revenue account, including depreciation and interest on capital. Any surpluses of revenue over expenditure left after the obligations laid on the Board under section 23 (1) of the Ordinance have been fulfilled, will be applied to set up such reserves as the Board considers necessary, and, thereafter, to the payment of such interest on shares and stock issued by the Board as the state of the undertaking and financial position of the Board appears to warrant, but not exceeding an average of 6 per cent, taking one year with another. The Board is required to keep proper accounts and to prepare an annual statement of accounts for audit and trans-mission to the Minister for Communications and Works. It has also to transmit to the Minister annually a report of its activities. A copy each of the accounts and the report will be laid on the Table of the Legislative Assembly. The Board is a non-profit making public body whose activities are directed by a Board nominated by the Government of the Colony. Precedents for inclusion of such a public body in the First Schedule are, amongst others, the Malayan Railway Administration, the Singapore Harbour Board, the Penang Harbour Board and the Central Electricity Board. The Malayan Board of Income Tax, constituted under the Ordinance, has recommended that the Singapore Telephone Board may properly be included in the First Schedule to this Ordinance with effect from 1st January, 1955, and the Government accepts this recommendation. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 102 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1947 (No. 39 of 1947), as amended by the Income Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1948 (No. 20 of 1948), the Income Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1950 (No. 44 of 1950), the Income Tax (Amendment No. 2) Ordinance, 1950 (No. 46 of 1950), the Income Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1952 (No. 29 of 1952), the Income Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1953 (No. 40 of 1953) and the Income Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1954 (No. 34 of 1954), resolves that the Singapore Telephone Board be added to the First Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1947.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the pleasure to move, That this Assembly do adjourn to the 12th October, 1955, at 10 a.m.

I second it.

Question, "That this Assembly do now adjourn," put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at 11.39 a.m. to the 12th October, 1955.