Hansard, 1955-10-12

I have received two messages from His Excellency the Governor in connection with Bills which have been passed by the Assembly. Both are addressed to me. This is the first message, dated 26th September, 1955: "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 have this day assented to the Bill intituled: - "An Ordinance to prohibit certain advertisements relating to medical matters and to regulate the sale of substances recommended as a medicine." I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, R. B. BLACK, Governor." This is the second message, dated 27th September, 1955: "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 have this day assented to the Bill intituled: - "An Ordinance to provide for the stabilisation of the value of land to be acquired for public purposes and for the acquisition of land for comprehensive development as new towns." I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, R. B. BLACK, Governor."

asked the Minister for Communications and Works, in view of the approach of the rainy season, whether all flood-prevention measures in the low-lying areas have now been completed; and whether he can give an assurance that experience in the past, particularly in the Bedok Resettlement area and in the Kampong Tai Seng area near the Paya Lebar Airport, will not be repeated.

I regret that I have to give a negative reply to both parts of the question. I expect that the hon. Member and the House in general would like to have more than a bare negative on this matter. I will therefore go into some detail so that the hon. Member can understand the scientific complexities of the problem of flood prevention. In my reply to a similar question last July, I indicated that there were two factors which prevent rapid and immediate action against flooding. First, it is necessary to undertake lengthy hydrological and topographical surveys to ascertain the exact causes and nature of flooding in each area where it occurs. Since all subsequent flood prevention measures must be based on these preliminary surveys, it is necessary that the survey should be completely accurate in order that mistakes can be avoided and public money should not be wasted. There is thus a considerable time factor involved between the occurrence of a flood and the taking of measures to prevent its recurrence. There is also a cost factor which is very serious. Preliminary investigations indicate that for the city area alone, flood prevention works might cost as much as $60 million. Expenditure of that nature must obviously be balanced against other necessary public expenditure, and if it were to be undertaken, it would deserve the most serious and careful study by all Members of the Assembly. The hon. Member may better understand the nature of the problem if I tell him that it is essentially one of scientific control of vast natural forces. In this particular island of Singapore, it is complicated by the fact that the natural forces were not sufficiently taken into account in the earlier development of the island. I should like to assure the hon. Member that the Government is acutely aware of the suffering and the waste which result from recurrent flooding. I personally had experience of this in past years; it is a problem that frequently recurs to my mind. Any attempt, however, to deal with the problem of flooding on a vote-catching basis of temporary measures, stop-gap measures, would do little good and almost certainly involve a considerable waste of public money. We must proceed scientifically in this matter if we are to get any useful result. The second part of the hon. Member's question is partly answered already, but I will give some further details. He mentions the Bedok Resettlement area. I shall make a statement later in connection with a Report that has been tabled. It is enough to say now that the bund has been strengthened and the drainage channel has been straightened and deepened. I may also mention that the City Council has undertaken a number of minor flood prevention works at the Stamford/Orchard Canal, Bukit Timah/ Rochore Canal, Sungei Whampoa, Sungei Kallang, Geylang Serai and Geylang River, and in the Ulu Pandan area. At Kampong Tai Seng to which the hon. Member refers, the flood problem arises from the low-lying nature of the land, and the problem may have been increased to some extent by agricultural development. The Chief Drainage Engineer will be recommending measures for Kampong Tai Seng as soon as his investigations have been completed. The hon. Member will see, therefore, that though it is scientifically impossible to give him the assurance he asks for, hard work has been done to assess the need and to recommend measures for flood control. I may add a final word of comfort. Meteorologically speaking, the probability of flooding on last year's scale is rather small. Records show that the daily rainfall at Kallang on the 9th and 10th December, 1954, has only been exceeded once in the last 72 years; and similarly the total monthly rainfall at Kallang last December was the highest for 86 years. We can hope that we shall not have two record years of flooding in immediate succession.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister for Communications and Works give an assurance that requests for deepening of channels be taken in hand as soon as possible, in view of possible flooding due to the monsoon that is about to break in a month's time?

I have already dealt with this, Mr Speaker, Sir, in my answer to the first question. Whatever can be done will be done. It is no use going ahead until you are able to have a scientific assessment of the problem. You can transfer the water from one area to another without getting it off the land and into the sea.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare whether he will give a detailed report on the present strike of the Singapore Traction Company employees; and state what steps have been taken by the Government to settle this dispute and relieve the public from this inconvenience.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in July this year the Singapore Traction Company Employees Union submitted demands relating to increase in wages and improved conditions of service for all employees in the Company. The management replied that they were unable to entertain these demands from the Union, as they were in violation of an agreement signed between the management and the Union in February 1954. This agreement was binding on both parties and precluded either party from submitting or entertaining fresh demands relating to terms and conditions of employment for a period of two years. On 12th September a 14-day strike notice was submitted by the Union to the management. During this period the Labour Department contacted both parties, who agreed to a joint meeting. At this meeting the management stated that they would be prepared within a week to begin negotiations on a new agreement to be effective from 1st January, 1956. The Union, however, stated that negotiations should commence immediately and that any revised wage rates should become effective from 14th July, 1955, the date on which the original demands were submitted. The management offered to refer the question of the validity of the agreement to the Attorney-General. This was rejected by the Union. On 26th September the 14-day strike notice expired and resulted in a complete stoppage of buses run by the Singapore Traction Company. Since that date Government has maintained contact with both parties with a view to seeking a means of resuming negotiations on an effective basis so as to bring the dispute to an early settlement. Following the arrival of the Chairman of the Singapore Traction Company, Sir Thomas Strangman, the parties met again yesterday in the Labour Ministry. The Union urged that the management should reconsider their stand on the previous agreement in view of the recent wage increases in other bus companies. The Union also contended that the Singapore Traction Company's wage policy tended to encourage corruption among conductors. The management, however, were not prepared to modify their stand on the sanctity of the agreement previously entered into by the Committee of the Union and endorsed by a general meeting of members. The meeting, Sir, therefore ended in a deadlock.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Government approve of agreements -

Order. Will the hon. Member address his supplementary question to the Minister?

As you please, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister for Labour approve of agreements in which unions are bound for an indefinite period regardless of drastic changes in surrounding circumstances?

Sir, it is a question of freedom of contract. It was not the Government which advised the Union to enter into such an agreement.

But do you approve it?

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister say whether there is any truth in the Singapore Traction Company Employees Union's claim that the employers themselves have violated the agreement?

Mr Speaker, Sir, according to my knowledge, the employers have denied that there has been that claim that they have violated the agreement themselves.

Is the Minister aware that subsequent to the signing of this agreement, there were, to use a neutral word, departures from the particular clause in this agreement prohibiting or preventing either party from varying the terms of the agreement?

Sir, there have been one or two departures, but the Company maintained that it was a concession on their part.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to inform hon. Members that, as a follow up of the goodwill mission and in furtherance of this Government's policy of promoting good neighbourly relations and stimulating the flow of trade, a Pan-Malayan Economic Working Party, under the leadership of my friend and colleague the Assistant Minister for Commerce and Industry, the Hon. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy, was in Indonesia from the 3rd to the 10th of October. I am happy to announce that it received from the Indonesian Government a courteous and friendly reception, and negotiations indicated an equally sincere desire on the part of the Indonesian Government for friendly understanding and healthy trade relationship. The report of the Working Party is now under consideration by the respective Governments. One of the principal items is an offer by the Indonesian Government to release immediately 12,000 tons of slab rubber as an exceptional measure to aid our unemployment problem. There is also a possibility of further limited quantities of slab rubber being exported until such time as the Indonesian Government is able completely to implement its policy of inducing the producers to manufacture sheet rubber instead of the far less economical slab rubber. I should like to say that I appreciate this friendly and neighbourly gesture on the part of the Indonesian Government. I would add that we have offered our services to Indonesia in carrying out its policy of helping producers to manufacture sheet rubber by facilitating the purchase from this territory of their requirements. The Indonesian Government has requested that we should consider taking action to check trade which is illicit under their laws. Within the framework of our free port policy which is essential to our very existence, this Government considers that there is a neighbourly obligation to assist along these lines, and this request will be sympathetically considered in all its implications. A further request for extension of payment in United States dollars in respect of produce imported for re-export to hard currency areas will be pursued. It is one of the subjects which I shall discuss with the Colonial Office on my projected visit next December. The Indonesian authorities reaffirm that, under the new Indonesian import policy, there are no discriminatory restrictions on imports from Malaya, and that Singapore and Federation merchants will be able freely to quote for regular Indonesian requirements. A list of return goods permitted to be carried by fish carriers returning to Rhio and Lingga was received. This list has been a matter of lengthy correspondence and I am happy that agreement has at last been reached. It has also been clarified that Malayan/ Indonesian films will in future be exchanged on a basis of equal reciprocity of showing, over and above a quota of seven Malayan films allowed per year. We have also received an assurance that there will be no restrictions on imports of salt fish from us, provided the salt fish is of Malayan origin and subject to the pattern of Indonesian trade. This is particularly helpful, Sir, to the fishing industry of Malaya and, to some extent, of Singapore. The question of facilitating the issue of visas for businessmen is being actively pursued, and other matters are being investigated in anticipation of the discussions of the Economic Mission. An Indonesian fact-finding mission will be coming to Singapore shortly to study our procedure about the end of this month. All items discussed have been set out in the form of an agreed record signed by the leaders of the Working Parties of both sides for confirmation by their respective Governments, and a possible agenda for the Economic Mission has been drawn up. We have extended to Indonesia an invitation for its Economic Mission to come to Singapore, at least for the first part of the meeting projected for early January, and are awaiting a reply to this invitation. The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, my friend and colleague the Hon. Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat, and Sir Sydney Caine pursued enquiries with a view to closer cultural relations, and tentative arrangements have been arrived at as a first step in what is hoped will be ever closer cultural relations with Indonesia. I wish to inform hon. Members that in the Working Party there prevailed complete harmony between the Federation representatives and our own, and I desire to thank the Federation for this brotherly co-operation. I also wish to thank the leader and members of the Working Party for their efforts on our behalf, and I would particularly mention Sir Sydney Caine, Mr J. A. D. Morrison, Mr Yap Pheng Geck, Mr D. T. Assomull, Mr L. L. Best, Mr Tan Hock Seng, Mr Kwek Soh Loh, and Mr W. H. McNeil, for their public spirit in giving generously of their time and advice during the negotiations. I think it right, Sir, to add a tribute to the spirit in which the Indonesian Government approached the solution of the trading problems between us, and it is my sincere hope that that spirit, which we fully reciprocate, will culminate next January in an agreement that will be the framework for healthy and friendly relations with our neighbours. The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Chief Minister?

Mr Speaker, Sir, would it be appropriate at this juncture to move the adjournment at the rising of the House or -?

You can do it just before the commencement of Public Business of the Day.

Very well, I will do it, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already referred to the Report on the drainage of the Bedok and Ketapang Catchments which has been tabled. I think the House may be glad to hear what action is being taken. The recommendations of this Report have been accepted by Government, and we are getting on with the necessary work as fast as possible. Members will observe, from the last paragraph in the Report, that the first work to be undertaken is the construction of the dam and spillways for the impounding reservoir. Action to acquire the necessary land for this project is now in progress, and work on the reservoir will start as soon as we are entitled to enter on the land. Thereafter the construction of the dam and the erection of the spillways should be completed in about two months, if the weather is not too bad. This means that if we can get possession of the land before the end of this month, a very large measure of protection to the Bedok and Ketapang areas may have been afforded by the end of the year. We can only hope and pray that there will be no abnormally heavy rains before that time. Sir, as I mentioned earlier, the bund below the Changi Road has already been raised and strengthened, and the main drainage channel has been straightened and deepened. These measures should give some degree of protection against flooding. The real protection will only be assured when the flood reservoir has been completed. It is unfortunate that large works of this nature cannot be planned and executed in a few weeks or a few months. It was just not possible to start earlier. Members will see from the Report what careful investigation and surveying has to be done before a workable scheme can be formulated. This is particularly the case when there are complicating factors like the coral reef out at sea off the Bedok River outlet which necessitates special measures. Members will have noticed that the Report envisages that the area of the impounding reservoir should be used as an open space during the period when it is not holding floodwaters. The City Council has now suggested that the reservoir should be used as a reservoir the whole year round. The City Council Water Engineer believes that it should be possible to get an average of almost two million gallons of water a day from the water impounded in the reservoir. This will be a very useful addition to the water which the City Council expects to get from the wells which are being sunk in the Bedok plain, and this additional water supply is an added justification for spending a considerable sum of money on the drainage scheme and on the necessary land acquisition.

"to amend the Hospitals Board Ordinance (Chapter 187 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday, 7th November, 1955, and to be printed.

"to amend the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1941 (No. 17 of 1941)", presented by the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr F. Thomas); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday, 7th November, 1955, and to be printed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I present a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to provide for the registration of persons in the Colony, for the issue of identity cards and for purposes connected therewith", and move it be read the First time. Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a Certificate of Urgency over the hand of the Governor declaring that it is necessary for this Bill to be proceeded with through all its stages at this morning's sitting of the House. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Have you copies of the Bill?

Yes, Sir. Typed copies of the Bill have already been distributed to hon. Members, and thanks to the good offices of the Clerk of the Assembly, I also have the printed copies available, Sir, which I suggest could be distributed. Printed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Goode, will you please move the Second Reading?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I must apologise, Sir, to hon. Members of this House that I was not able to introduce this Bill at our sitting last month and thereby give the House longer time to study the Bill. Unfortunately I was not able to get the Bill ready in time before this morning's sitting, and it has therefore been necessary, Sir, for me to ask the House to proceed with all the stages of the Bill this morning. The Bill is short and seeks merely to provide for the continuation of the system of national registration which, as hon. Members will know, is at present governed by some Emergency Regulations, which Regulations will lapse when the period of the Emergency ceases on 21st October. I hope, Sir, that this Bill, which is short, will not prove controversial and that Members of this House will agree that the system of identity cards has proved of very real use and assistance to the people of this Colony on all sorts of occasions when they seek an easy means of establishing their identity. I also hope that the House will agree to put this Bill through its stages this morning to enable that system to be continued. Regulations will be made to provide for the details, and those Regulations will be substantially the same as the existing system, and I very much doubt whether the ordinary citizen of Singapore will, in fact, notice this formal change which I ask the House to make. I beg to move.

I beg to second. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are only two points I wish to make. If you look at your identity card, you will find that not only the nationality but also the race of the person has to be filled in. If we are to overcome racial consciousness and racial antagonisms, and if we are to build up a nation, it seems to me that there should be no reference to race on our national registration card. I hope that the Government will look into this matter and see if an early change can be made. Secondly, now that it has been decided to continue the identity card system, and this has our full support, I hope that the Government will introduce appropriate rules to see that the Singapore citizens get their identity cards in proper order and their addresses up to date. If we are to have accurate electoral rolls, this is essential.

Mr Speaker, Sir, how very true what the Chief Secretary (Mr Goode) has said, that the average citizen of Singapore would not know that there has been any change! But for us, who are conscious that there has been a change, I think it would not be without value to weigh the significance of that change. The identity card was a product of the war, imported from Britain into Singapore at a time when the Government felt that it was in a state of war. It was part and parcel of the Emergency Regulations; one of those irritating restrictions on personal liberties which we hoped would be got rid of as we get rid of the Emergency. But now it is proposed to make it a part of our normal lives. There is not even a pretence of making it last for only a matter of three years. It is an attempt, without too much publicity, to make the identity card part and parcel of our lives. I am not going into the merits of having a national registration system by which social security can be equitably apportioned and all the other useful by-products of having national registration. I do not wish to debate these points. But I wish to point out, as one who, perhaps unrealistically, believes in a liberal way of life, that it is a marked departure from the normal traditions of a liberal civilised society.

You are wrong!

I am wrong? May I tell the Chief Minister, Mr Speaker, Sir, that one of the first things they were pleased to do in England, some years after the war - because they had got tied up with the identity card system by tying it up with rationing and all the other necessary regulations in a Socialist state - was to abolish the identity card system? A state of affairs was reached where judges refused to convict citizens when they refused to produce their identity cards on the demand of a police officer. Sir, one of the evil by-products of this identity card system is that everytime a policeman sees you, he asks, `Teng-kee'? Where is your identity card? " 'Teng-kee manah'?" The unfortunate hawker or pedestrian or cyclist or motorist or lorry-driver begins to look upon this scrap of paper as something which, somehow or the other, gets him down every time. There have been spirited citizens in Singapore - and I had the privilege of fighting for some of them - who, for traffic offences, have been asked to produce their identity card. It becomes a habit - a policeman asking you, "I want to see who you are, and I want to 'fix' you! Where is your identity card?" It is not an offence connected with the Emergency. It is not an offence connected with the security of the State. It is just a bad habit. These traffic offenders then have to go to court. The police prosecute and say, "Emergency Regulation so and so, on such a day, so and so demanded the identity card." But the citizen who is keenly aware of his democratic rights refused to produce his identity card. I know of a case in England where a British judge, well-known for his asperity, had refused to convict and had castigated the Police for having abused the identity card system. Sir, this identity card system has got nothing to do with motoring offences and all the other minor things in life. But it has become a habit. In Singapore, when I tried to put forward this liberal point of view, I was smacked down very vigorously and told, "This is quite a different world and, therefore, we have quite different standards. Any citizen, even though he has done nothing to warrant a policeman asking for his identity card, must produce it in conformity with the law, and there must be proper respect for the law." So, the spirited citizen, because he was conscious of his fundamental rights, was properly smacked for $25 and asked to behave himself in the future. Sir, I hope we are aware that what we are doing today is to accept a system which cannot be defended as democratic. It is not that I am in favour of people going off on lost weekends and not wishing to sign their identity cards on hotel registers; though I think that even such persons should be entitled to certain human liberties and they should not have to put their mark everywhere they go to show that they have been there. "Identity card? - I know mine by heart, because I have signed it so often as 'Four E, 00635'." It is part of the regimentation of a police state, and one of the things we accuse the Communists of doing, that they document people; they regiment them; they get everybody docketed in dossiers. We, in a liberal democracy, believe in liberal conditions. We value human freedom and the liberty of the individual. I have not heard sufficient argument debated as to why the social schemes which the Government proposes to introduce could not be done in some way other than by the identity card. It is quite possible that it is a convenient way, but the difference is this: we are now making this identity card part and parcel not only of our lives for the period of the Emergency in Malaya, but part and parcel of our normal lives. This, I am sure the Chief Minister will agree, will not be one of those legislative acts of which he could be proud as a democratic and a liberal humanitarian.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew), Mr Speaker, Sir, referred to the identity card as an irritating restriction on personal liberty. I rather agree that all these things are irritating restrictions. They have to be very often, but they have positive advantages. Traffic lights are often exceedingly irritating, as are restrictions about where you can park your car. They are irritating, but, nevertheless, they are necessary for the general flow of the traffic. Identity cards may very well be necessary for the general running of Singapore. Although the hon. Member says he does not wish to debate the usefulness of the identity card system, I think it is fair to point out, from my personal experience, its usefulness. During the floods which took place last year - I have already mentioned them this morning - I was concerned with organising a relief centre at which we had some hundreds of people passing through. The maximum was 900 refugees sleeping in the centre in a single night. We organised large distributions of food, clothing, money, chickens and all sorts of things. All passed through the centre, and for that work (which had to be improvised among largely illiterate people) the identity card was absolutely essential. It was the only possible way of seeing that people pass through the queue once, and not two, three, four or five times. It was also essential for a house-to-house survey. Our survey teams went out and some went through about a thousand households and recorded details; and in order to be sure that there was no confusion of any kind, the identity card was solid documentary evidence; where a Chinese name, spoken by a Hokkien, recorded by a Cantonese, is written down in English, it may become an exceedingly different name and may lead to confusion. Therefore, especially in times of emergency, in my personal experience, the identity card is a most valuable and useful piece of social mechanism. The substance of the hon. Member's argument against identity cards was the occasional abuses that occur, that they are troublesome and that sort of thing. Well, the answer to that, I think, is that if abuses occur, they can be remedied, and this Assembly, as I have pointed out before, is the place to remedy them. It is the fashion at the moment in Singapore to run around talking very vigorously in public assemblies - not this Assembly - but in Kampong Tai Seng or in Farrer Park, or wherever it may be, and to put out a lot of highly contentious propaganda which has very little basis in fact, if there is any. In fact, it is sometimes completely contrary to the facts. That is a way of winning a certain measure of popular support, but it does not affect the law. The place to deal with the law is in the Assembly. The way to deal with any abuse of the law is to bring it to the notice of the Assembly for its joint consideration and action. The fact that abuses may have occurred in the past is an argument for the Assembly to take action to ensure that they do not occur in the future. It is not an argument to throw away a useful part of the social mechanism. Mr Goode rose -

Mr Goode, in reply?

In reply, Sir. In reply, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede), we will be very ready to look into his suggestion that it is not necessary, and is indeed undesirable, that the registration cards should continue to show 'Race' on them. As regards his second point, which was to ask that a rule should be made to ensure that holders of identity cards keep their addresses up to date, may I remind him and the public of Singapore that that is already a requirement of the system of registration? I do ask all Members of this House, and everybody who has any influence, to try and make sure that a great number of persons in this territory do keep their addresses up to date, because, of course, one of the, I hope, merits of our system of national registration is that it has enabled us to prepare our electoral roll. The Member for Tanjong Pagar managed to walk his tight rope without making it clear to me whether he was prepared to say he was against registration or he was for it. He contented himself largely with suggesting that it was undemocratic. He is entitled to that opinion. I would merely point out that there are a great number of democratic countries where a system of identity cards has been in force for very many years. He, I suppose, is in a somewhat awkward position. He probably felt that it was necessary to concentrate on what he thought were the undesirable by-products, and I agree that there are some undesirable by-products, but I feel that he tended to ignore the good by-products -

As usual!

Might I suggest, for example, that one by-product of the system of national registration is probably the presence of the hon. Member in this House? But I can see that he is in a difficult position, because, while I have little doubt of his sincerity, he would be the last person to take the benefits of the identity card away from the people of Singapore, he must be very conscious of a number of his associates for whom the system of identity cards is extremely inconvenient. No doubt that leads him, out of some loyalty, to use this as an opportunity to try and attack the members of the Police Force. Well, I leave the House to judge of the merits of that attack.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

Elucidation?

Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry that I left the Hon. the Chief Secretary in doubt as to my stand. I thought it was fundamental to my whole speech that, while I am not prepared to say that the identity card system is unnecessary during the period of the Emergency, I say that this system should not be carried beyond the Emergency.

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

Bill considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 -

Sir, this clause provides for the appointment of a Registration Officer and the setting up of Registration Offices. I would like to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary, Sir, if I may, to the fact that the people living in the rural areas are, at the moment, encountering considerable difficulty in coming down to the headquarters of the registration centre. I would like the Chief Secretary to look into the matter of setting up more registration centres in the rural areas. It should not be entirely left to numbers of people to go to the registration centre. I hope and believe that he will look into it as early as he can.

I am grateful, Sir, to the hon. Member for his helpful suggestion, and I will certainly look into it. I fully support the suggestion that we should, wherever possible, try and take the administration to the people instead of making the people come to us.

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

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.

"to amend the Dangerous Drugs (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954)", presented by the Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday, 7th November, 1955, and to be printed.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the proceedings of the business set down for today be exempted from Standing Order 7. There is some doubt as to how long the proceedings will take, Sir. I do not think the House will be kept very long, but, in any event, I would be grateful if the proceedings could be completed today and that the adjournment be taken at the end of today's sitting to 7th November for the purposes of the Budget and other proceedings.

Sir, I rise to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings of the business set down for today be exempted from Standing Order 7.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the circumstances I move, That the Assembly, at its rising today, do stand adjourned to the 7th of November, 1955.

Sir, I rise to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Assembly, at its rising today, do stand adjourned to the 7th of November, 1955.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That leave be granted to introduce a Bill governing the conditions of employment, and the rights and privileges of clerical and shop assistants. In moving this Bill, Sir, we have always known that Singapore is a commercial city and that since days immemorial it has been the clerks and the shop assistants who have played a very important part in this life in Singapore. They are the people, Sir, that contribute largely to the smooth working of commerce, and they are necessary in every department of trade or labour. We have not in the past witnessed too many strikes, and we believe that this has been due to the good sense of responsibility of the clerks and shop assistants. Perhaps, Sir, it might be that they have not been well organised; but it is the duty of this Assembly to protect all those who are not organised as well as all those who are organised. It is also the duty of this Assembly to enact, wherever possible, fair legislation for all concerned. I would like to dwell shortly on the difficulties of the clerical workers as well as the shop assistants. Today we do find that clerks and shop assistants have no regular hours of work. It is a fact that is known to all that a large number of them work overtime; a large number work 12 hours or even 14 hours a day; and also that their work includes not only clerical work or work appertaining to the terms of their employment, but sometimes they do have to perform work just like manual labourers. It is also within the knowledge of all the Members of this Assembly, and everybody in Singapore, that shop assistants do have no leave. Clerical workers, too, may not be able to utilise their leave or to get their leave because there is always that pressure of work as stated by the employers. I am sure that even City Council employees as well as Government employees do experience such difficulties.

Including the Ministers!

It is therefore, Sir, my view that legislation be enacted so that the hours of work for clerical workers and shop assistants be regulated. There should be medical leave, free medical attention, annual leave, and more important still, they should get overtime pay. The last important point, Sir, is that the present wave of strikes is probably due to the fact that no legislation has been enacted to give them a fair wage. If we can legislate for a minimum wage for this class of workers here who do a set of duties not dissimilar to their colleagues - and I think it is possible to legislate for such a minimum wage - we would probably have removed discontent in this direction. Sir, I hope that all those who are interested in this Bill - if leave were granted and the Bill were introduced - will come forward and work with us for the benefit of all concerned. Sir, I beg to move.

I second the motion, Sir. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members will remember that in moving the First Reading of the Labour Bill, I did make mention that it is the proposal of the Government to introduce further legislation to protect the interests of clerks and shop assistants. The fact that there has been a delay in tabling these two Bills is because I am awaiting the passage of the Labour Bill, which has gone to a Select Committee, and the Report has now been tabled. I will move the adoption of the Report at the next sitting in November. Sir, we in the Ministry have found difficulty in regard to interpretation. That is why there has been some delay. To find out when a clerk is not a clerk - that is a question that has occupied us for some time. Regarding shop assistants too, what kind of shop assistants should be protected? As to shop assistants, what should they cover? - people working in restaurants, people working in dispensaries, people working in food shops, and all sorts of other things. It is easy, Sir, to introduce legislation to protect the interests of workmen, but it must, first of all, be necessary for the Labour Ministry to have an adequate staff to supervise and to see that legislation is not abused. Take the Weekly Holidays Ordinance introduced by the Progressive Party during the previous administration. There have been so many abuses. So there is that worry that, unless we strengthen the staff in the Labour Ministry and unless workers get more united and form unions of their own, whatever legislation we provide can and will be abused by unscrupulous employers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this House has been in existence for six months and today, for the first time, we see a private Member exercise one of the most important powers and privileges of an Assemblyman. Sir, if I had a hat, I would take it off to the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong)!

Take off your bush jacket!

I would like to compliment him and I trust that the example he has shown of constructive conduct will be followed by the hon. Gentlemen who only know how to jibe and to destroy. Although the Government has on the stocks a similar Bill which it intends to bring forward at the next sitting, nevertheless I am so happy to see hon. Members opposite taking their responsibilities seriously that the Government will support this motion and will permit this Bill to be placed before the House; and I trust that when we produce our own, we will co-operate on the ultimate Bill to be discussed by this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are constantly being amused in this Assembly by the inconsistent ways in which the Labour Front manifests itself. The Minister for Labour is a much more experienced politician and, as such, he does not take off his hat indiscriminately. He very wisely pointed out that if any political kudos were to be made out of the Shop and Office Employees Bill, then it should go to the Labour Front because they were the first to mention it. But the Chief Minister is quite a different person. He is a man singularly generous by nature and he wants to compliment his colleagues on the other side of the House -

Not colleagues! An hon. Member: Your colleagues!

My colleagues? Indeed, Sir, I have much better colleagues than these! Now, Sir, you get this curious spectacle of the Progressive Party that, for three and a half years, could have moved and passed such a Bill and yet doing nothing about it -

Not too late to repent!

Order, please. Let us get on with the debate.

Sir, I fear it is a little bit too late to repent. I knew a union called the Shop Assistants Union. As a matter of fact, I assisted them in drafting a memorandum which was presented to Progressive Party Councillors. The then Progressive Party considered the matter for some time. There was some caustic correspondence in the English Press pointing out the delay, and it was even suggested that they were against it. Then came a firm Party denial and after that it just subsided and nothing further was done. Now the lesson has been sharply administered on the Councillors - I do not know how many deposits they lost in the last election, but I am told that it was not inconsiderable. The Chief Minister is hoping that it is not too late for them to repent. I think that they have missed the bus. If this is the way they want to convince the people of Singapore and of Malaya that the Progressive Party is a virile, vigorous, and vehement group of people determined to see that justice is done to the workers, then I say there is very little future indeed for that Party. Sir, on the motion itself, it has been suggested - I will not say it is more than just suggested - that we in the People's Action Party do not shoulder our responsibilities, and that we should undertake legislation on behalf of the Government. Sir -

Do your job!

Indeed, we are! That is what we are here for! We defined our job specifically before we came here, and are here to fulfil that job!

Destruction!

Order, please. Keep to the motion, please.

Mr Speaker, Sir, some of the difficulties that will arise in this Bill will be difficulties of draftsmanship, as the Hon. the Minister for Labour has pointed out, because, much as I have a high regard for the linguistic abilities of the hon. Members in the Progressive Party, I very seriously doubt if they could produce a piece of legislation which could not but lead to a spate of litigation as to what they might have meant, what they could have meant, and what they, in fact, must be construed as having intended the thing to mean. But I am sure, now that the Hon. the Chief Minister has joined hands with his "not" colleagues on my side of the House, the services of the Government draftsmen will be put at the disposal of the Progressive Party, and in some way they will also be associated with the process of government.

We support every constructive effort. Mr Lim Choon Mong rose -

Mr Lim Choon Mong, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we believe that in all legislation there must be difficulty about terms of definition and other things; but we believe that with goodwill and co-operation we will be able to overcome such difficulties. We would like to say that if leave is granted to introduce this Bill, we will definitely take into consideration all suggestions and incorporate the good ones. We expect co-operation from the Government side, and they have freely given it to us. I think this is one way whereby the Government has shown that it is capable of acknowledging things that are good, and I think that is in the right direction. The situation is contrary and diametrically opposite when Members, I regret to say, on my side of the House have nothing to offer but unjust criticism. They have nothing to offer except to hope that something that might be good will not come true. Such a negative attitude should never have been adopted. I have heard some time ago that it is the P.A.P. that comes to the rescue of this and of that! We have never had a friendly hand offered to us, who are trying to do something that is for the good of the people. I regret that this attitude is adopted by responsible Members of this Assembly. I only hope, Sir, that all of us here will adopt a more co-operative spirit in bringing anything that is good to the people of Singapore.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That leave be granted to introduce a Bill governing the conditions of employment, and the rights and privileges of clerical and shop assistants.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." It is a short and straightforward Bill, and the reason for it is simple, namely, to dispense with the City Council elections in December, 1955, and extend the tenure of office of City Councillors, elected as well as appointed, who are due to retire in December, 1955, to 1st July, 1956. This measure has been taken because, as Members are aware, a Local Government Committee is now sitting to re-examine and make recommendations on the future organisation of local government in Singapore, and it is hoped that the new local government legislation to introduce changes in the local government set-up would be in force by July next year. It is therefore considered unnecessary to have new Councillors elected or appointed who would hold office for less than a year, and, as the intention is to dispense with elections this year, the completion of the revision of the electoral register by the end of 1955 can also be dispensed with. 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 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 Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Merchandise Marks Ordinance provides statutory definitions for trade marks and trade descriptions and has, as its aim, the avoidance of the use of forgery of marks or trade descriptions for merchandise. This Ordinance is based, to a large extent, upon the United Kingdom Merchandise Mark Act, 1887. It was recently decided in the United Kingdom to amend this Ordinance so as to define more closely trade description, and in particular to include under the heading of "Trade description" the words: "as to the standard of quality of any goods according to a classification commonly used or recognised in the trade"; and also again to include: "as to the fitness for purpose, strength, performance or behaviour of any goods". The effect of these additions is to make it an offence to apply a false description of these characteristics to goods. In future, misleading trade descriptions, as distinct from false trade descriptions, will become an offence under this Ordinance. These amendments are a further safeguard for the public against the exploitation by unscrupulous traders or manufacturers who apply false or misleading descriptions to their goods. The Singapore Bar Committee and the Singapore Trade Advisory Council have been consulted, and are of the opinion that similar amendments should be made in the local legislation. The Central Advisory Committee on Trade and Supplies in the Federation of Malaya, which is a body corresponding to our Trade Advisory Council, is to recommend to the Federation Government that similar amendments be made to the Federation Ordinance so as to secure a uniform policy in both the territories. 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 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, without Amendment.

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

Hon. Members will please wait until I ask the Question "Third Reading, what day?" before proceeding.

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the provisions of section 5 of the Civil Law Ordinance by restoring the provisions of the repealed section 4 of the English Sale of Goods Act. Section 5 of the Civil Law Ordinance provides that in all issues which arise in Singapore with respect to mercantile law and regarding which there are no local laws, the law to be administered shall be the same as would be administered in England. Under this section, the English Sale of Goods Act, 1893, is law in Singapore. Recently section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act in England was repealed by the English Law Reform (Enforcement of Contracts) Act, 1954, so that contracts for the sale of goods of the value of �10 and upwards need no longer be evidenced in writing by the party to be charged, nor need there be acceptance of something given in earnest or in part payment to make the contract enforceable. Business transactions in Singapore differ from those in England in that more often than not they are carried out through the medium of a broker. The broker, working on a commission, is therefore an interested party and he would now be able to give evidence on oral contracts as a corroborative witness. Litigation could thus take place, heavily weighted on one side, which would be impossible if the requirements of the repealed section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act were in force. Representations have been received, including those of the Singapore Bar Committee that, the provisions of section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act should be in force in Singapore. The Government has considered these representations and agree that these provisions should be restored in the form of this amendment to the Ordinance. 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 and 2 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 Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this is a very short and simple Bill. The effect of it is to amend section 44 of the Police Force Ordinance which at present provides that gratuities and pensions may be prescribed for special police officers who are mobilised for active service. That does not enable us to prescribe pensions and gratuities for the Volunteer Special Constabulary who are not, in fact, mobilised for active service. Appropriate pensions and gratuities for those members of that force who suffer injuries or death in carrying out their duties have been provided for in a set of regulations made as Emergency Regulations in 1948. I am sure the House will agree that it is right in principle that provision for pensions and gratuities for these men should be made under the substantive law and not be dependent on Emergency Regulations, and, in any event, as the House knows, the Emergency Regulations will lapse later this month. It is for this reason, Sir, that I seek this House's approval for the amendments contained in this Bill. In moving this motion, I should like to take up a minute or two of the House's time to say something of the Volunteer Special Constabulary who are the people most affected by this piece of legislation. They consist of some 1,200 citizens of Singapore who voluntarily, in their spare time, give assistance to our regular police force. Members of this House will well recall the part that those men played in the riots that we had in May and we paid tribute to them on that occasion. Members may not appreciate that every day and every night there are members of Volunteer Special Constabulary who turn out on ordinary police duty with the regular members of the police force, and I am sure the House will join with me in expressing our appreciation of the public service that these men give. Already in the few years that the force has been in existence, it has won formal recognition. Three members of the force have been awarded Colonial Police medals for meritorious service. One member has received a Colonial Police medal for gallantry, and one a King's Commendation for brave conduct. A number of others have received commendations from the Commissioner of Police. Five of them have given their lives in the service of Singapore. So it is, Sir, with a sense of high appreciation of these men and in gratitude for what they do that I ask this House to approve the Second Reading of this Bill.

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. 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.

Considered in Committee.

Clause 1 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, at the Second Reading of this Bill last month I maintained that such laws should be in force for a period of three months only, so that after that period Members of the Legislative Assembly would have the right to say whether these Emergency laws should be continued or not. As the Assembly, however, has approved the Bill in principle and it will become part of our laws, subject to amendment this morning, I now move an amendment that the duration of this Bill be for one year instead of three years. I do not wish to repeat what I said at the last sitting of this Assembly, but I must point out that our job is not only to pass new laws but also to see that the existing laws are properly enforced by the Executive without favour or ill-will. The fact that each year Government has to come to us and give an account of these special powers entrusted to them before they are extended for another year will act as a safeguard for the public against possible misuse of these powers by over-zealous officers. As this Bill vitally affects the man-in-the-street, I consulted many members of the public and they all agreed with me that it is necessary to have such laws at the present moment, when there are not only subversive activities against law and order, but there is also a definite increase in assault by gangsters, extortion and even kidnapping.

What has that got to do with this?

Order, please.

That is against law and order.

If hon. Members want to raise points of order, please do so in the proper way.

The only request is that these laws should not be made permanent or for too long a period. Those whom I consulted agreed with me that the maximum period should be for one year. Hon. Members of the P.A.P. will, no doubt, say that I only contacted one section of the public. It happens that I reside in Tanglin and I suppose they will say I only contacted my Tanglin friends, but that is not true. I have -

You have gone slumming?

Yes, I have gone slumming in the district of Paya Lebar -

And never met the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew)!

Thank God for that!

Order, please. I must ask for order in this House in the consideration of this Bill, which seems to me to be quite a serious Bill.

Well, as I said, that is not true. I have consulted my constituents and that is the view they gave me. Indeed, this view has been confirmed by many Members of this Assembly who did not take part in the rallies of the past week. Sir, I move, On page 1, line 9, to leave out "three years from the date of commencement" and insert "one year from the date of commencement and for any further period of one year for which it may be continued by resolution of the Legislative Assembly". Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Chairman, Sir, in rising to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend, I wish to make it quite clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that we of the Progressive Party reluctantly but firmly agree with the main principles contained in the seven Bills before us in the Committee stage today, subject to the amendments we have tabled. I say "reluctantly", because it is a tragedy that such legislation should be required at all. I trust that I am not being irrelevant in saying once again that we would have preferred to see the Emergency Regulations retained and not embodied in the ordinary laws of this country, for one salient reason: that Regulations which are extraordinary, and which are repugnant for the very reason that they are extraordinary, should come up for periodical review by this Assembly, for the Government to render an account of its stewardship in respect of them, and for the elected representatives of the people to decide whether or not the Government have made out a case for their continuation. However, the hon. Members opposite have decided otherwise. Their majority have carried the day, and our task as a responsible Opposition Party, having accepted the principle of this Bill as an unpleasant necessity, is to seek ways and means to improve it by amendment. I would be willing to agree that my hon. Friends opposite have been at pains to present a Bill which, in some respects, is an improvement on the previous Regulations, and to point out that it is fair and less stringent than those in force in India, Pakistan and Burma; but these arguments are, to a large extent, nullified if a Bill, which it is agreed is of a temporary nature required for emergency reasons, is to be given a life of three years without any opportunity for periodical review as to its continued necessity. Let me remind the hon. Gentlemen opposite of one thing. They were, Sir, of the opinion - to use the Hon. the Chief Minister's own words - that they could "sweep away the entire structure of the Emergency Regulations", although for years the permanent Executive had been giving good and convincing reasons every three months why they were essential to the peace and good order of this country. They have had the candour to admit that they were wrong, and, in fairness, we must commend that candour; but in view of this, is it reasonable for a popularly-elected Government to swing almost to the other extreme and ask for debate on their operation of these two new Ordinances to be put in cold storage for three years? The dangers of such a length of time should be obvious. We of the Progressive Party are anxious to ensure that the people of this country - and by that I mean the 95 per cent law-abiding good citizens of this country - are reminded at regular intervals that these laws have been enacted for a particular purpose to fight a particular battle. We cannot say too firmly and too often that these Emergency Regulations, or rather laws, as they will now be, are intended to protect all law-abiding citizens who have nothing whatever to fear from them. If the people are not regularly reminded of this truth, many will, through ignorance and inability to think clearly for themselves, become a prey to the insidious propaganda of the Malayan Communist Party, or of the travelling circus of tub-thumpers of the People's Action Party who try to hoodwink the unwary into thinking that they are being oppressed. On this ground alone, therefore, I think that the Government will be making a grave mistake if they reject our amendment and refuse to have their actions weighed and examined at the end of a year, so that the ordinary man-in-the-street can be reminded of the dangers which surround him, if these dangers still exist, as I fear they may well be. Let me turn to another point. Nobody on the Government Benches will disagree with me when I say that these Bills before us are no better than limited preventive measures - not measures designed to remove the evil influences that are in our midst - but only to hold them in check. To revert to an old saying - Cure is better than prevention in the grave problems which face the Government. And we are entitled to ask this: If we give the Government carte blanche for three years to use these preventive measures, what guarantee have we that curative measures will not be neglected? What better guarantee could we have but that this House, and through this House the people, should be informed at least once a year of what positive curative measures the Government is adopting to cleanse the body politic? By demanding, Sir, an annual review of this Bill, we want to ensure not merely that the Government is operating it fairly and justifiably, but we also want to ask what positive measures they have taken to render its continuation unnecessary at the earliest possible moment. The Hon. the Chief Secretary has said that it is hoped that the measures would only be for a limited period during which the citizens of Singapore may "learn by experience to distinguish between liberty and licence, between good leaders and bad leaders". This is just the point. An annual review of this Bill will make it necessary for Government to render an account of what positive steps they have taken to educate the people of Singapore into making this distinction. This is something which an Opposition Party has every right to demand of the hon. Members opposite. Let me elaborate this point. Of the famous Four Freedoms which form perhaps the best definition of a free world and a free democratic country, I believe that Singapore is most sorely in need of freedom from fear, freedom from intimidation by gangsters, thugs and their agents, freedom from the threat of the consequence of speaking one's own mind. I believe that if the men and women of this country had the confidence to speak out what they know and what they feel, without threat of reprisals, this island would be turned in a very short time into the sunny happy country which most of us wish it to be. But because intimidation makes this impossible, unfortunately a large percentage of the law-abiding people have an ingrained distrust of all set in authority over them - whether it is the unlicensed threatening authority of the gangster, or the licensed protective sheltering authority of the police force - here again it is necessary to educate the people to learn to distinguish, and a heavy responsibility lies with the first popularly-elected Government to tackle this problem with the utmost resolution. Equally, it is the responsibility of an Opposition Party like ourselves to keep the Government on their toes in this respect. We do not expect this fundamental Singapore problem to be solved in a year or even in the lifetime of one government; but we do ask that we should be given an annual account of what is being done - not in the form of social services or social legislation which is one aspect of it - but in the context of the Emergency Bill, and that we should have the right to criticism if we feel that more effort is needed. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister, during his speech on this Bill in this House, in inviting amendments for its improvement, stated: "We would be glad to consider each and every suggestion, and would gladly accept any improvements which do not destroy the basic needs." In the light of this statement, I do not believe that the Government can fail to accept this amendment. Many of the hon. Gentlemen opposite have had the courage to swallow a part of their election platforms - a not too indigestible operation, I hope - and I trust that they will now have the courage and the wisdom to subject their handling of the considerable powers asked for in this Bill to the closest scrutiny of this House in a year's time. I trust that, if by any mischance this amendment is rejected, it will not be because of the threats of the People's Action Party. I hope, Sir, that the hon. Members opposite will not seek refuge in the argument that the anti-social demonstrations of this group prove only too clearly that this Bill is necessary - every sensible citizen knows that - and that we should therefore not quibble about a little matter of two years. I repeat, we wish to support - indeed it is our duty in the interests of Singapore to support - the main principles of this Bill, but we regret that we cannot go all the way with the Government on this particular measure, because we feel very strongly of the correctness of our stand. Let it also be noted that we do not ask for a three-month period but a halfway house of one year, because we consider that the Ordinance must have that much life. My constituents in the rural area in the Tanglin Division - and they by far outnumber those in the residential area - are in favour of this Bill so long as there are safeguards and so long as, in other words, it protects them and can be seen to protect them. I understand this to be true of my colleagues in their constituencies, as I have no doubt it is true of the majority of the constituencies, though I have also no doubt that the constituencies of Tanjong Pagar and Bukit Timah must be entirely different. It so happens that the Tanglin Division borders that of Bukit Timah for a considerable distance along the Bukit Timah/Clementi Roads, and if the people on each side of the border think so differently, I can only suppose - though I have not seen it - that there must be a fence along it, or perhaps one of those nice new non-anti-Communist curtains! No doubt, the hon. Member will enlighten us. But, because the kampong dwellers in Tanglin think as they do, I want them to continue to be convinced and not to be misled. Let us remember not only that the price of peace is eternal vigilance, but also that the test of just and democratic government is eternal vigilance. Without vigilance there can be no peace and no democratic government. Not only, Sir, must the Government opposite watch their own handling of the considerable powers this Bill gives them, but they must give the Opposition the fullest opportunity to share their watchfulness. Only in this manner can the rights of the people and the way of democracy be served.

Mr Chairman, Sir, by their admission, the Labour Front Coalition Government, in presenting this Bill, accepts the fact that this is a temporary measure. One fails to understand, however, why this Government considers a three-year period as temporary. To give wide powers of detention and search to the Police is against all democratic ideals and principles. With the advent of self-government, the people were led to believe that a more democratic form of government would eventually be with us. The Public Security Bill seeks to curtail individual freedom of speech and movement. Admittedly, there are certain features introduced in this Bill which are improvements over the Emergency Regulations, such as the right of appeal and the chance of review after detention; this Bill, nevertheless, imposes restrictions on the people and as such it is repugnant to our concepts of freedom and the principle of the rights of individual to due process of law. My Party and I stand solidly against any infringement and curtailment of the sanctity of the individual, but, we are ready to admit that the present days are difficult days, and it may be necessary to introduce urgent and adequate measures to take care of the present unrest, and that opportunities for nefarious elements to jeopardise public security be nipped in the bud. My Party and I are not convinced that this state of affairs would last three years; and if it should last three years, then the present Government could not be said to have done a good job on behalf of the people. I therefore strongly support the amendment moved by the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck).

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Chief Minister must always have the last word!

This is my Bill!

Mr Chairman, Sir, my Party does not quibble and wobble and compromise. The Progressive Party speaks of the "repugnant provisions of this Bill". The Democratic Party says it is "undemocratic". Then, from that stand, they qualify and qualify, retreat and retreat, until they say, "If you make it one year, then we agree." Mr Chairman, Sir, we in the People's Action Party believe that it is no use saying that if we remove these Regulations, then we shall have chaos and destruction and that we shall have the Malayan Communist Party ruling Singapore. They are not in a position, nor are we in a position, to judge how events will ultimately unfold themselves.

It needs only a little intelligent anticipation.

"A little intelligent anticipation" would indicate to the Chief Minister that a volte-face could only lead to disillusionment and defeat. If we believe in freedom, then we must concede that same freedom even to those who do not honour it in the way we do. Further, if we want freedom to survive in this part of the world, then we must live it and not just talk it. If you want the people of Singapore to fight for democracy and freedom, it is no use telling them, "Ah! but one day we shall have this freedom, when we have destroyed Communism, when we have destroyed the P.A.P., and when we have destroyed any force which threatens to bring about a social revolution." I can well imagine the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) hoping that there is a belt between him and Bukit Timah, because I can well imagine that he and his Party are not capable of standing up and fighting for freedom. They only stand up and fight for their own vested interests, to preserve a Singapore in which they, the fortunate few, have a comfortable niche. Any change which threatens to dislodge them from that niche must be fought. I may be wrong in believing that if you fight for freedom, and you live freedom, you will not be destroyed. But I would say that those who have given a pledge to bring freedom to us have no right to come here and quibble between three years and one year, or three months and one month. If what is wrong for three years can be made right because it is one year, then I say there is something gravely wrong with the logical faculties of those in the Progressive and the Democratic Parties. We are against this Bill in toto. We are not here seeking amendments to mitigate the harshness of this Bill. A lot of words have been said - The Chief Minister rose -

Point of order, Mr Chief Minister?

Point of order, Mr Chairman, Sir. If he is not speaking to the amendment, would he let others who wish to, have their say?

Your point of order being?

My point of order being that he is certainly not speaking to the amendment, and in those circumstances I respectfully suggest that he should not be permitted to continue to take up the time of this Assembly.

It has vaguely entered my mind that possibly the hon. Member is making a Second Reading speech. Perhaps he will come to the point now?

Mr Chairman, Sir, if one comes to the point too soon, one destroys the pleasant prospect of holding the Labour Front in suspense. The Labour Front, of course, would like to rush through this Bill with the greatest possible speed. My point as regards this amendment is this - that it is hypocritical -

Order, please.

A lot has been said -

Order, please. The word "hypocritical" is not parliamentary. Will you withdraw it, please?

Mr Chairman, Sir, I must bow to your ruling, and I therefore withdraw it. May I say that if it is not hypocritical, then it is something very akin to it! Mr Chairman, Sir, we must make our stands clear. As even the Member for Tanglin has said, we must educate the people. If we want to educate the people, we must have decisive, clear-cut stands, which the people can understand. I would like to remind him that quibbles and wobbles between three years and one year will never help to educate anyone except those with sophisticated minds like the members of the Progressive Party, their friends and fellow travellers.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am considerably attracted by the arguments in favour of this amendment. I will say quite frankly that from the first, when I received it - representations from the Trades Union Congress, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, private representations from the hon. Members of the Progressive Party - it seemed to have considerable validity, and in truth it still has. There is good sense in saying that a law, which, though immeasurably improving the existing laws, is, nevertheless, one that is of preventive arrest and detention, should be under the constant and watchful eye of this Assembly. I would say this to hon. Members: that if it were only a question of a review by this Assembly, I would never place any obstacle in its way whatsoever, any obstacle in the exercise of its complete powers of control over the Government. But that is not what is really in issue, because whether the Bill is for one year or for three years, this House has at all times powers to question at every sitting; powers of motions on adjournment; powers of motion for repeal; and even powers of compelling repeal by Members' Bills. So its powers of control are completely unrestricted, and at any time that hon. Members may require the Chief Secretary, or any other Member of the Government, to answer for his conduct, they have only to table a motion and to call for a debate. We have never in the past obstructed, and certainly never will in the future, Sir - this is not a matter in our hands, it is in yours - obstruct hon. Members in the exercise of their legitimate powers of control of Government. Although desirous of meeting a valued request for periodical review, I would suggest to Members that perhaps a periodical review is not the answer; they should retain rather in mind their powers to call for a review in the normal course. Sir, recent weeks have brought to light somewhat forcibly the extent to which the worker of Singapore and others can be duped by the forces of destruction. It must be remembered that the common man of Singapore has, in the past, had but little opportunity for education; has, in the past, had genuine grounds for grievances against the Government; has, in the past, learnt to be embittered towards Government. In the words of the Member for Tanglin they are traditionally "agin the Government". Therefore, Sir, the common man of Singapore is easy prey to cleverly manipulated, dishonest political propaganda aimed at destroying democratic government. You have read, Sir, reports in the Press of meetings held condemning this Bill - meetings held by P.A.P. unions. Gullible reporters have exaggerated the attendances at these meetings, no doubt receiving the figures from thoroughly dishonest organisers -

Radio Malaya included?

Radio Malaya can be gullible, just as you can and I. But some of the statements, Sir, are significant of the receptivity of the common man in Singapore to Hitlerian falsehoods. It was, I believe, Hitler who laid down the principle that the bigger the lie, and the more often you repeat it, the more certain you are that it will be believed. Some of these lies, Sir, say that this Bill is aimed at wrecking the trade union movement and murdering trade unionists. These are the people who were on the same platform as the Member for Tanjong Pagar. The trade union movement, Sir, has never flourished more than it has flourished under my Government. It has never had more power; it has never had more freedom; it has never had more protection, even for the dishonest. The only danger to trade unionism comes from the dishonest professional agitators who have never been labourers in their lives, but take paid posts as agitators in P.A.P. trade unions. As for murdering trade unionists, Sir, I will just draw your attention to it to indicate the extent to which these plague-carrying rats can carry their falsehoods. They do not wince from lies, Sir. Lies are part of their daily bread. They will tell you that they are not pro-Communists; they are not anti-Communists; they are not Communists; whatever lies best suit them - lies every one! By lies they live, and lies have ridden the streets these past weeks. Another of their lies from public platforms, on which the hon. Member sat - two hon. Members sitting opposite - is that any detective can arrest anyone and detain him for two years. I repeat - any detective can arrest anyone and detain him for two years. Nothing about the fact that he can only be detained by order of the Council of Ministers; that he can only continue to be detained by order of the Tribunal of Judges; that you have to have that detention reviewed every six months. The Council of Ministers has to look at the case every six months. This, it seems, is worse than the Emergency Regulations! They are welcome to the Emergency Regulations, if they want them. "Singapore is a jail with no difference whether you are in or out." Some of those persons who spoke have experience, and I trust they will one day give me an opportunity for giving them further experience. The extent of the falsehoods in public, without shame, no mincing of these foul lies - that is the technique employed on platforms on which the hon. Members opposite have stood. The attack has been concentrated on the Labour Front Government. It seems these men are too great cowards to attack the U.M.N.O.-M.C.A. Alliance which is part of our coalition. It is the Coalition Government that is solidly behind this Bill. It was seconded by a member of the Malay Union, and I shall call for a division to prove that it is no Labour Front measure, but an honest measure of an honest government seeking to protect the honest citizen, seeking even to protect the scum that organised the meetings of which we have heard. They have challenged - and the Press has carried the challenge - that they would ask me to a meeting in Cairnhill, and then they discovered that there was no place in Cairnhill -

Order, Mr Chief Minister. Your speech seems also to be bordering on a Second Reading speech.

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I regret that you should have that impression. I think I am entitled to point out that the conduct of recent weeks has shown the danger of an annual recurrence of such dishonest conduct. If you permit me, Sir, and if it please you - no place in Cairnhill, Sir, to meet me - no place at all - a division where I had campaigned day in and day out for more than two months. They could not find a place. They could not invite me to any other meetings. Then you had that dangerous farce of the woman and child - a woman screaming that she had not been allowed to see her detainee husband; that he went and she was left all alone. "And here is my child who has never seen him!" And she sat on the same platform as these hon. Gentlemen! "We shall fight to the death to the last man, till the child sees its father!" So that is what they want for Singapore - death to the last man! That is the sort of dishonesty, Sir, which can work up uneducated and simple workers into a state, which, with just a word, can create worse violence than even we have seen. There are thousands of men in jails all over the world, Sir, who have children under the age of two. Does that mean that we should abolish the prison system? There are thousands of women whose husbands are in jail. Does that mean we should abolish jails? The Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) proudly carrying a baby and saying, "Look! He has never seen his father!" Who prevented him from seeing his father? It is this dishonest conduct, Sir, which Government is disturbed to note. We are disturbed by these activities of dishonest agitators who seek to organise unrest, which can at the appropriate time break out in violence. It is true we have had - and let us make a note and be grateful for - a large group of labour in the organisation of the Trades Union Congress which has reacted with responsibility. They do not, like the P.A.P. trade unions, ask the world to put black bands on to mourn the death of truth - for it is the death of truth that they seek, and that they perpetrate. Though the Trades Union Congress has shown itself responsible, there are many responsible persons, Sir, even in this very House, who have been enmeshed by Communist and pro-Communist propaganda. You have read in the Press, Sir, that the Member for Tanjong Pagar has suggested that half a million people should shout so that my hair should fall out. I have a lot of hair. If the Member for Tanjong Pagar and every one of his supporters were to pluck a souvenir for himself, I trust that I will still have the decency and the courage to seek honestly the welfare of this country, without fear of the intimidation of the streets that he seeks to bring into this Chamber. The hon. Members opposite, Sir, said not one word about our duty to our brothers in the Federation - not one word as to how we can throw open Singapore - the backdoor of the Federation - and let in people who would be a threat to their security. Even if we ourselves were to go down, to them it does not matter. If our brother says to you, "Do not leave open the door for burglars", the answer of the P.A.P. is to kick him in the belly.

It is not a parliamentary description, Mr Chairman, Sir.

"Belly" is a good old English word, and I repeat it - kick him in the belly!

Order, please.

We have seen, Sir, May the 13th turned into a bloody anniversary by persons closely associated with the P.A.P.; and I say, Sir, that to have this annual review at a fixed time is to give an opportunity for annual bloody anniversaries. I say, Sir, that much as I am attracted - and though frankly in the normal course I would have been too happy to accede to what is a legitimate request - it is a danger to the health of the people if we ourselves were to encourage and give an opportunity to these plague-carrying rats to infect the people of the Colony every year. Let them create their own opportunities. It is with reluctance that I brought in this Bill. I take pleasure in the improvements it has made in the existing laws. But I take no pleasure in perpetuating a law that is, however improved, still a breach in the rule of law. I take no pleasure in refusing hon. Members opposite this request for an annual review, but I say that it is not really a refusal of an annual review - they can have their annual review by tabling a motion at any time. I only say: we must not ourselves consciously place the people, whose welfare is in our hands, in our hands, in annual jeopardy, as would happen if we were to accept the amendment.

Question, "That the words 'three years from the date of commencement' proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and negatived.

Mr Chairman, Sir -

This is probably a convenient time for suspension?

Indeed, I was going to suggest it, Mr Chairman. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

The sitting is then suspended until half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.18 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee resumed. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 -

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I move the amendment that stands in my name, On page 2, lines 4 to 12, to leave out sub-clause (1) and insert the following: - "(1) If the Governor in Council is satisfied with respect to any person that, with a view to preventing that person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaya or the maintenance of public order therein or the maintenance therein of essential services, it is necessary so to do The Chief Secretary shall by order under his hand make an order directing that such person be detained for any period not exceeding two years." Mr Chairman, Sir, as there are several amendments to this clause, I should like your guidance as to how to proceed. Can we take them one at a time?

Take the one you have just proposed.

If it please you, Sir, the amendment I have just proposed, as you are aware, in view of the reference to it in the debate on the Second Reading, was brought about by representations I have received from several quarters - the Chinese Press, the English Press, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, the Trades Union Congress, and hon. Members opposite. Although it seems a little illogical and undignified that a decision of the Council of Ministers should be subjected to an Appeal Tribunal, nevertheless, in view of the fact that it does seem to be the wish of the people of the country, Sir, Government very gladly accedes, and the amendment is therefore brought to meet that request.

Question, "That sub-clause (1) proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted."

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Chief Minister now wishes to insert: "If the Governor in Council is satisfied with respect to any person that, with a view to preventing that person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaya or the maintenance of public order therein or the maintenance therein of essential services, it is necessary so to do, the Chief Secretary shall by order under his hand make an order directing that such person be detained for any period not exceeding two years." Mr Chairman, Sir, we have heard a great deal of play being made of the fact that the Chief Minister and his Government are improving the Emergency Regulations. May I read to him Regulation 20 of the Emergency Regulations: "In any case where it appears to him to be necessary or expedient for securing the public safety or for the maintenance of public order the Colonial Secretary may make an order...". Now, Sir, I do not think it takes anyone with more than just an elementary knowledge of the English language to see that in this amendment, which the Chief Minister seeks to substitute for the one he has just deleted, he has extended the whole scope of Regulation 20. Regulation 20, stringent and harsh as it is, confines itself to cases where the Chief Secretary considers it "to be necessary or expedient for securing the public safety or for the maintenance of public order". The amendment the Chief Minister seeks to introduce reads: "...that, with a view to preventing that person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaya...". He may say that it is the same as what was said before, except that he has extended it from the Colony to this undefined term called "Malaya". There is no way to find out either in these Regulations or in any other -

It is defined in the Interpretation Ordinance.

Order, please.

"Defined in the Interpretation Ordinance", says the Attorney-General. "Security of Malaya" is an extension from "public safety" and there is a further extension to "maintenance of public order therein or the maintenance therein of essential services". Sir, according to General Bourne and his predecessors - Briggs, Templer and a host of illustrious Generals and sub-Generals - the Emergency has been improving day by day, week by week, and month by month, and this has been achieved without unnecessary interference with the legitimate activities of people in essential services. I do not feel, Mr Chairman, Sir, that the Chief Minister has given us any reason at all why he should now seek to bring into the purview of the powers of the Government those people whose activities, whether connected with trade unions or otherwise, might be construed as endangering "the maintenance therein of essential services". I do not feel that there is any reason, nor indeed has any reason been advanced, why the Regulations now embodied in the Public Security Bill should be further enlarged.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar suggested that no reason had been given for the extension of the scope of this clause. Unfortunately, he did not listen to my hon. Friend the Chief Minister who, in speaking on the Second Reading, took some pains to explain why it was that, in our opinion, on this side of the House, it was necessary to extend the scope of this clause to cover subversive activities in essential services. There will, of course, as we have given many assurances, be no deliberate interference with legitimate trade unionism, but we are concerned with having adequate powers in our possession to deal with a recurrence of a situation which was developing here in June.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

If it please you. Mr Chairman, I now move, On page 2, after line 12, a new subclause (2) be inserted after subclause (1) reading: "(2) For the purposes of the foregoing subsection "essential services" means any service, business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling included in the First Schedule to this Ordinance." You will remember, Sir, that at the Second Reading, some alarm was indicated at the wide nature of the phrase "essential services", and in order to allay that alarm, the matter was studied and this sub clause is now introduced. You also have before you now, Sir, an amendment that will come later indicating exactly what are "essential services". I beg to move the amendment that stands in my name.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, On page 2, line 13, to leave out "(2)" and insert "(3)"; On page 2, line 18, to leave out "(3)" and insert "(4)". These are consequential amendments.

Question, "That the figurer '(2)' in line 13 on page 2 proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the figure '(3)' proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the figure '(3)' in line 18 on page 2 proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the figure '(4)' proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, On page 2, line 19, to leave out "empowered" and insert "required". This is consequential on the amendment to clause 1, because the Chief Secretary is no longer "empowered" to take any action but will be "required" by the Council of Ministers to take it.

Question, "That the word 'empowered' proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the word 'required' proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 -

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, on page 3, lines 23, 29 and 31, may I, after the word "order", insert the words "or direction"? Sir, this arises out of the directions that may be issued as a result of the provisions of clause 4. There are several amendments in clause 5. Perhaps we could take that one first, Sir?

Yes.

Sir, I move, On page 3, lines 23, 29 and 31, after "order" in each case to insert "or direction".

Question, "That the words 'or direction' proposed to be inserted in each case, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Clause 5, subclause (2), Sir, reads: "For the purpose of enabling a person to prosecute such appeal he shall, within one month of the making of the order or direction, be informed of his right of appeal and be furnished...". If it please you, Sir, representations have been made to me by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce that this thirty days is giving rather too wide a limit to the Executive, and that we should be in a position to give the detainee the necessary information within fourteen days. On studying this matter, Sir, I find that the request is a perfectly legitimate one and can be acceded to. In the circumstances, Sir, I move, On page 3, line 28, to leave out "one month" and insert "fourteen days".

Question, "That the words 'one month' proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the words 'fourteen days' proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 -

Mr Chief Minister, I think you have an amendment?

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I did give notice of an amendment and I do apologise for the lateness of that amendment. I am indebted to the Clerk of the Assembly for facilitating these matters. I move, On page 4, lines 10 and 12, after "order" in each case to insert "or direction". The amendment, Sir, is consequential as indicated before.

Question, "That the words 'or direction' proposed to be inserted in each case, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 -

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, this is an amendment arising in the same fashion. I move, On page 4, lines 14 and 27, after "order" in each case to insert "or direction".

Question, "That the words 'or direction' proposed to be inserted in each case, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 9 to 13 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 -

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, On page 6, line 3, to leave out the full stop and insert a colon, and thereafter insert: "and provided further that without prejudice to the provisions of section 3 of this Ordinance where any person arrested and detained under the provisions of this subsection satisfies the Governor in Council that he was ordinarily resident in the Colony for a period of not less than three years immediately preceding the date on which such warrant or order was made and was actually in the Colony on the said date such person shall be forthwith released." This amendment arises out of representations received from the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, Sir, in which it was pointed out that, under the provisions of this clause, the Federation Government could order the arrest of a person who might normally be a resi- dent in the Colony and that a Machiavellian government might seek the assistance of the Federation Government in order to arrest a person it does not wish to see arrested. Well, Sir, to meet that extremely remote probability, we have introduced this provision that a person normally resident in Singapore cannot be detained by order of the Federation Government.

The first Question, of course, is that the full stop proposed to be left out, be left out. But, can I have some clarification, Mr Chief Minister?

If it please you, Mr Chairman.

You are moving this amendment after line 3. Is it a new proviso?

It is indeed, Sir. I have deleted the full stop, put a colon there, and thereafter inserted this new proviso: "and provided further ...".

So your "and" will have a capital "A"?

Yes, Sir, if it please you.

It is a typographical error.

If it please you, Sir, yes.

Question, "That the full stop proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That a colon proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the words after the colon proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 16 -

I have had notice of two amendments. One is from the Chief Minister, and the other is from the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong). The Chief Minister's amendment, in some measure, takes in the amendment proposed by Mr Lim Choon Mong. I will therefore call the Chief Minister's amendment first.

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, many representations have been made on this particular clause, and very considerable study has been given by us in order to make it acceptable within the framework of the practical aspects. In the circumstances, Sir, I move, On page 7, lines 13 to 19, to leave out: "Any police officer not below the rank of Inspector may without warrant, and with or without assistance-

Mr Chairman, Sir, when I proposed that amendment, I was thinking that, in the interest of the public, they should not be disturbed on insignificant occasions, and also that we do not have so many subversive elements as to warrant Inspectors going into and searching every house. However, the Chief Minister has taken up our suggestion and has amended it accordingly, and I am supporting his motion.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted."

Mr Chairman, Sir, does it really matter whether it is an Assistant Superintendent of Police or an Inspector of Police who has the power to do these things? If we start quibbling over these things - whether the right of privacy should not be invaded by an Inspector of Police, and therefore unjustified, but by a person who wears three stars on his shoulders, and therefore justified - I think we will get ourselves thoroughly bogged down in a morass in which we will finally wind up by believing - as the Chief Minister once said - that white is black and black is white. We feel that the whole Bill is contrary to freedom and this amendment does not make it any the more palatable.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr Chief Minister, you have another amendment?

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I move that clause 16, line 27 -

Will you take your previous one, Mr Chief Minister - lines 23, 24 and 25?

Thank you, Mr Chairman, Sir. I move, On page 7, lines 23, 24 and 25, to leave out "or to promote feelings of illwill or hostility between different races or classes of the population". This is to meet objections raised by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and it is found that we do not require executive powers.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to.

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, On page 7, line 27, to leave out the full stop and insert a colon and thereafter insert: "Provided always that any police officer not below the rank of Inspector may exercise the powers conferred by this subsection on a police officer not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police if he has good grounds for believing that by reason of the delay which would be caused by referring to an officer not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police any document liable to seizure under the provisions of this subsection is likely to be removed therefrom." This is self-explanatory, Mr Chairman, Sir.

Question, "That the full stop proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That a colon proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted after the colon, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 18 -

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, since we have now added another Schedule to this Bill, it is necessary to amend line 44. Sir, I move, On page 8, line 44, before "Schedule" to insert "Second".

I might remind hon. Members that the First Schedule proposed will, of course, be debated later on. Dependent on that First Schedule being accepted, this amendment will then take effect, so will Members please bear that in mind when they vote on this Question?

Question, "That the word 'Second' proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Clerk has drawn my attention, Mr Chief Minister, to page 9, sub-clause (5). Perhaps the word "First" should read "Second".

I am indebted to you, Sir.

Will you amend in the Third Reading?

Can I, Sir?

Yes, as a typographical error.

If it please you, Sir. Clause 19 -

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, On page 9, lines 24 and 25, to leave out "by order require any" and insert ", subject to such exceptions as may be specified therein, by order require every". The amendment is necessary, Sir, in order to give the Commissioner of Police powers to exempt classes of persons or individuals from the provisions of the curfew order.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. 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. Clauses 20 to 23 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 24 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, I move the deletion of the proviso within the proviso in clause 24 (1) (b) of the Bill. Under our law, which follows the Indian Penal Code, no statement made to a police officer by a person under arrest can be used against him. There must have been very good reasons for such a provision. I think it was because some officers in the past were not too scrupulous as to how they obtained their statements, and, therefore, no statements, unless they amounted to a confession taken before a magistrate with due warning, could be used in court against an accused person. Under the Emergency Regulations, which follow the English law, this long-standing practice has been changed so that a statement by a person in custody to or within the hearing of a Police Inspector can be used against him in his trial in court provided: (1) that he has not been induced or threatened to make a statement, and, (2) that he has been cautioned to the effect that he is not obliged to say anything, but what he says may be used as evidence against him. We have accepted this principle that extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, and I, for one, do not quarrel with the provisions so far. But there is another proviso within this proviso to the effect that if a statement is made before there is time to caution him, it shall not be rendered inadmissible in evidence merely by reason of no such caution having been given if it has been given as soon as possible. This clause is a fairly lengthy one. It takes up the whole of page 11 in the Bill, and I am sure those Members of the Assembly who are not legally trained will have to read this clause several times before they can understand it. I am afraid the poor police officer who has to learn this clause and use it three months or a year or two years after he has read it, or has been taught it, will not be able to remember all the provisions in their true perspective, and, like most of us, he will probably take the easiest course and think that so long as there is no time to question the suspect, it is not necessary to caution him. The essence of good law is that it should be simple, clear, and unequivocal. I will read the clause: "(1) Where any person is charged with any offence against this Ordinance or with any offence arising out of or in connection with an occasion of emergency or public danger ... any statement, whether such statement amounts to a confession or not...; made at any time, whether before or after such person is charged and whether in the course of a police investigation or not, by such person to or in the hearing of any police officer of or above the rank of Inspector shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any written law, be admissible at his trial and can be used to cross-examine him, if he puts himself out as a witness Provided that no such statement shall be admissible or used as aforesaid -

It has been proposed, on page 11, line 34, to leave out the semicolon, and then in lines 35 to 39 to leave out the following words: "Provided that a statement made by any person before there is time to caution him shall not be rendered inadmissible in evidence merely by reason of no such caution having been given if it has been given as soon as possible." The first Question is that the semicolon proposed to be left out, be left out.

It is a colon, Sir.

It is indeed a colon, Mr Thomas! The first Question is that the colon proposed to be left out, be left out.

Sir, I must confess that I do not share the difficulty experienced by the Member who has moved this amendment, particularly when he read out the clause, save where he departed from the words of the clause at the end of subclause (1). Now, I think it is important, when considering this amendment, that the Assembly should not lose sight of the fact that it is of the essence of this clause that only statements which have been voluntarily made should be admissible and that no advantage should be taken of a prisoner who is in custody. Sir, the proviso is expressly designed to avoid rendering inadmissible a statement which is, in all respects, a statement which has been voluntarily made, merely because - and I stress this as it is a word which appears in the proviso - merely because no caution has been given in cases where there was no time in which to administer the caution before the statement was made, and where the caution has been given as soon as possible. Now, on this basis, Sir, the scope of the clause would be unduly limited if voluntary statements of a certain class were to be rendered inadmissible, and that is precisely the effect which this amendment would have and, for that reason, I would ask the Assembly to resist this amendment.

Sir, the Member moving this amendment stated that some police officers were not too scrupulous and he also said that police officers would have difficulty in learning the meaning of this clause in the Bill. I should like to suggest, Sir, that the Member underrates both the integrity and the intelligence of Police Inspectors. I had hoped, possibly, that when he opened his remarks he had not noticed that this clause referred only to Inspectors. It does refer to Inspectors and I can assure this House that we have every confidence in the integrity with which our Inspectors discharge their duty. As regards difficulty in mastering this clause, I do not share the Member's fears at all. There is nothing unusual about this clause. It is a standard form of clause which has, in fact, been in operation here for many years and it is indeed the standard practice in many countries where it is applied to all ranks in the Police Force, as, for example, the United Kingdom. I see no reason at all why Inspectors and above in the Singapore Police Force should not be able to apply this clause with complete intelligence and with complete integrity.

Mr Chairman, Sir, far be it from me to cast aspersions on any Police Inspector, my reference was to the origin of this law which, following the Indian Penal Code, excluded the use of such statements obtained by the Police.

Procedure Code.

Question, "That the colon proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and negatived. Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 25 to 32 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 33 -

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, the Member for Seletar (Mr Nair) did ask that there should be an extension of the improved procedure under this Bill to those who have been detained under the provisions of the Emergency Regulations, and in order to meet that Member's legitimate request, I move, On page 13, line 35, after "extended" to insert "and provided further that the provisions of section 8 of this Ordinance relating to review shall apply to any such order or direction made under the provisions of regulation 20 or regulation 20A of the Emergency Regulations, 1948 as if it were an order or direction made under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 of this Ordinance, as the case may be".

I expect you would want to delete the full stop, Mr Chief Minister?

Indeed, you are right, Sir. I move that the full stop be deleted and, in place thereof, a comma be inserted and the following words be inserted -

Do you really want a comma?

I will leave it out, Sir.

Question, "That the full stop proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. 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. The Schedule -

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, in view of the amendments to clause 3, it is now necessary to amend the words "The Schedule" and I move, On page 13, to leave out "The Schedule" and insert "Second Schedule".

Question, "That the words 'The Schedule' proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the words 'Second Schedule' proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. New First Schedule -

There is now a new First Schedule to be added. Will the Chief Minister please bring it up to start off with?

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I move, On page 13, line 35, at the end of clause 33, to insert -

This is a new Schedule, Mr Chief Minister?

A new Schedule, Sir.

Will you let the Clerk read the Schedule as a First Reading?

Yes, Sir. "FIRST SCHEDULE. (Section 3). ESSENTIAL SERVICES. 1. Water Services. 2. Gas Services. 3. Electricity Services. 4. Public Health Services. 5. Fire Services. 6. Prison Services. 7. Postal Services. 8. Telephone Services and Undertakings. 9. Telegraph Services and Undertakings. 10.Port, Dock and Harbour Services and Undertakings. 11.Bulk Distribution of Fuel and Lubricants." Brought up, and read the First time.

Now, Mr Chief Minister, will you move that the First Schedule be read a Second time?

I beg to move, "That the First Schedule be read a Second time."

You can make your speech now.

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I am a little confused. We have had the Second Schedule?

Yes, you can now speak on this proposal.

On the First Schedule?

On the First Schedule.

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, the First Schedule arises out of the amendments to clause 3, and in order to define "essential services", as it seems to be desired by several quarters, we have now used this Schedule which, in the main, refers to public services. I therefore formally move.

Question, "That the First Schedule be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Now, of course, hon. Members can move any amendments if they so desire.

Question, "That the 'First Schedule' be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to. Bill reported, with Amendments.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. I beg to move, Sir, "That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time." I ask that the word "First" in clause 18 (5), page 9, line 22 be left out and in place thereof be inserted the word "Second".

Under the provisions of Standing Order 56 (2), I allow that amendment. Question put, "That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time."

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 19; Noes, 4; Abstentions, 7. Ayes Noes Abdul Hamid Bin Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Haji Jumat. Goh Chew Chua. Braga, A. J. Lee Kuan Yew. Butterfield, C. H. Lim Ching Siong. Goode, W. A. C. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lazarous, A. R. Abstentions Lee Choon Eng. Ede, John. Lim, R. C. H. Goh Tong Liang. Lim Yew Hock. Jumabhoy, R. Mak Pak Shee. Lim Cher Kheng. Marshall, D. S. Lim Choon Mong. Mohamed Sidik Bin Lim Koon Teck. Haji Abdul Hamid. Tan, William. Nair, M. P. D. Ong Piah Teng. Seah Peng Chuan. Tan Theng Chiang. Absent Thomas, Francis. Chew Swee Kee. Wong Foo Nam. Sutherland, G. A. P. Bill, as amended, accordingly read the Third time.

Considered in Committee.

Clause 1 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move the following amendment standing in my name, On page 1, line 9 to leave out "three years from the date of commencement" and insert "one year from the date of commencement and for any further period of one year for which it may be continued by resolution of the Legislative Assembly". Sir, in view of the fact that the Government has not accepted a similar amendment to the previous Bill, I am afraid that we are fighting a lost cause. Nevertheless, I must emphasise again that I think the Government will be making an equally grave mistake if they reject the amendment to this Bill. Having built up a case for the retention of the Emergency Regulations which is unassailable - and their retention has never been disputed by the Progressive Party even though we may not like their translation into law - it seems to us the height of folly for the Government to destroy a good deal of that case, even to the extent of making their motives suspect, by sticking to the period of three years. I wish to make only one point. Certain irresponsible groups - I need not name them again - have tried to make out that Part V, dealing with illegal strikes in essential services, is a blow aimed at destroying the trade union movement. This, of course, is nonsense. These Regulations have been in force for several years and I see no signs of the trade union movement having been destroyed. Nevertheless, Sir, colour can be lent to that argument if the hon. Members opposite remain adamant. Let us be quite clear that to delay the right of striking is a curtailment of liberties for emergency purposes only, and should therefore be the subject of regular review. That is the very least that the honest and sincere trade unionist has a right to expect. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Sir, as the mover of this amendment foresaw, we have already made our position clear in principle on this matter in the previous Bill which we considered this morning, and I will not detain the House longer than to say again that we, on this side of the House, are always ready to face our responsibility to this House at any time; and it is open to Members opposite to ensure that we discharge that duty by means of questions and other procedures in this House. But we also take the view that it would not be right, in the present circumstances, for us to subject Singapore annually to the kind of agitation which we have had during the last fortnight. So, we on this side will not accept this amendment any more than we were able to accept a similar amendment this morning.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and negatived. Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 -

Sir, I have an amendment in my name on the Order Paper to this clause. I move, On page 3, lines 33 to 35, to leave out "death or with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life or with whipping or with both such imprisonment and whipping" and insert "imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to whipping". Sir, on further consideration, we have come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to prescribe the death penalty in this clause, which deals with persons who are in possession of or carrying explosives. On further consideration, we did not consider it is necessary to insist on the death penalty there. Moreover, there is, to some extent, a breach of principle in imposing upon the courts the task of deciding in any given case whether the penalty of death or penalty of imprisonment should be imposed in accordance with the facts before the court at that time. So it is that I now move to delete the death penalty but to substitute therefor a penalty which we consider is a necessary deterrent, namely, life imprisonment, and to add to it liability for whipping, so that if this amendment is accepted, Sir, the penalty in this clause will be life imprisonment and also liability to whipping.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. 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. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 -

Sir, similar considerations apply to those that I have mentioned just now in regard to clause 4, and again I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, namely, On page 4, lines 15 to 17, to leave out "death, or with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life or with whipping or with both such imprisonment and whipping" and insert "imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to whipping", which seeks to change the penalty from death or imprisonment for life, or whipping, or both imprisonment and whipping, to a penalty of life imprisonment plus liability to whipping. I beg to move.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. 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. Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 -

Sir, this is to correct really a printing error. I move, On page 6, line 6, after "be" to insert "a".

Question, "That the word 'a' proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 10 to 22 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, may I seek some direction from you whether I should move all the proposed amendments at the same time, as they are the only amendments to this particular clause?

I think possibly you should take the first one first.

As you please, Sir. I move, On page 12, lines 17 and 18, to leave out "No person employed in any essential service shall go on strike in breach of contract" and insert "No workman employed in any essential service shall go on strike". Sir, there is no point in using the word "person" when "workman" is fully defined in clause 22, and the words "breach of contract" are left out because it is felt that a breach of contract is a civil matter between the employer and his employee.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Sir, I move, On page 12, line 29, after the word "Ordinance" to insert "or of any proceedings of a Court of Inquiry appointed by the Minister under section 6 of the same Ordinance". Sir, in this particular sub clause (1) (d), all conciliation proceedings are mentioned except a Court of Inquiry, which seems to have been overlooked, and the amendment seeks to provide for the inclusion of a Court of Inquiry.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Sir, I move, On page 12, line 30, to leave out the full stop and insert a colon and the words "Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall prevent a workman going on strike after the expiry of sixty days from the date on which notice of strike is given under paragraph (a) of this subsection". Sir, without the proviso, subclause (1) (a) imposes too severe a restriction on the right to strike, as the conciliation proceedings might drag on for a considerable time. The time limit of sixty days suggested in this amendment is to allow about one month for preliminary conciliation meetings in the Labour Department obtaining answers from the parties as to whether or not they agree to arbitration, and finding suitable persons willing to serve as arbitrators or as a Court of Inquiry; and the second month should be sufficient for the arbitrators or the Court of Inquiry to complete their proceedings and make their award or report.

Question, "That the full stop proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That a colon proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted,", put, and agreed to.

Sir, may I now move the remaining two amendments together as they are similar to amendments (ii) and (iii) on the Order Paper?

No, will you please move the first one first?

As you please, Sir. I move, On page 12, line 43, after the word "Ordinance" to insert "or of any proceedings of a Court of Inquiry appointed by the Minister under section 6 of the same Ordinance". This amendment is necessary, Sir, in lieu of the amendment to subclause (1) (d), so that what applies to the workman equally applies to the employer.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Sir, I move, On page 12, line 44, to leave out the full stop and insert a colon and the words "Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall prevent an employer locking-out any workman after the expiry of sixty days from the date on which notice of lock-out is given under paragraph (a) of this subsection". This amendment, Sir, is consequential upon the amendment to subclause (1) (d).

Question, "That the full stop proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That a colon proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. 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. Clauses 24 to 30 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 31 -

Mr Chairman, Sir, for similar reasons to those given in the Public Security Bill, I move an amendment as follows, On page 15, lines 8 to 13, to leave out: "(1) Any police officer of or above the rank of Inspector may without warrant and with or without assistance-

Sir, I feel that there should be a similar amendment in this Bill so as to bring it in line with the previous Bill, otherwise the good effect that we may have and the good intention of the Government side may be lost by exercise of this Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Sir, I would be happy to accept that amendment for reasons given by the mover, though I shall, in due course, ask the Committee to insert a similar proviso.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Sir, I move, On page 15, line 16, to leave out the full stop and insert a colon and the words "Provided always that any police officer not below the rank of Inspector may exercise the powers conferred by this subsection on a police officer not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police if he has good grounds for believing that by reason of the delay which would be caused by referring to an officer not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police any such evidence is likely to be removed." Amendment handed in.

The wording of that proviso, Sir, is as nearly the same as I can draft it to the similar proviso which we accepted in the parallel clause in the previous Bill. It is merely that, in the event that an Inspector feels that waiting to obtain the authority of an Assistant Superintendent of Police would prejudice the securing of evidence, he should then be able to proceed; otherwise, it would be an Assistant Superintendent of Police before he could go into a man's house.

Question, "That the full stop proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That a colon proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. 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. Clauses 32 to 38 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 39 -

Sir, I beg leave of the Committee to withdraw the two amendments standing in my name.

You have not proposed the amendments, so it is not necessary to beg leave to withdraw.

Retreat first! Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 40 to 46 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. First to Fifth Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill. Sixth Schedule -

Sir, I move, On page 21, item 8, to leave out "Telegraph" and insert "Telephone". This corrects a typing error. Can I put that one first, Sir, before going to the next one?

Yes.

Question, "That the word 'Telegraph' proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the word 'Telephone' proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Sir, on the same Schedule, I move, On page 21, item 11, to leave out "oil". My purpose in asking to delete the word "oil", Sir, is that the juxtaposition of the words "fuel" and "oil" could be taken to mean "fuel oil", which I am advised is the technical description of a certain type of fuel; whereas, in fact, I wish the word "fuel" in its widest sense to include both what is known as fuel oil and diesel oil, and other forms of fuel. So as to avoid any misunderstanding, it will read "fuel and lubricants". Question proposed, "That the word 'oil' proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Chairman, Sir, item 11 with "oil" deleted will read "Bulk distribution of fuel and lubricants". I think it is an arguable point whether, if you put "fuel and lubricants" without "oil", the thing becomes clearer, since fuel will be classified as a lubricant. There are other kinds of fuel besides oil, and, quite unwittingly, I think the Government may be extending the whole scope of item 11 in the Schedule. "Fuel and lubricants" - firewood is fuel. Mr Chairman, Sir, if the Chief Secretary has any doubt as to the meaning of the item as it stands - "Bulk distribution of fuel oil and lubricants" - it might be put down as "Bulk distribution of fuel, and oil and lubricants".

I congratulate the Member for Tanjong Pagar on his perspicacity. It is precisely what I do intend - fuel in the widest sense, and lubricants.

Nonsense!

I am sorry if you think it is nonsense, but it is what I -

Order, please.

Question, " That the word 'oil' proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Sixth Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Seventh Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, with Amendments.

Third Reading, what day?

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

Division, Sir.

Clear the lobbies.

Vote against that?

Order, please.

Whoever said we would? I have always supported law and order. That is the P.A.P.!

Order, please. The House divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, nil; Abstentions, 5. Ayes Noes Abdul Hamid Bin Nil Haji Jumat. Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Braga, A. J. Butterfield, C. H. Chew Swee Kee. Goh Chew Chua. Goode, W. A. C. Hart, T. M. Abstentions Jumabhoy, J. M. Ede, John. Lazarous, A. R. Goh Tong Liang. Lee Choon Eng. Jumabhoy, R. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Choon Mong. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Ching Siong. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Marshall, D. S. Mohamed Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Ong Piah Teng. Absent Seah Peng Chuan. Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam. Bill, as amended, accordingly read the Third time.

Considered in Committee.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 - Question proposed, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Chairman, Sir, this clause was discussed at the last sitting of this Assembly, and I had then pointed out the incongruity of putting it in that particular section of the Penal Code. However, I see the draftsmen chose to leave it where they had put it. I wish now to point out that the clause, as it stands, combines weighty and trivial matters. It reads: "Whoever makes, prints, possesses, posts, distributes or has 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 likely to lead to any breach of the peace shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." Mr Chairman, Sir, we have there "incitement to violence or counselling disobedience to the law or to any lawful order", and something which is "likely to lead to a breach of the peace", usually dealt with under the Minor Offences Ordinance - I think one should not put them together in one clause with the same punishment. I am sure the Hon. the Chief Minister, as a criminal lawyer, would find a lot to say about a clause which combines the serious and the trivial in this way, and I move -

Too late, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Too late, Mr Chairman, Sir? As you please, Sir. As it stands, it is a ridiculous combination of serious and trivial matters.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 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.

Considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 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.

Considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule 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.

Considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 10 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.

Considered in Committee.

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

Mr Chairman, Sir, I have an amendment to move to clause 4 of which I have given notice. I move, On page 2, line 1, after "hereto" to insert "a comma and". The purpose of this amendment, Sir, is to insert a comma after the word "importation" wherever the amendment is being made. Question, That the words "a comma and" proposed to be inserted, be there inserted, put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 -

Sir, I have given notice of two amendments to this clause. There is another for which I am indebted to the Clerk for bringing it to my attention. What I have been referred to is an amendment, which should be made to line 9, on page 2 of clause 5. That amendment, Sir, will depend on some later amendments - amendments to be made to this clause at a later stage - and I would therefore ask that it be postponed. I now proceed, Sir, to the first of the amendments which I have to move, and that is, On page 4, line 27, after "Immigration Department to Insert "Chinese Secretariat". The purpose of this amendment, Sir, is to include a department of the Government on which reliance is placed for the administration of powers of this kind.

You do require a comma, do you not, Mr Butterfield?

I have just lost my copy of the Bill, Mr Chairman. I am very much indebted to you, Sir. I now move that there should be a comma inserted after the words "Immigration Department" and thereafter the words "Chinese Secretariat".

Question, "That a comma and the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

There is a further amendment, Sir, of which I have given notice. It is a more substantial matter than that to which I have referred just now. First of all, however, I should like to move, Sir, on page 4, line 36 of clause 5, that there should be left out the inverted commas and the second full stop, that depends on the addition of a proposed new section to be numbered 14, with the marginal note "Appeals": "Appeals. 14 (1)-Any person aggrieved by the detention of any article under the provisions of section 10 of this Ordinance or of any publication under the provisions of section 11 of this Ordinance may appeal against such detention to the Governor in Council: Provided that no such appeal shall be allowed unless notice of appeal in writing together with the reasons for appeal is given to the Governor in Council within fourteen days of the service of the notification referred to in subsection (2) of this section. (2) A Controller or an authorised officer shall notify the addressee or consignee of any article detained under the provisions of section 10 of this Ordinance or the traveller from whose person or effects any publication has been seized and detained under the provisions of section 11 of this Ordinance as the case may be of his right to appeal under the provisions of subsection (1) of this section. (3) A notification given by a Controller or an authorised officer under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section may be delivered personally or may be sent by post and the time at which a notification which has been posted would be delivered in the ordinary course of post shall be deemed to be the time of receipt of such notification and the posting thereof shall be sufficient notification. (4) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Ordinance no article or publication shall be destroyed under the provisions of this Ordinance unless its detention has not been appealed against or any appeal against such detention has been dismissed or abandoned." I have given notice of this amendment, Sir, and, no doubt, Members will have taken the opportunity of reading the proposed addition. All I wish to say now is that it does spring, to some extent, from the observations made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) on the Second Reading. If my recollection is right, his observations were to the effect that, in the exercise of wide powers of the kind conferred by the Bill, it was desirable that there should be some check at one time or another in respect of the exercise of those powers. Those comments have been given consideration, and, as a result of that consideration, this amendment is now proposed. Members will see that what it is designed to achieve is that persons who are aggrieved by any action taken under either of the proposed section 10 or 11 to detain matter that is objectionable, if I may so describe it, with a view possibly to its destruction, should be given an opportunity to appeal; and this proposed section provides them with an opportunity to appeal to the Governor in Council within a period of fourteen days. It also places upon the Controllers or authorised officers an obligation to notify the persons affected of their right to appeal.

Question, "That the inverted commas and the second full stop proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the new section proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr Chairman, Sir, may I now go back to line 9 on page 2 of clause 5? This is the amendment to which I originally referred. I move, Sir, That the word and figure "and 13" appearing in line 9 be left out, and that there should be inserted after the figure "12" a comma and then the figure "13" and the word and figure "and 14". This amendment, Sir, is consequential on the addition of the new section 14.

I require that in writing, Mr Butterfield, under the Standing Orders.

May I have a moment, Sir?

Yes. Amendment handed in.

Question, "That the word and figure `and 13' proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That a comma and figure '13' and the word and figure 'and 14' proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

The marginal note, of course, will be amended as consequential.

I am very much obliged to you, Sir. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule -

I have an amendment, Sir, to propose to the Schedule of which I have given notice. I move, Sir, with respect to the Schedule, On page 4, item "Section 3", to leave out "and 5" and insert a comma and "5, 7 and marginal note".

Question, "That the word and figure 'and 5' proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That a comma and figures and words "5, 7 and marginal note" proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put and agreed to. The Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, with Amendments.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir, I beg to move, Sir, "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 beg to move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly approves the improvement rate of 2 per centum on the annual value of all houses, buildings, lands and tenements within the City of Singapore, fixed by the Singapore Improvement Trust under section 22 (1) of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance (Cap. 134) for the year 1956. The approval of this Assembly is required under the Singapore Improvement Ordinance for this rate. This rate cannot, by law, exceed five per cent on property within the City area. Hitherto, the rate has always been two per cent and the Trustees recommend no change in the rate for 1956. This rate, which is in lieu of the improvement rates referred to in section 59 of the Municipal Ordinance (Cap.133), is collected by the City Council and paid over half-yearly to the Trustees of the Singapore Improvement Trust. The monies from this rate, together with the equivalent Government contribution under section 23 of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance (Cap. 134), are estimated at $2,475,000 and form one of the major items of revenue of the Trust and are paid into the Improvement funds. This is spent on improvement schemes, the rehousing of persons dehoused under the schemes, the opening of backlanes, provision of open spaces in congested areas, and generally in the maintenance of the general improvement plan. The proportion of expenditure for the improvement functions of the Trust is distinct from its housing functions, and is estimated to be round about $2.743 million, so that the improvement rate of two per cent in 1956 is reasonable. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly approves the improvement rate of 2 per centum on the annual value of all houses, buildings, lands and tenements within the City of Singapore, fixed by the Singapore Improvement Trust under section 22 (1) of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance (Cap. 134) for the year 1956.

Mr Speaker adjourned the Assembly without Question put pursuant to Standing Order 7 (11). Adjourned accordingly at 4.55 p.m. to the 7th day of November, 1955.

Wednesday, 12th October, 1955

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether he is aware of the urgent need for promoting and fostering local industries; and whether he will make a detailed statement of all the steps taken, or to be taken, in granting guidance and assistance, including the grant of loans, for the welfare and development of small operators in (a) the fishing; (b) the farming; and (c) the light (cottage) industries.

I am fully aware of the need for promoting and fostering local industries. Reference is invited to my reply to a question on this subject on Wednesday, 29th June, 1955 (Legislative Assembly Debates, Official Report Vol. I No. 6, Col. 331). Preliminary discussions have taken place with Ministers in the Federation on proposals for promoting industrial development. It is intended to seek further discussions at an early date with a view to the creation of an Industrial Development Board which I am anxious to establish. The present trade discussions with Indonesia are also of considerable importance to our local industries. It is hoped that as a result of these talks local industries will once more be able to export to the Indonesian market. Government Departments and public bodies have been instructed to give preference in all cases to local manufactures. The following steps have been or will shortly be taken for providing guidance and assistance including the grant of loans for the welfare and development of small operators in -

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that there is an urgent need for more Kathis to be stationed in the rural areas; and whether one stationed in the Changi and Bedok Districts, where hardship is being caused, will be appointed as early as possible.

The Government is not aware of any shortage of Kathis in the rural areas in general. As far as the Bedok-Changi districts are concerned, a Kathi was temporarily transferred to that area on 1st September, 1955, but a permanent appointment is likely to be made in the near future to fill the vacancy caused by the death of the substantive Kathi.