Hansard, 1955-11-07

Mr John Drew Higham, Chief Secretary (Acting), took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance.

I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor in connection with Bills which have been passed by the Assembly. It is dated 18th October, 1955, and is addressed to me. This is the message: "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 Bills intituled:-

asked the Chief Minister whether he has talked to Mr Chin Peng from a position of strength, or as equals, or how.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the event predicated by the question has not taken place. It does not arise.

asked the Chief Minister whether he will, if necessary, postpone his journey to London in order to meet Mr Chin Peng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the occasion has not arisen for consideration of the eventuality envisaged by the question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Chief Minister consider it more important to meet Mr Chin Peng, or to meet the Rt. Hon. Mr Lennox-Boyd?

Order, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. That question, I think, seeks an expression of opinion and is not permitted by Standing Orders.

asked the Chief Secretary what measures are being taken to improve the pay and conditions of service of the Singapore Special Constabulary (Active Unit).

The Government have received from the Commissioner of Police recommendations for the improvement of conditions of service of the Special Constabulary (Active Unit). These are now being considered.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the Government intends to provide free housing facilities to members of the Singapore Special Constabulary (Active Unit).

No, Sir. At present it is not possible to provide quarters for members of the Special Constabulary. They receive a housing allowance in lieu of quarters.

Does the Chief Secretary realise that one of the important things about morale in the Police Force is housing?

I realise that, Sir. I also realise that some 600 members of the regular force are at present without housing.

What does the Chief Secretary propose to do about it?

That is a matter which is part of the housing problem of the Public Works Department and raises very wide issues. I can assure the hon. Member that this is a matter very much in the Government's mind.

asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware of the dissatisfaction among the members of the Singapore Special Constabulary (Active Unit) over the fact that 26 Special Constables were discharged from service without compensation or gratuity as a result of suffering from tuberculosis, and 120 on grounds of inefficiency after several years of service without any complaints as to their efficiency.

No, Sir. Since 1945, 22 Special Constables have been discharged suffering from tuberculosis. In each case, one month's notice was given, in addition to vacation leave due. Sick leave is normally 270 days, but may be extended if recovery is probable. It is not known over what period the figure of 120 in the question is calculated, and in the time available it has only been possible to examine existing records as far back as January 1950. Since then, 31 Special Constables have been discharged on grounds of inefficiency. In some cases, the work of the officers had deteriorated after several years of satisfactory service.

asked the Chief Secretary if any aid has been provided by the Government to the families or dependants of those Special Constables who have died while they were in service.

Pensions are payable to dependants of Special Constables killed on duty. Regulations governing the grant of such pensions have recently been made by the Governor in Council and provide for a temporary allowance to a widow for three months at the rate of pay drawn at the time of death, and thereafter a pension at one-third of this rate. Pensions are also payable at one-fifteenth of this rate in respect of each child up to six. In special circumstances, pensions may also be paid to parents and orphan brothers or sisters, and, in addition, education allowances are provided for.

Will the Chief Secretary inform us what form of compensation or gratuity is given in the case of those not killed on active service?

This may seem a hard answer, but the answer is No, Sir.

Will the Chief Secretary tell us what is the answer in the case of those in the ordinary Police Force?

I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member any exact information. The regulations are laid down, 1 think, in the Police Pay Code. Special Constables are treated in exactly the same way as any other temporary Government servant.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the service of the members of the Special Constabulary (Active Unit) is counted if and when they are absorbed into the Singapore Police Force.

Special Constables absorbed into the regular force are permitted to count their previous service as pensionable service in the regular force under the same terms as other Open Vote employees, which means, I believe, that only two-thirds of their service is counted; but the whole of this question is under consideration.

asked the Financial Secretary what subsistence or other allowances from public funds in addition to their salaries were granted to the Chief Minister and his ministerial colleagues during their first Goodwill Mission to Indonesia; and whether allowances on the same scale were granted to the official members of the Pan Malayan Economic Working Party during their recent visit to Indonesia.

Members of the Goodwill Mission were the guests of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, and no charge for accommodation fell on public funds. The cost of hotel accommodation for the Pan-Malayan Economic Working Party was paid from Singapore funds, and averaged about $53 a head per day. In addition, Ministerial members of both the Goodwill Mission and the Working Party were paid an expense allowance of $20 a day to cover incidental expenditure on such items as gratuities, laundry and minor entertainment.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works what efforts are being made for the installation of private telephones in the outlying districts of Singapore.

The Telephone Board has a five-year development plan to meet present and prospective demands for telephones in all parts of the island, provided that adequate staff and finance are available. I do not think it would be right for me to give details of the Board's plans, but I am arranging with the Chairman of the Board for a report to be laid before this Assembly in the very near future.

asked the Minister for Education what regulations have been made under section 13 of the Singapore Polytechnic Ordinance, 1954, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Ordinance and particularly of defining the powers and functions of the Board of Governors.

No regulations have yet been made under section 13 of the Ordinance, but a Committee has been appointed to prepare draft regulations for the consideration of the Governor in Council. The powers and functions of the Board are already defined in section 5 (2), but may be modified under section 13 as the need arises.

asked the Minister for Education whether the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Singapore Polytechnic went to the United Kingdom solely in the interests of the Singapore Polytechnic; and if he will state in detail what expenditure of public funds directly or indirectly is involved in meeting the cost of passages, allowances and other expenses in connection with this visit.

To the first part of the question, my answer to that is, so far as my Ministry is aware, yes. To the second part of the question, the details are: (1) Return air passage to United Kingdom... $3,410 (2) Personal accident insurance... $175 (3) An allowance of £10 per day for hotel expenses, fares and entertainment while in the United Kingdom only.

asked the Minister for Health whether the Government intends to build a district hospital in the Sembawang rural area.

May I take that question, Sir?

Yes, Mr Chief Minister.

The answer to the question is in the affirmative.

Will the Chief Minister, on behalf of his Minister for Health, inform us when he proposes to build this district hospital?

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of priority of district hospitals is being worked out, but a site in Sembawang has already been reserved - I use the word "reserved". At present I am not in a position to indicate exactly where a district hospital at Sembawang will come into the four-year plan we have in mind for medical services.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare whether the Government has sought to bring about a settlement of the dispute between the Naval Base Labour Union and the Management of H.M. Dockyard over the discharge of 16 workmen from service so as to avert a strike in the H.M. Dockyard.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes. Officers of my Ministry have been following the situation in the dispute and have satisfied themselves that the parties were meeting and gradually approaching a settlement of the issue by mutual agreement. As reported in the Press, however, a deadlock has now been reached. My officers are pursuing their efforts to bring about an amicable settlement.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing what steps are being taken to extend the supply of electricity to the villages between the 12th and 15th milestones, Sembawang Road.

Supply of electricity is available up to Nee Soon Village, but I understand that the City Council are investigating the possibility of bringing electricity supplies to other villages along Sembawang Road.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the probability that the business of the House will be completed earlier than 4 p.m., may I have your leave to move a motion for purposes of adjournment? I do move, Sir that the Assembly, at the termination of business today, do stand adjourned to Wednesday, 9th November, at 10 a.m.

Sir, I rise to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising today the Assembly do stand adjourned to the 9th of November, 1955.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like your indulgence to make a very brief statement on an Ordinance known as the Documents (Uniformity of Names) Ordinance which was passed by the previous Government in November 1952, as a result of representations that the register of business names was rendered inaccurate and unreliable because of the Chinese custom of using different names for the same person in different businesses, and it was considered that the practice was leading to widespread evasion of income tax. The Ordinance was passed, and it provided that it should not come into force for the first six months, and thereafter it could come into force only on a date to be fixed by the Governor in Council. Nothing has been done since 1952, and as it happened to be in my Ministry when I went there, I have since made enquiries. I am satisfied, Sir, that the Ordinance, as framed, will not adequately meet the position that it seeks to rectify and that it could be a cause of irritation with no resultant benefit to the welfare of the territory. In the circumstances, I wish to inform the Assembly that my Government will not bring into force the Documents (Uniformity of Names) Ordinance.

"to amend the Sale of Food and Drugs Ordinance (Chapter 191 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Chief Minister; read the First time; to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 8th February, 1956, and to be printed.

"to amend the Post Office Ordinance, 1947 (No. 35 of 1947)", presented by the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Thomas); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 8th February, 1956, and to be printed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that a Bill intituled "An Ordinance for making provision for estimated financial requirements for expenditure out of the revenues and other funds of the Colony for the year 1956", be now read the First time. Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Wednesday, 9th November, Sir.

Are there sufficient copies of the Estimates for circulation?

They have been sent to the Clerk, Sir.

"to amend the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Chapter 45 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Attorney-General (Mr C.H. Butterfield); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 9th November, 1955, and to be printed.

"to amend the Companies Ordinance, 1940 (No. 49 of 1940)", presented by the Attorney-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 9th November, 1955, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the absence of my colleague, it is my privilege to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill, Sir, is of a very minor character. On the assumption of office by my Government, a view was put forward of the procedure for appointment to various statutory bodies. In a number of cases where it was provided that the Governor should appoint, that provision was changed, and the appropriate Minister was given the power of appointment. We have also considered other powers of appointment, and we have come across this one in the Hospitals Board Ordinance - in section 3 - which provides for the appointment of a large number of officers and, inter alia, section 3 (1) (g), which provides for two persons to be elected for each year by the Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council. That was quite an appropriate proviso, Sir, in the days when the Council was a minority of Unofficials and also when the Executive was very much in the hands of Officials. But it is our view that, now that the government is in the hands of the elected representatives of the people, and in order to avoid any suggestion that appointments are being made a matter of politics, this provision of appointment of two persons to the Medical Board should be by the Governor in Council, that is to say, by the Council of Ministers. Sir, I beg to move.

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

If it please you, Sir, may we take the Committee stage now? I move, That the Assembly do resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.

I second the motion. Bill considered in Committee.

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

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

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

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill, Sir, has been incubating for a long time. It has now arrived in the Assembly. The Objects and Reasons state fairly clearly what it is all about, but there have been some comments since it came before the public, and I think Members may expect me to give some explanation why a reduction is proposed for the minimum age for drivers of motor vehicles and motor cycles. The present minimum age of 19 for a driver of a motor car is high by the standards existing in any of the civilized and progressive countries of the world, many of which have traffic problems much more serious than our own. As far as I am aware, there is no minimum age laid down for drivers by any international body, but it is significant that a United Nations conference on road and motor transport, which met in Geneva in 1949, recommended that, for purposes of international traffic, States should recognise the driving permits of other countries, subject to a minimum age of 18 years, or a lower age if they so wish. You will note, of course, that this means that a driver, who has been licensed to drive, say, on the left-hand side of the road, can, at the age of 18, go and drive on what is to him on the wrong side of the road in France. It assumes that the driver is not merely capable of driving in his own country, but driving in any other country where there is a somewhat different traffic system. In our own International Circulation Motor Vehicle Rules, we provide that an international driving permit can be granted to a person at the age of 18. You thus have the anomalous situation where we will license somebody to drive in a foreign country, yet we refuse to license him to drive in our own country. The Objects and Reasons of the Bill state that the age of 19 is unnecessarily high and that, by reducing it, we will come into line with the United Kingdom and the Federation, where the ages are 17 for motor cars and 16 for motor cycles. There is no absolute need for Singapore to do what is done in the Federation, but it is very advisable that we should, wherever possible, keep closely in step with them. It is also not wholly necessary to keep in step with the United Kingdom, but you do get quite a number of people coming from both territories to Singapore. In fact, at the very first "Meet-the-people" session that the Chief Minister had, he received a complaint or a request from a young person who was licensed to drive elsewhere but was restricted in Singapore. This question of people coming from the Federation or the United Kingdom is not a major question. There are really much more serious reasons why we should at least keep in line with the Federation, because both territories recognise each other's driving permits, and it is most necessary and convenient that drivers, who do have to pass across the causeway from one territory to the other, should be able to pass freely without a lot of unnecessary restrictions. At present, the effect is that a 17-year old or an 18-year old driver from Johore Bahru, or even from Kota Bahru for that matter, can, in practice, drive his car into Singapore and drive all round the place and out again, whilst our own boys and girls are not allowed to drive on the roads. It seems again quite anomalous and unfair. The Federation lowered their ages for driving way back in 1950, and they seem to have got on very happily with it. Since we have reciprocal recognition of driving licences, it is desirable that we should keep in step. I am sure there will be no difficulty in keeping in step, because we have such very happy and cordial relations with the Ministers in Kuala Lumpur. Other objections have been raised - and I am dealing with all these now so that we can save time when we get to the Committee stage - about the age limit. It is said that our roads are in - conveniently crowded. There are too many cars on them and therefore we should not allow young people to drive, and that only the old and experienced be allowed to get on to the roads. I do not think that is at all a fair attitude to take. If the roads are over-crowded, then the solution is probably to reduce the size of cars, and allow only small cars on the roads. This will create much more space than possibly can be taken up by an increase in the number of younger people on the roads. The fact is, of course, that our traffic is heavy, but it is nowhere near as heavy as in central London or in New York. We know that in America they have one car for every three persons, and Singapore is nowhere near that standard yet. In places where they have really difficult traffic problems, there have been a number of proposals on how to improve the flow of traffic on the roads, but no one has so far suggested that you should discriminate against a certain age group and say that just because you have not reached this particular age, you shall not be allowed on the roads. The solution, if you are going to take an age group off, will probably be to take the old people off and not the young ones. However, there still remains another argument, and that is, that the young people, if they get on the roads, will be reckless and dangerous drivers and cause innumerable accidents, speeding around, as one newspaper puts it, in cars which have been given them by their millionaire parents. The fact is that Singapore boys and girls are just as sensible and responsible as boys and girls anywhere else. There is no reason to suppose that they are going to go mad on the roads when people of the same age in the Federation do not misbehave, nor do the young men and women in England misbehave. This is based, I think, on a misapprehension on the part of the people who have raised this objection about dangerous driving by those who are young. There is no evidence at all to show that young drivers in Singapore are more dangerous than those that are older. In fact, the evidence that I have been able to get indicates exactly the opposite. I have had the accident figures for September broken down, and they reveal that the number of drivers at the age of 19, 20 or 21, who were involved in accidents, is very considerably less than the number of drivers who are aged 22 to 30. The actual peaks of accidents come at the ages of 24, 30 and 35. These are the three peaks in the graph. Of course, the significance of that figure depends on how many young people are actually driving at the ages of 19 to 21. I have not got exact figures of how many there are, but that age group accounts for more than 50 per cent of the applications for driving licences. It is fair to say that there must already be a considerable number of these relatively young people at the age of 19, and they do not account for a large part of the accidents. In fact, it is much more likely that young men or young women will be better at avoiding accidents because their reflexes are quicker and their powers of observation and attention are better than those of elderly drivers. Finally, of course, licences are not given to people without proper testing. They are required to pass their test and about 50 per cent of them are failed, so that these young men and women will have to learn their traffic code and learn their driving very carefully, because otherwise they will not get their licences from the police. It may be that somebody will wish to query the amendment dealing with the provision for compounding of offences. That comes under section 82 of the Ordinance. The situation here is that a very large and increasing number of offers of compensation are made. It was 2,600 in September, I think, and 2,000 in the previous month, and about 99 per cent of these were accepted by the people who committed the offences, and the amount of money involved was relatively small. It is proper that these offences should be handled by people below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police. I think I have covered everything that people are likely to say, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, I formally move. Question proposed.

Sir, my sympathies are surely with the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Thomas). I thought the Assembly would have the pleasure of hearing approximately the number of applicants who would fall within the age group of 17 to 19. I also thought, Sir, that the Minister would give us an idea of the additional manpower required to control traffic in the event of this Bill becoming law. I also thought that he would bring to the notice of this Assembly various other aspects of the problem involved in this amended Bill, but I am really very disappointed. On my own part, Sir, I would like to bring to the attention of this House some of the salient points arising out of this amended Bill. A person applies for a driving licence for one of three reasons. Firstly, if he is the owner of a vehicle, he applies for a driving licence. Secondly, if he does not own a vehicle, but thinks that the possession of a driving licence is a social accomplishment, he applies for a driving licence. And, thirdly, if he thinks that a driving licence is an insurance against unemployment, he applies for a driving licence. Let us analyse these three points individually, Sir. The first one is that of a person who applies when he owns a motor car or motor cycle or any other vehicle, and he is entitled to a driving licence. The number of people, Sir, who come under this category will be very few and far between. Unless he is the son of some millionaire, as the Hon. Minister points out, there is very little chance of his applying for a licence. Secondly, when he does not own a vehicle, but he thinks that knowing how to drive is a social accomplishment, he applies for a driving licence. Who are these people? The amendment gives the age group as between 17 and 19. We have seen on the Singapore roads, Sir, traffic accidents in the past -

Not due to the young people!

But we cannot forecast when an accident can occur. There are nearly 30,000 cars in Singapore today, with, I think, about 10,000 lorries, and a very large number of motor cycles. Can one imagine the sight of a teenage boy driving a 3-ton lorry on the Singapore streets? I think that would be a very dangerous situation and this is the time we have to think of the age. Thirdly, Sir, people who apply for driving licences as an insurance against unemployment. Not long ago, Sir, the President of the Singapore Hire Car Association approached our Chief Minister, informing him of the position of pirate taxis. One of the effects of reducing this age limit will be that in Singapore, from the day the Bill becomes law, we will see a large number of pirate taxis plying for hire. I do not blame them. I agree that they also have to have some occupation. But then what I am worried about is the number of cars that will be on the roads which will bring about very chaotic conditions in Singapore. Against this age limit, Sir, section 285 (1) of the Municipal Ordinance clearly states that the Registrar of Vehicles may grant a licence to a driver of a hackney carriage, other than the first class, to any person above the age of 20. So, if anybody were to think that this is an insurance against unemployment, that argument would fail. He must be more than 20 years of age if he were to be a taxi driver. So I come to my earlier point again, and that is, that if he wants to have employment, he can have it as a pirate taxi driver, or as a driver for some car owner. I do not know whether there will be many vacancies for drivers for motor car owners. I think there is now more unemployment in the driver category than we ever had. I think, Sir, this amendment will be very ineffective as a measure against unemployment. Now, Sir, for what purpose are we going to have this amendment? The Hon. Minister said that he does not wish this Assembly to become a rubber stamp of the Federation or any other country. He is quite right, but, at the same time, he has not -

Could you repeat that?

When I said the Hon. Minister explained to this Assembly that he did not intend to become a rubber stamp for the Federation or, for that matter, any other country in the world - Mr Francis Thomas rose -

Order, please.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

Yes, Mr Thomas?

Which Minister is the speaker referring to?

That is a compliment for him, Sir! I said the Hon. the Minister for Communications explained to this Assembly that he was not willing to become a rubber stamp of the Federation or any other country; in other words, he is not blindly following what is happening in the Federation and in other countries. It is a compliment, Sir. I do not want him to get annoyed!

I am bewildered! I do not know what he is talking about!

English is a foreign language. I am an Asian and I am arguing this point with whatever knowledge of English that I have. Sir, on these grounds, I feel that this amendment is very untimely. I have not got figures for 1954 traffic accidents and applications for licences. The latest I have got are 1953 figures. I would like to quote a few figures for the information of the Assembly. In 1952, 21,767 persons - the minimum age was 19 then - applied for licences. In 1953, 25,969 applied. Against these applications, 17,180 licences were issued in 1952 and 20,019 in 1953. Apparently, 4,000 new licences are being issued every year. As far as I can see, nearly 50,000 more applications would be received if we were to lower the age from 19 to 17, because I think in Singapore today we have 89,000 people who come between the ages of 17 and 21 - if I am not mistaken. I may be wrong, because I did not refer to the statistics which I received recently. Sir, traffic accidents also count a lot in this matter. In 1951, 34,656 reports were received. In 1952, 52,351 and in 1953, 66,139. 9,432 summonses were issued in 1951; 11,045 in 1952 and 15,378 in 1953. Now these figures, I think, will show an increase in 1954 and 1955, because there has been a considerable increase in the number of vehicles on the roads. Looking at these figures, I feel that this lowering of the age limit would definitely react on the traffic problem. Sir, on the whole, I do not agree with this amendment and my reasons are two. The first is traffic accidents. However, the Hon. Minister might argue that there is bound to be some apprehension in the minds of the public that more vehicles would mean more accidents, and I think it would be better to save the lives of a few than enter into a catastrophic situation. The second reason, Sir, is that the number of pirate taxis will increase very considerably, which, I think, is not a very healthy situation. Pirate taxis are run for the purpose of making money, and I do not think that we should contribute to that. Sir, I think this amendment will do more harm than good. I also believe that it is very untimely and unwise, and that the Minister has been ill-advised.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think it is generally known that the most adept pupils as pilots of aircraft are those in the teenage group, and I understand the reason is that their reaction is much quicker than older pupils. That perhaps explains why the figures of accidents given by my hon. Friend and colleague the Minister for Communications for those under 20 are far less, proportionately, than those over that age. I would like to say this, Sir, that if that is true - and we must accept the evidence of statistics and those who are experienced in these matters - then it is preferable that we should educate our drivers when young, in order that they should be better drivers as they grow older. I find it more than a little difficult to understand this business about pirate taxis. I do not understand why young persons should be presumed to go in for pirate taxis. Is it a carry-on from their infancy at playing pirates? I am quite at a loss to follow this business of pirate taxis and why it is deemed that that particular age should attract that particular activity. I think it is quite fallacious to suggest that the more driving certificates there are, the more cars there will be on the roads; the younger they are, the more they will be given to piracy! The question of traffic accidents, Sir, has been dealt with by statistics, and there is only one other thing that I would like to add - that laws should not be repressive, and where they fall unjustly on any particular section of the people, then that injustice should be remedied. No case has been made out, Sir, for this particular discrimination. Figures have been used between 17 and 19, and, in fact, we have the evidence of other territories to show that where they have had the opportunity to drive, they have, in no way, abused their responsibilities and privileges.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think we must all agree that motoring is now a part of our lives, and I believe that, as we learned how to pedal a bicycle 20 years ago, we should now all learn how to drive a car. It should be considered as part of our education. I certainly feel that a boy graduating from high school should also know how to drive, and I think they have made it as part of a person's general education in some countries that he should be able to drive before he is given a certificate from the school. However, I have just one problem, which I want the Minister in charge of this Bill to consider. We are now trying to lower the age of these drivers. It is very good indeed that you lower this age so that more people are eligible to drive, but, at the same time, it will not be within the reach of these people, or other people who will be affected, if the machinery for testing of drivers is also not stepped up. I have been keeping in touch with people who applied for driving licences and they came along to me and said, "It is very difficult to fix up a day for testing." If we are going to increase the number of people eligible for it, then probably the duration for getting a date for testing would be even longer. I think, if the Minister for Communications will consider this point of view, the Bill will do some good. Mr Thomas rose -

Mr Thomas, in reply?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it has been a very interesting little debate. I must express my regret to the Member for Seletar (Mr Nair) for not making myself clear. He was anxious to say that I was not a rubber stamp. I never suggested that I was. I never used the word at all. I merely said that it was not essential in this case that we should keep in step with the Federation on this very, very minor matter indeed. The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) raised the question of more speedy testing so that people will get tested, and fail or pass more quickly. It is not a matter which I, personally, have to deal with in my Ministry, but it is purely a matter of how many testers you have, and consequently how much money this Assembly supplies for paying the testers, and the other costs involved. If the Member is dissatisfied with the number of testers, he can criticise it, presumably on the Estimates when they come up. The Member for Seletar made a rather confusing speech. I do not think I need deal with the whole of it, but there are two points which are particularly confusing. He gave three reasons why people wanted licences, and one of them, he said, was owning a car. He said these young people would not own cars - or very, very few of them would - and therefore there was no need to give them licences, and then they would not have cars. Well, the answer is, of course, that a large number of cars are continually being licensed, and the number is growing every month - some fantastic figure which I cannot remember at the moment - but the increase is a very rapid one. Obviously, when father has a car, his son is likely to drive it as well. It is a great convenience that he should be able to drive it so that perhaps when father goes to office, the son can bring the car back to take mother to market. It is a great convenience to have two people in the house who can drive. It does not increase the number of licensed vehicles, but it does, of course, mean that the car is on the road for longer periods. But the confusing thing is that - that although he argued that there were very, very few extra cars as a result of this, yet he talked most vigorously about the congestion of traffic that would result and the fact that more vehicles on the road would cause more accidents. I think there was confusion in his mind there because different parts of his speech were not quite well related. The other point on which he spoke vigorously was unemployment. He tried to horrify us with a picture of a teenage boy driving a 3-ton lorry. If he had done his home work and read the Bill and not the original Road Traffic Ordinance, he would have found that section 23 subsection (1) restricts the age of driving a motor vehicle. Subsection (2) restricts the age of driving motor cars. In subsection (3) you have to be 21 before you can have a heavy locomotive, a light locomotive, a motor tractor, or a heavy motor car on the roads, and so forth. In fact, his arguments do not apply. We are not going to get teen-agers tearing round the streets with 3-ton trucks. It is not part of the intention of this Bill. I do not think there is anything much in his quotation from the 1952 traffic figures for accidents and licences and so on. I have the last few months' figures if anybody would like to hear them. I do not think anybody will. They keep on going up more or less. The answer does not lie in putting an unjust restriction on a small section of the population, but in taking proper measures of road safety and road education and other things which are not associated with this Bill in any way at all. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.

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

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Deputy Speaker, I move, That the Assembly do resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.

I second the motion. Bill considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

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

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

Order for Second Reading read.

If it please you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is my duty to move, and I do move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." It is a very short Bill, Sir, and there is only one minor point. The main Ordinance came into force in February of this year and it was discovered that, although all first offences could be taken by the Police Courts, second offences in respect of possession of opium or opium utensils attract a punishment of one year's imprisonment. As Police Courts have only powers to give six months' imprisonment, they therefore have no power to deal with second offences, although they have considerable experience in dealing with first offences. Sir, there is no reason why the Police Courts should not have this power, and the amendment to subsection (1) of section 41 is intended to provide that Police Courts, as well as District Courts, should have the power to hear second offences under the provisions of the Ordinance.

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

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. I move, That the Assembly do resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.

I second the motion. Bill considered in Committee.

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

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

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

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name, That the Honourable Mr J. M. Jumabhoy be discharged from the Select Committee on the Land Titles Bill and that the Honourable Mr C. H. Butterfield be appointed to the Committee. My colleague, the Hon. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy, was made a member of the Select Committee on the Land Titles Bill on the 6th of September, 1955. He has written in to say that he is unable to continue being a member of the Committee due to the exigencies of his office. Members will be aware that the Land Titles Bill is a document of considerable importance to Singapore, and it is very necessary that every member of the Committee should be able to devote his undivided attention to the work of the Committee. I therefore feel that we should accept the resignation of the Hon. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy and, in his place, I recommend the appointment of another member of the Government, the Hon. Mr C. H. Butterfield. I beg to move, Sir.

I rise to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Honourable Mr J. M. Jumabhoy be discharged from the Select Committee on the Land Titles Bill and that the Honourable Mr C. H. Butterfield be appointed to the Committee.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand to move the motion, That pursuant to subsection (2) of section 21 of the Poisons Ordinance, 1938 (No. 39 of 1938), this Assembly approves the Poisons (Amendment) Rules, 1955, made by the Minister for Health on the 8th day of October, 1955, and published as Notification No. S 329 in the Gazette Supplement No. 90 of the 27th October, 1955, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 46 of 1955. Sir, the first three pages of these Rules were, in fact, approved by the former Legislative Council, but the provisions of section 21 (2) were overlooked. They were published, Sir, but not approved by the Council, and they required the approval of the Council. In the circumstances, they have never come into force. Rule 10, Sir, provides for the revocation of those Rules. The Rules are an amendment to the Poisons Rules, 1939. They are somewhat technical in character, and mainly provide for the better control of certain poisons - including arsenite compounds which are used, I understand, for weeding of rubber estates - and also for the sale of certain anti-biotics like aureomycin and streptomycin. I do not intend to trouble the House with the technicalities of the Regulations, but would be happy to answer any aspects of them that Members may wish to clarify.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That pursuant to subsection (2) of section 21 of the Poisons Ordinance, 1938 (No. 39 of 1938), this Assembly approves the Poisons (Amendment) Rules, 1955, made by the Minister for Health on the 8th day of October, 1955, and published as Notification No. S 329 in the Gazette Supplement No. 90 of the 27th October, 1955, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 46 of 1955.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I rise to move, That the Honourable Mr J. D. Higham be appointed to be a member of the Select Committee on the Assembly Staff. Sir, this motion is necessitated by the fact that the Hon. Mr W. A. C. Goode is now on leave, and it is desired to appoint the Hon. Mr J. D. Higham to fill the vacancy.

Sir, I rise to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Honourable Mr J. D. Higham be appointed to be a member of the Select Committee on the Assembly Staff.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly, in accordance with section 3 of the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Ordinance, 1950 (No. 10 of 1950) resolves that the Schedule to the said Ordinance be amended by the deletion under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the items shown in Part I, and by the addition under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the items shown in Part II, of the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 36 of 1955. Sir, it is rather a formidable sounding motion, but I do assure the House that it really means very little at all. It is a pure formality. Since the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Ordinance was enacted in 1950, there have been several changes of title due to constitutional changes and for other reasons, and it is necessary to validate the statutory acts performed by the Government officers in the Schedule. The sole purpose of this motion, therefore, is that officers may be able to fulfil their statutory requirements under their correct titles.

Sir, I rise to second the motion. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is another step forward to Merdeka! We used to call him the Deputy Commissioner for Excise, and now we call him the Assistant Comptroller of Customs. We used to call him the Curator of the Herbarium, and now we call him the Keeper of the Herbarium, Botanical Gardens. We used to call him the Controller of Labour, and now we call him the Commissioner for Labour! No one will object to this change to more progressive titles. But let us all hope and pray that, with this change of titles, there will come a change in the spirit in which their holders discharge their duties. We have the same persons imbued with the same spirit, having the same old concepts and the same old habits, but now they are clothed with a different constitution - not quite as radical as we would wish them to be. If they could meet the changing circumstances and the changing times with a spirit that could infuse in this new constitution a meaning which those who framed it perhaps might not have fully intended, then I say we may yet have a future, not altogether as dark and bleak as one would imagine looking at the Chief Minister in his present mood -

I am bored.

I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir, that he has had occasion to be bored with an empty House. I fully appreciate that the Chief Minister is a person who likes to -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I respectfully submit that the speaker is not speaking to the question of whether or no this motion should proceed? He is introducing something completely outside the motion.

Your point of order, I take it, Mr Chief Minister, is as to whether the speech is relevant?

That is so, Sir.

I understand that the Member is trying to imply that a change of name implies a change of conduct. Perhaps he can cut his speech short?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am much obliged to the Chair for having put my intention in such a kind manner. After all, even if we were to change, for instance, the title of Chief Minister to that of Prime Minister - if we still have the same constitution with the same sort of petulant and petty spirit with which the office of Chief Minister might have been infused - then we would not really have made much progress -

On a point of order, Sir. I would enquire from you, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether it is appropriate that terms of that character should be applied to a Member of the House and to the Chief Minister?

The objection, I take it, was the use of the word "petulant"?

Various terms of abuse, Sir.

If the Member implied that the Chief Minister is petulant, then, of course, he was completely out of order. He must withdraw that word.

Far be it from me to imply that the Chief Minister is petulant! All I was suggesting was a hypothetical case. If the title of Chief Minister is changed to that of Prime Minister, it would not make much difference if, in fact, the same spirit infused the Prime Ministership as infused the Chief Ministership. What I was trying to convey, Mr Speaker, Sir, was that with a change in titles, there should come a change in the spirit with which these persons who have been invested with authority discharge their duties. We, perhaps more on the Opposition Benches than on the Government Benches, realise the deep significance of the age we are passing through. It is a time when changes in outward trappings, unless accompanied by a dynamic and a decisive change in spirit, will reach a stage where we will begin to make-believe. We begin to change names and become completely unrealistic and completely mad. Whilst we all support this Bill to call people by their right names and make them sound more democratic, we would like to add this note - that it is important that they not only sound democratic, but that they should act in a democratic manner.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, in accordance with section 3 of the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Ordinance, 1950 (No. 10 of 1950) resolves that the Schedule to the said Ordinance be amended by the deletion under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the items shown in Part I, and by the addition under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the items shown in Part II, of the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 36 of 1955.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, I do formally move, That this Assembly do now adjourn.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock a.m.

Monday, 7th November, 1955

asked the Financial Secretary whether the farewell party to the last Governor, Sir John Nicoll, at the house of the Chief Minister in June 1955 was given by the Government of the Colony of Singapore or by the Chief Minister; and what was the amount paid out of the public funds of the Colony to meet the cost of the farewell party.

The farewell party to Sir John Nicoll was given by the Chief Minister on behalf of the Government and people of Singapore. 687 guests were invited, including members of the Legislative Assembly, the City Council and the Rural Board, foreign consuls and Commonwealth representatives, senior Government officials, members of the rank and file of the Singapore Police Force and representatives of the Press, employers' associations, trade unions, and youth and student organisations. The cost of this entertainment amounted to $4,270.20 and was paid from public funds.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare how many local-born people have gone back to China from January 1954 to September 1955; the number of them allowed re-entry into this Colony; and whether the restrictions on these local-born persons travelling to and from China and Hongkong can be relaxed.

1,956. (b) 281. (c) The only existing restrictions are of a security character and it is not proposed that these should be relaxed at the present time.