Hansard, 1956-10-03

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (3) (i) of section 47 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, obtained from the Speaker permission to be or to remain absent from meetings of the Assembly: Mr Tan Theng Chiang - from 23rd September to 27th October, 1956; Mr William Tan - from 23rd September to 31st October, 1956.

Hon. Members will have received information that, under the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (6) respectively of Standing Order No. 61, I have appointed Mr G. A. P. Sutherland to be Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and Mr R. C. H. Lim to be Chairman of the Estimates Committee.

asked the Minister for Health whether he will make a statement explaining the reasons for the increases in the Hospital Charges in respect of the 1st and 2nd Class Wards in Government Hospitals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hospitals Board recommended an increase in the ward charges in the General Hospital and the Kandang Kerbau Hospital. This was carefully considered by Government, and Government, after going through the various aspects, decided to accept the recommendation to raise costs as it was considered that the present charges were most uneconomical. It is also the policy of Government, in accordance with the Labour Front programme, to provide hospitalisation and specialist treatment free to one and all, and the provision of special wards to be maintained for those who can afford it. There is no difference whatsoever in treatment of patients, whether they are paying or non-paying. It might be of interest to Members to know that the 1956 recurrent cost of running our hospitals is estimated at more than $21 million, whereas the total revenue from hospital charges is estimated at only $1,500,000. The cost of maintenance of beds in the General and Kandang Kerbau Hospitals is estimated from 1955 figures to be as follows: General Hospital Paying patients (A) cost $27.74 per bed; Paying patients (B) cost $26.07 per bed; Free patients cost $24.33 per bed. Kandang Kerbau Hospital Paying patients (A) cost $22.62 per bed; Paying patients (B) cost $21.76 per bed; Free patients cost $20.61 per bed. It will therefore be seen that even the first-class patients have been subsidised by Government. The number of first and second class beds in these two hospitals are as follows: In the General Hospital, out of a total of 1,005 beds, there are only 46 first-class beds and 121 second-class beds and 838 free beds. In the Kandang Kerbau Hospital, out of a total of 390 beds, there are only 29 first-class, 37 second-class and 324 free beds. The only hospitals in which there is accommodation for paying patients are the General, the Kandang Kerbau and the Woodbridge Hospitals. In the Tan Tock Seng, the Middle Road and St. Andrew's Orthopaedic Hospitals, all beds are free. It will therefore be seen that, for a great majority of patients, no charge of any kind is levied and Government considered that it was justified in asking first-class patients to pay an economic fee and to ask the second-class patients to pay a slightly higher contribution towards the cost of upkeep of second-class beds. It is not considered that the new charges are excessive as compared with rates prevailing in other countries with a comparable standard of living.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister tell this House why, if it is the Labour Front's policy to provide as much medical facilities as possible, there should be an increase in charges in respect of second-class wards? Is it justified?

It might be of information to the Member for Queenstown to know that the Director of Medical Services and the Chief Medical Officer have a discretion to give a rebate on charges in respect of second-class patients and, in some cases of proved hardship, not to charge anything at all.

Sir, can the Minister tell us how the question of hardship is assessed? Is it just on the question of poverty or is it a question of money?

All circumstances are taken into consideration - a person's salary, a person's family, and the number of children and so forth who are dependent on him.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether in view of the unsatisfactory condition of private roads leading to some schools, such as Play-fair Road School and Duchess Road School, he will make the necessary arrangements with the local authorities concerned to keep these roads in reasonable repair.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter concerning the repair and upkeep of private roads leading to schools has been under consideration by my Ministry in conjunction with the Ministry of Communications and Works, the Ministry of Education and the local authorities for some months, and as a first step to this end, arrangements have already been made in specific cases with the local authorities for the improvement of a number of such roads, including the road leading to the Duchess Road School.

"to amend the Tan Tock Seng's Hospital Ordinance (Chapter 149 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, 5th November, 1956, and to be printed.

"to repeal and to re-enact the law relating to Muslims, the registration of marriages and divorces among Muslims, and to establish the Shariah Court", presented by the Chief Secretary (Mr W. A. C. Goode); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Monday, 5th November, 1956, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir, I beg to move that this Order be discharged and the Architects (Amendment) Bill be withdrawn. Sir, I move this motion because, since the Bill was read the First time, several representations have been made to the Minister regarding both the Bill itself and certain provisions of the Architects Ordinance which are untouched by the Bill. It has not yet been possible to give these representations the consideration which they merit and, in the circumstances, the most convenient course to take is to withdraw the Bill. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it. Question, That the Order for Second Reading of this Bill be discharged and the Bill withdrawn, put, and agreed to. Resolved. That the Order for Second Reading of this Bill be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a Bill, Sir, to assist the police in dealing with secret society gangsters. It is unfortunately notorious that secret society gangsters here in Singapore depend on violence, or the threat of violence, for their existence and for their power over the unfortunate people who get into their clutches. They get their funds by threats, and to be effective, threats have got to be backed up by deeds. So it is that victims who fail to pay extortion money are brutally assaulted, stabbed and even murdered. Further, these gangs have to fight for their own existence in the jungle war that goes on between rival gangs to secure control of particular places or particular rackets. Before the recent police campaign against secret societies, these gang fights and threats of gang fights were almost daily occurrences. In the three months April, May and June, there were no less than 70 occasions on which there was either a gang fight or the threat of a gang fight, and in these fights, as I think it is well known, all sorts of vicious weapons are used - knives, bottles, knuckledusters, bicycle chains, iron bars and other such things. The victims are very often assaulted in the dark or in a crowded public place where the thugs can easily make their escape. But it does very frequently happen that the police, getting information that a gang fight is about to take place, are able to arrive at the scene and prevent the fight actually developing, even though the strong-armed thugs are there with their weapons ready. But if no breach of the peace has actually occurred, it is not possible to charge these thugs in court, and it is to remedy that difficulty that this Bill is brought to the Assembly. This Bill will make it an offence to carry, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, a knife over 2½ inches long or any other offensive weapon. That means that if the police can arrest these thugs who have gathered for a gang fight and find them in possession of these vicious weapons, they will be able to charge them in court and, on conviction, have them sent to prison. Now, unfortunately in these affrays we do not get much help from the victims or even from bystanders who may witness what is going on. They are, unfortunately, too frightened of the brutal power of the secret society gangs to come and give evidence in court, and in order to help successful prosecution, this Bill therefore puts the burden of proof on an accused person to explain why he was carrying a weapon at that particular time and place. I am sure, Sir, that any measure designed to assist the police in dealing with this menace of gangsterism will command the full support of this House and of the public. But it may be that Members feel some uneasiness that innocent persons may be put in jeopardy by the presumption contained in the Bill making it necessary for a person, found in possession of one of these weapons in a public place, to explain his lawful authority or reasonable excuse for carrying that weapon. I trust, Sir, that this uneasiness is not really justified. After all, an accused person in those circumstances has only got to show that he has some reasonable cause to be carrying a knife. Few of the weapons that we have in mind are such that they will not themselves raise a strong presumption of malicious purpose; but in the event of a law-abiding citizen being found carrying a knife in a public place, he has only to show that he had some reasonable cause to be carrying that knife, for example, that he needed it in the course of his business, or that he was on his way to use it for some lawful purpose, and he must then be released. I would hope, Sir, that we could, with confidence, rely on the police and the courts to judge, on the evidence and the circumstances, whether or not a person carrying one of these weapons had discharged his duty of explaining why. I myself, Sir, will have every confidence that we can confidently rely on the courts to safeguard the liberty of the law-abiding citizen. It seems to me that provided innocent persons do not go round carrying weapons of this sort without good reason, then they have nothing to fear from this Bill. Much, of course, will depend on the circumstances, and should it unfortunately be the practice for a number of persons to carry knives about with them, by day or even by night, for no proper purpose, then they must stop doing so. I think it is right and proper that people should not be in the habit of carrying knives on their persons for presumably the purpose of attacking other people. But, Sir, even if there is some uneasiness and even if some embarrassment or indignity is caused to the law-abiding citizen by being called upon to explain why he is carrying a weapon, then I would urge that that should be accepted in good part as a small price to pay for helping to keep our streets and public places free from these violent and often deadly affrays and for, making them safe for the law-abiding citizen to go about his lawful occasions without fear for his person or his property. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when this Bill was received by me I indeed felt very uneasy about it. I have heard the explanation by the Hon. the Chief Secretary about the type of people the Government is after. We do want to support the Government in any measures against unlawfulness, but we must bear in mind that we must always protect the innocent people and, wherever possible, to exclude them from any inconvenience. This Bill, when it is passed, will make the police the sole authority to determine whether a person is, in fact, guilty or not guilty of the offence. New section 24 (1) of the Minor Offences Ordinance reads: "Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse the proof whereof shall lie on him has with him any knife or offensive weapon in any public road..." shall be guilty of the offence. On the question of lawful authority, it would be difficult to imagine that any person who carries a weapon would want a permit from the police. That rules out "lawful authority". The term "reasonable excuse" can be interpreted in many different ways by different people. Is it reasonable for a person to carry a knife in an omnibus after he has bought it? If a policeman should find that he has a knife, the first thing he would do is to haul that person into a police station and thereafter the poor chap will have a lot of explanations to make. I am thinking particularly of those people who buy knives for kitchen purposes. I would ask Government to look at the problem from this angle: that a person with a knife on him does not necessarily mean that he will want to cause some other people voluntary hurt; but if a person has a knife concealed on him, then there is reasonable suspicion that that knife is being carried for unlawful purposes. Again, there are many people in Singapore who have to carry knives about in the course of their work. I cite the case of Harbour Board labourers. In the process of loading or unloading, they might have to cut boards or string or ropes with their knives which, I would say, are necessarily of a length of 2½ inches or a bit more. Such knives are usually carried about by the labourers with their bunches of keys and other working tools, and it would be difficult for the person concerned to detach his knife when he is not on duty. Probably because of long habit, he might be carrying the knife with him and he may be arrested off duty. I think this Bill is going to put such types of people to a great deal of inconvenience. If the Bill, however, is passed and the spirit in which it is passed is not clearly stated to the police, what I am afraid of is that there will be a great deal of petty tyranny. That should be avoided as far as possible in order that the right of the innocent citizen to go about his lawful business is safeguarded.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to elaborate a little on the point raised by the Member for Serangoon. I think there are very few in this Assembly who have much intimate knowledge of workers as to how they work. There are thousands of workers in Singapore who do carry, for the purposes of their work, a whistle, a knife and a long needle and these people can be found in the Havelock, Tanjong Pagar and the Boat Quay, Telok Ayer, areas. If the Bill is passed as it is, thousands of workers can be stopped by the police and taken to police stations and, after giving their explanations, they may or may not be released. We do not know, but they may even be harassed. What is the protection provided for these thousands of honest workers in this Bill? I am not against the spirit of the Bill, but I want the Hon. the Chief Secretary to tell us how these workers can be protected from arrest and from being disturbed by the police.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at first glance this Bill appears to be very onerous on the public in that the onus is now thrown on the person carrying a knife in a public place to prove a reasonable excuse for having that knife with him. In view, however, of the explanation given by the Hon. the Chief Secretary that this Bill is required because of the recent violent outbreaks by the secret societies in the form of extortion, gang fights and intimidation, I do not think we should oppose the passage of the Bill, except to warn Government that, being given such wide powers, it should use them wisely and carefully.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the previous speakers to the definition of "knife": "'knife' means any knife whether clasp knife or otherwise, the blade of which is more than two and a half inches in length and which is capable, in the opinion of the Court, of being used as a stabbing or cutting instrument and includes any sword, dagger, blade or similar instrument adapted for use as a cutting or stabbing instrument;". It does not mean that if you carry a pocket penknife, you will be charged. Also, after having heard the Member for Serangoon and the Member for Telok Ayer, it seems that they do not have sufficient confidence in the police force. We should have confidence in our police force. We should also assume that members of the police force are intelligent enough not to arrest persons, ordinarily good citizens, carrying a little knife in their pockets.

Sir, on a point of order. That is an allegation I have not made.

Is it a point of order?

It is a point of explanation, Sir.

Will the hon. Member please make his point of explanation in the proper way, that is, if the hon. Mr R. C. H. Lim will give way? Mr R. C. H. Lim resumed his seat.

Sir, I do not know why the nominated Member Mr R. C. H. Lim should say that we have no confidence in the police. We have never said that. Ordinarily, a policeman is not a well educated person - do not forget that.

Order.

That is so!

Order. Hon. Members must remember that they must address their remarks to the Chair.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just the other day I bought a small knife for the purpose of fishing and I do not visualise at any time that a policeman, finding me carrying a knife and not dressed as I am now but as a coolie for fishing purposes, would arrest me; and if I were arrested, my explanation, I am sure, would be accepted. So there is no reason why there should be any fear in anybody's heart that the police will not act with intelligence. Mr Goode rose -

Mr Chief Secretary, in reply?

Sir, I would, in reply, like to say that we on this side of the House do have the greatest sympathy for some of the expressions of uneasiness which have been raised by the other side. The Member for Serangoon spoke of the word "inconvenience". I think, in my speech moving this Bill, I did say that I hoped inconvenience would be accepted. But it is not only the police who will be the judges. After all, if a person is arrested, he has also the courts which will consider his case. I have no doubt, as I have said in moving my motion, that the courts will be quick to safeguard the liberties of the innocent citizen. Most of the examples which were quoted, such as labourers who need knives for their work, and who may be going to or from their work, would, I hope, be quite clearly covered by the "reasonable excuse" which is given in the Bill. It may perhaps comfort Members if I inform the House that we have taken the substance of this provision from Ceylon. The Ceylon Government introduced, quite a number of years ago, .a similar provision in their Minor Offences Ordinance, and at that time they specified a blade length of 3½ inches in a knife. We are advised from Ceylon that that provision had an extremely good effect on decreasing the use of knives by criminals, and their experience was such that they have since amended their law and reduced the length of the knife to two inches, which is an even shorter length than that we are giving here. It would appear, from what we can gather from Ceylon, that the police have not abused the power and that it has achieved its effect in stopping the use of knives and other weapons in these brawls. Naturally we would like, if we could, to meet some of the points which have been raised. For example, it was suggested that we should relate the offence only to a concealed weapon, but I am afraid that would raise great difficulties because I do not see how we could define "concealed". Would a weapon carried in a pocket or in a sheath or on a belt be concealed or not? I would have said that it would be concealed, so that if, by putting in "concealed", you still brought within the law weapons carried in pockets or sheaths or on belts or under jackets, you would not, in fact, make any very tangible change in the position. But I think all I can do, Sir, is to give an assurance to the House that the police will be instructed to use every endeavour to see that this power is not used to harass innocent citizens or to cause vexation. The power is given to them to deal with secret society gangsters, and it should be directed at them; and I have every confidence they will do that. In the event of there being any abuse of the power, I am sure that both hon. Members here and the courts will raise complaints of which we shall take notice. In the meantime, I do ask the House to give us this extra power.

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

Committee stage, what day?

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

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. 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 move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I second it.

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This, Sir, is another Bill to strengthen the law against gangsters. As Members of the House are probably aware, the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance was enacted last year for the special purpose of dealing with secret societies and gangsters, and its main provisions were that when a member of a secret society or a person connected with a secret society has been convicted of one of the offences listed in the First Schedule, then the courts may sentence him either to corrective training or to preventive detention, taking into account the age and possibilities of reforming the person concerned or the need to prevent him from continuing to be a menace to his fellow citizens. The Schedule to the Ordinance lists the offences for which those sentences can be imposed by the courts, but it omits from that list the offence of criminal intimidation under section 506 of the Penal Code. This is a patent omission in dealing with secret societies because intimidation is the primary activity and, indeed, the lifeblood of the secret societies. They depend for their existence, for their funds, on getting money by extortion or by protection money exacted from taxi-drivers, stall-holders, hawkers and all sorts of other people. The members of secret societies threaten those persons with injury to themselves or to their property unless the money is paid over, and that, of course, is precisely the meaning of "criminal intimidation". So this Bill is introduced, Sir, to include criminal intimidation in the Schedule to the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. The opportunity has also been taken to make a small correction in the Bill to bring it up to date. Paragraph (g) of the First Schedule refers to two Emergency regulations which were in force when the Bill was enacted. The Emergency Regulations have now lapsed and this amending Bill substitutes a reference to section 7 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance which has replaced Emergency Regulation 4, and thereby brings the Ordinance up to date with the law as it now is. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Committee stage, what day?

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

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. 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 move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I second it.

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir, I have to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Section 5 of the Singapore Telephone Board Ordinance provides that the Board shall consist of a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman, two other members (all appointed by the Governor in Council) and the Financial Secretary (ex-officio). It is now considered desirable that there should no longer be any ministerial representation on the Board, and that the number of members appointed by the Governor in Council should be increased to three. This Bill gives effect to this proposal. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Committee stage, what day?

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

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. 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. Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I second it.

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill, Sir, is a simple one. The Silver Jubilee Fund was raised in 1935, partly by public subscription and partly by a grant made by the Government and the Municipal Commissioners. In 1936 an Ordinance to establish the Fund was passed. Section 3 of that Ordinance provides that the Trustees of the Fund shall be a corporation consisting of the persons for the time being discharging the duties of the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary, the President of the City Council, and two persons not in the service of the Government from time to time appointed by the Governor. It is considered undesirable that Ministers should serve on statutory bodies which are under the aegis of another Minister. This Bill, therefore, provides that the two Ministers serving as Trustees, namely, the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary, should be replaced by two permanent officials. As the Trustees are concerned with the control of funds, it is considered appropriate that these two officials should be the Deputy Financial Secretary and the Accountant-General. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Committee stage, what day?

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

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 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. Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I second it.

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, I think that everyone in this House will remember that, just before his departure for India, the Rt. Hon. Malcolm MacDonald, with a generous donation of $5,000, opened a fund for a very practical and yet imaginative purpose. That purpose, Sir, was to establish a Singapore Youth Sports Centre where young people of every race and creed could meet together for sport and friendship. In suggesting the establishment of the Sports Centre, Mr MacDonald pointed out that Malayans were already distinguishing themselves in many fields of sport and athletics and that some of their names were known throughout the world. Mr MacDonald went on to say: "If our school children can have expert training in many such activities, their standards of attainment will be high. I think of the youth centre as a place where capable instructors in various branches of sport would train boys and girls to be healthy in body and therefore also in mind." Three days after Mr MacDonald had made his donation, an Appeal Committee was set up to manage the fund and the public were invited to subscribe to it. The Singapore public has responded magnificently to the appeal for funds and the total collected now amounts to approximately $300,000. The City Council has undertaken to donate 50 cents for every dollar subscribed by the public up to a maximum of $150,000. The Government, Sir, for its part, has donated the Kallang Terminal Building together with 13 acres of land to the centre. The total value of the building and land is estimated to be $2,500,000. Sir, after consultation with the Appeal Committee, it was decided that the setting-up of a statutory board would be the most efficient and suitable way of managing the fund and organising the centre. The Bill before this House today is designed to effect this. It provides the machinery for the establishment, construction, conduct and maintenance of the Singapore Youth Sports Centre. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to describe the Bill clause by clause as this has already been done very fully in the Explanatory Note attached to the Bill. But before I conclude, Sir, I should like to pay tribute to the hard work done by the Appeal Committee. It is their enthusiasm and zeal which have done so much to make possible the establishment of the centre. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the objects of this Bill are commendable. It is one way whereby the youth of Singapore may be brought together on the same sports field so that they can mix with one another freely and be able to understand one another more thoroughly; but looking through this Bill, I find there are many defects. As one of the youth leaders in Singapore, the first time that I knew of the existence of this Bill was when it was brought up for First Reading. The second time that I knew about the Bill was when it was sent to me by the Assembly. I bring this point to the notice of the Assembly, Sir, because, since this Bill is to be called the Singapore Youth Sports Centre Incorporation Bill, the accent on it should be youth; and if the youth organisations of Singapore are not fully consulted, then I say that those who have framed this Bill have overlooked the necessity of bringing all youth organisations into their confidence and getting the best ideas from them so that there might be better cooperation later on. You might have a good centre providing all facilities for the youth of Singapore, but unless there is going to be cooperation from all sides, it might turn out to be a white elephant. The amount of money that is going to be expended on this Youth Sports Centre is in the region of half a million dollars up to date, and it will be a pity if this centre is going to cater for the needs of only those who live around it. I look at clause 3 (4) of the Bill and I find that the Board of Management shall consist of two members nominated by the City Council; two by the Minister for Education; two by the Minister for Labour and Welfare; one member nominated by the Financial Secretary; one member by the Singapore Chamber of Commerce, one member by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce; one member by the Indian Chamber of Commerce; and one member by the Malay Chamber of Commerce. Only under paragraph (e) can I find two members nominated by the Singapore Youth Council. If this is going to be an institution for the benefit of youth, then we must have people who understand youth. We must have people who have worked for youth and know the needs of youth; but instead of that, I find that we have on the Board more people who are interested either in their own business or just interested in making more money. That is going to be a very serious setback. The youth leaders of today are not young people under the age of 16 or 21. In fact, most of them are well over their 30's.

Like the World Assembly of Youth?

Yes, and they are people who are capable of managing their own affairs. If it is to be an institution for the youth of Singapore, then youth leaders must be brought into this Board to manage their own affairs, to voice their opinions, and to plan programmes that will be acceptable to the young people of Singapore. If clause 3 (4) is allowed to stand, we will have a large number of old people trying to manage the affairs of the young. Old people sometimes may be good in the sense that they may have some influence and they can rake in the money that is required for setting up this sports centre: but apart from that, I do not think they understand the needs of the young people thoroughly. Probably nomination on to this Board will just add a feather to their cap, but apart from that, their contributions towards the promotion of the activities of this youth centre will not be as they should be, nor will the progress made be so. I suggest there must be amendments to this clause to allow for greater participation by recognised youth leaders of Singapore. On the point about training and ordinary activities, I think if the Youth Sports Centre is going to cater for ordinary sports, it will not achieve that object. In fact, there are so many people living so far away from the sports centre that it may not be possible or convenient for them to come down to the centre to take part in its activities. If that is one of the objects of the youth centre, then I consider that it will probably degenerate into one of the many other youth organisations, instead of one that is above all this. There is also the fear of many youth organisations that, with the facilities afforded by this Youth Sports Centre, it will be very damaging to them because they may not have that much of facilities to offer to their members. On the matter of training, we cannot train all people in Singapore. There is only a limited number of coaches and if promising young men queue up for training, in all probability they will be served on two or three occasions in a year's time. I believe that if this Bill is going to be for the good of the young people of Singapore, youth movements must be consulted, and I would recommend that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee so that more views may be collected from people interested in youth work and not interested in just making money. Further, if those youth leaders who have shown themselves to be responsible and capable are given this work, I believe they will do the job much better than a few of the people who have been nominated to the Board. I hope that the Government will give this Bill serious consideration and put it into the hands of a Select Committee of this House. Mr Lim Yew Hock rose -

In reply?

Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, I see that the Member for Serangoon agrees with me that it is most essential that the surplus energies of the youth of Singapore should be channeled into a sports centre whereby they can be trained to be healthy in mind and healthy in body. One of the points that he has raised objection to is the constitution of the Board. He pointed out that not enough representation had been given to youth leaders. He also said that the youth organisations of Singapore had not been consulted when this Bill was drafted. it is quite true, Sir, that they have not been consulted, and in view of this, the Government is prepared to refer this Bill to a Select Committee so that all views can be represented and we can then have a sports centre that is going to work for the welfare of the youth of Singapore.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the Singapore Youth Sports Centre Incorporation Bill be referred to a Select Committee with Mr Speaker as Chairman and such members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Singapore Youth Sports Centre Incorporation Bill be referred to a Select Committee with Mr Speaker as Chairman and such members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill, Sir, is entirely a formal matter. In section 5 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, it is provided that, for the purposes of preparing an electoral roll, an identity card shall be accepted as evidence, unless the contrary is shown, of a person's residence in Singapore, of his age and of the constituency in which he resides. Under section 10 of that same Ordinance, the authority who reports changes of address to the Electoral Registration bureau is the Commissioner for National Registration. Those provisions are, of course, part of the machinery which we have here of compiling our electoral rolls automatically from identity cards. When the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance was enacted, the system of identity cards, of national registration, was carried out under the Emergency (Registration) Regulations. As the House will be aware, Sir, those Emergency Regulations have now lapsed and, in order to continue the system of identity cards, a new Ordinance was enacted - the Registration of Persons Ordinance, 1955. The purpose of this Bill is merely to substitute in the appropriate places in the Ordinance a reference to the Registration of Persons Ordinance, 1955, in place of the present reference to Emergency Regulations which are no longer in force. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Committee stage, what day?

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

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

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

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

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

Third Reading, what day?

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

I second it.

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, I have the Governor's consent under Standing Order No. 33 (1) (a) to proceed with this Bill. Sir, the main purpose of this Bill is to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Municipal Ordinance and to provide for the local government of Singapore to be administered by the City Council and by District Councils which will replace the Rural Board, in accordance with the Government's White Paper on the Report of the McNeice Committee on Local Government. Sir, hon. Members will recall that the McNeice Report was presented to this Assembly on 8th February, 1956, as Sessional Paper Cmd. No. 10 of 1956. I feel sure that hon. Members will agree that much work had been put into it to provide an exhaustive examination of a complex problem and that it has been a very valuable contribution to the future reorganisation of the local government system in Singapore. At the Assembly sitting on 4th April, 1956, my hon. Colleague the Chief Secretary stated that the Government accepted the basic principles of the Report and that a White Paper would be tabled before the June sitting of the Assembly. This White Paper, which is a statement of Government's policy with regard to the McNeice Committee's recommendations, was presented to this Assembly on 2nd June, 1956, as Sessional Paper Cmd. No. 30 of 1956. In accepting the basic principles of the McNeice Report, the Government is convinced that a more democratic framework should be set up in which greater opportunities will be afforded to a larger number of the community to take part in Local government administration, which would never have been possible under the concept of a City and Island Council, as proposed by the Rendel Constitutional Commission, to be the only local government authority with jurisdiction over the whole island of Singapore. It endorses the view, Sir, of the McNeice Committee "that the democratic opportunities offered by the existence of five elected local authorities significantly outweigh the advantages of centralisation." As can be seen in Chapter II of the Report, the McNeice Committee has adduced very strong arguments why the basic pattern of future local government should be the City Council and four District Councils. This basic pattern brings the public in different parts of the island into closer and more intimate touch with local government bodies, whereas a single local authority on an all-island-wide basis could become an impersonal body to people living in areas on the island far away from the centre of activity. As the McNeice Committee pointed out: "There are few similarities, so far as. government is concerned, between the interests of the farmer in Lim Chu Kang and the shopkeeper in Telok Ayer or between the fisherman of Ayer Gemuruh and the clerk in Queenstown." This new basic pattern also extends to the citizen a greater opportunity to be of service to his fellow-men. I would also like to quote the following words of the Committee: "We are, moreover, in greater doubt than the Commission (the Rendel Commission) about the political advisability of constituting an Island-wide authority in addition to central government and investing it with wide powers, and financial resources which might well, at some future time, weigh more heavily than those of Government itself." Sir, Government has no doubt whatever that it is politically inadvisable to have such an island-wide authority on this island. Sir, as stated in the White Paper, Government has accepted the majority of the recommendations of the McNeice Report, in some cases with modifications and reservations. There are, however, a number of recommendations which have not been accepted, and in place of these, alternative proposals are made. From a perusal of the White Paper, hon. Members will have known which of these recommendations have been accepted by Government, with or without modifications, and which have not been accepted. The present Bill is largely an adaptation of the existing Municipal Ordinance in accordance with the statement of Government policy contained in the White Paper. The opportunity has also been taken to make certain changes which will remove difficulties encountered in administering the law and improve certain procedures found to have been defective. Care has been taken to make only those changes of the law which are not considered likely to prove controversial. The Explanatory Note attached to the Bill is given at some length and draws attention to the more important of the changes referred to in the preceding paragraph as well as to the major changes required by the White Paper. I should like, however, at this stage, to draw the attention of hon. Members to some of the more important features of this Bill. The provisions of this Bill extend only to Singapore Island and to the smaller islands to the north of Singapore, as Government agrees with the views of the McNeice Committee that the responsibility for the administration of the Southern Islands should remain with the Central Government. The administration of these Southern Islands will accordingly be taken over by Government, which feels, however, that consideration should be given to any future demand arising from some or all of the Southern Islands to be amalgamated into one or other of the District Council areas. With regard to the provisions made in the Bill for the constitution of the new local authorities, I am confident that Members will agree that the new proposals for the City Council are a far-reaching advance on the present constitution of that body, and that the constitution as proposed for the District Councils for an initial period will be best in the circumstances. In contrast to the present City Council, Sir, which consists of an official as President, 18 elected Members and 9 nominated Councillors, the City Council will have a totally elected membership of 32 Councillors one of whom they will elect annually to the office of Mayor with the right of re-election. The intention is that one Councillor will represent one constituency, making 32 constituencies in all, and not, as at present, six electoral wards returning 18 elected Members. The District Council will have an official Chairman, 12 elected Councillors and, for an initial period of 4 years, 3 nominated Councillors as well. It is considered that, as the District Councils will be new bodies in the rural areas, where the constitution of local government authority was limited in the past, and as the work and responsibility of these councils will be considerable, it would be appropriate for a strictly limited period to include some persons with experience in the management of local government affairs to the membership of these councils. The reasons, Sir, for the appointment of an official as Chairman during this initial period are, to quote the words again of the McNeice Committee, as follows: "We have said that membership of a local authority is a job to be learned and this is doubly so in relation to the position of Chairman. The experience required to conduct meetings of councils and to direct the day-to-day business of a local authority is not easily acquired and we think it would be unfair and unwise to require an elected or nominated member of a rural district council to bear this responsibility in the initial period." Sir, hon. Members will note that, in accordance with the White Paper, the present Bill has been drafted to allow the City Council to continue supplying the public utility services of water, gas and electricity on an island-wide basis for the present. The matter of the transfer of these services to a statutory corporation does not, therefore, arise at this stage. The present Bill preserves the status quo of the local authorities with regard to planning powers and control of buildings. Until the Singapore Improvement Trust ceases to exist and a new authority set up to replace it, it will continue to be the planning authority for the island of Singapore. It has not been possible to establish a new authority and prepare legislation for this authority and for comprehensive town planning legislation at the same time as the present local government legislation. In due course, Sir, legislation will be prepared to transfer planning powers to local authorities. In the meantime, building control will continue to be exercised under building by-laws by the local authorities in their respective areas. Likewise, although in the White Paper it was stated that the Government agreed in principle to the Committee's recommendation that an improvement rate should be levied over the whole island and paid into a fund administered by Government, in the present Bill authority is given to the City Council to continue to collect this rate in the city area only under section 22 of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance, as long as the Singapore Improvement Trust continues to exist and the conditions which led the Committee to make its recommendation have not yet arisen. Again, Sir, it was stated in the White Paper that Government agreed with the Committee's recommendation that the City Council should continue to administer the registration, licensing and mechanical inspections of vehicles on behalf of all local authorities, but has not finally decided whether the Registrar of Vehicles Department should remain a City Council department or be transferred to Government. In the present Bill, however, these responsibilities still remain with the Registrar of Vehicles as an officer of the City Council. With regard to the payment of rates by the Imperial Departments and by this Government, which the Committee recommended and the Government agreed to in principle, the present Bill, as drafted, continues to exempt them from payment of rates, since this question of payment of rates by the Imperial Departments must first be taken up and agreed with the United Kingdom Government, and the question of rating the Singapore Government's property will require more time in order to examine the full implications of this proposal. Amending legislation, Sir, can be introduced later when the matter has been settled. As explained in the Explanatory Note, provisions are made for District Councils to be run during the interim period after their constitution on lines similar to those of the present Board, particularly with regard to finance, staffing, vesting of properties, acquisition and disposal of land and other immovable property. It is clear that for some years to come District Councils will not be self-supporting and will require substantial assistance from the Government in the way of capital expenditure, annual grants and provision of staff. It would be best, therefore, to start each council off on Rural Board lines, namely, that the budgets will be subject to a measure of government control and incorporated in the Colony estimates. The staff will be Government servants and all land vested in or acquired by the councils will be vested in or acquired by the Crown on their behalf. When these councils have been set on their feet and have become financially viable, amending legislation will be introduced to enable them to function independently like the City Council. I feel sure that this House will agree with these interim provisions. Transitional provisions have also been included (see clause 324 of the Bill) which will allow any powers of the existing law to continue to be exercised despite the repeal of the Municipal Ordinance, and for the City Council or the Rural Board to continue to function in respect of any defined area whenever it is required by administrative exigencies. In particular, there is enabling provision for the Rural Board to continue to perform its present functions in the Rural Board area in the event of delay in the establishment of the District Councils and, if required, to administer those parts of the present city area which are to be merged into the new District Council areas. There is also a transitional provision for the districts of Bukit Panjang and Jurong to be merged into one district for a prescribed period for the purpose of this Ordinance. This is in keeping, Sir, with the recommendation of the McNeice Committee that these two districts should, in the first instance, be amalgamated and administered by a single council and that the municipal centre should be at Bukit Panjang. These two districts are too small in population to enable them to operate separately at the present time. Jurong especially, because of its small population, will have a weak financial position at the start, but there can be no doubt, Sir, that the population of these districts will grow rapidly in the future so that they can in time be administered by separate District Councils. The Bill also makes significant changes in the qualifications and disqualifications relating to candidates for election as Councillors. I would invite the attention of hon. Members to the notes given at some length in the Explanatory Note dealing with clauses 21 and 22 of the Bill. The opportunity has been taken to improve the arrangements of certain parts of the present Municipal Ordinance and to omit a number of provisions which it is considered can be better dealt with by means of by-laws. At the same time, the various existing provisions relating to the making of by-laws have been replaced by clause 322 of the present Bill and the Sixth Schedule which may be varied by the Minister from time to time. Every by-law or alteration, amendment or addition thereto, cancellation of or substitution therefore will have to be published in the Gazette and shall not have effect unless it is confirmed by the Minister and notice of such confirmation has been published in the Gazette. The boundaries of the new City and District Councils are described in the First and Second Schedules to the Bill. It has been thought desirable to provide for this detailed description in view of the substantial alteration in the present limits of the city that will result from the reorganisation of local government envisaged in the Bill, so that both hon. Members and the public will be fully aware of the changes to be made. Sir, hon. Members will recall that the McNeice Committee's boundary proposals were shown on the map attached to the Report. The Committee recommended that the city boundary should be extended to the West and withdrawn in the East, it also recommended that an Electoral Boundaries' Delimitation Committee be appointed to define exact boundaries for the local government districts and electoral divisions, and that electoral boundaries for the Legislative Assembly should be adjusted so that a common set of boundaries could serve all electoral purposes. The latter Committee was duly appointed, and in the White Paper Government stated that it accepted the recommendations which this Committee made for the boundaries of the local government areas. These boundaries were set out in a map attached to the White Paper. The White Paper map also showed where these boundaries differed from those proposed by the McNeice Committee. It was pointed out, Sir, that the boundaries as proposed by the McNeice Committee did not conform to existing Legislative Assembly electoral divisional boundaries. The Electoral Boundaries' Delimitation Committee's boundary proposals have kept as close as they possibly could to the boundary proposals of the McNeice Committee, while at the same time following the boundaries of the present Legislative Assembly electoral districts as closely as possible. Sir, Chapter IV of the McNeice Report contains the views of that Committee with regard to its boundary proposals. It will be seen that it has taken the Master Plan proposals into consideration in its deliberations. It is true that this plan has not yet been approved by Government, but it can be safely said that the general principles governing the Plan, which is the product of some years of expert study, aided by the valuable work of a number of competent study groups and working parties, have won general acceptance since its publication. Sir, I would also like to say that, by giving a detailed description of the new local government areas in the First and Second Schedules of this Bill, both Members of the Assembly and the public will be fully aware of the changes to be made. I would like to point out that until the exact boundaries of the city and districts are first defined and approved under the Local Government Ordinance, no action can be taken under the Local Government Elections Ordinance to specify the names and boundaries of the electoral divisions and to subdivide the divisions into polling districts for purposes of elections. Provision has been made for subsequent alterations of local government boundaries to be subject to the procedure set out in section 362 of the Municipal Ordinance. Sir, while I have made a somewhat lengthy speech which was unavoidable owing to the very nature of the Bill, I have tried, for the most part, to indicate to the House the principles and merits of the Bill. I have, at the same time, tried to avoid referring to matters of detail as far as possible. Matters of detail should, of course, be dealt with in the ordinary way in Committee and it is the Government's intention that after the Second Reading of this Bill, which is of such a comprehensive nature and of such importance to the people of Singapore, that it be committed to a Select Committee. I am confident, Sir, that the principles of the Bill will commend themselves to hon. Members and that they will give this Bill its Second Reading. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was disappointed when the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing enumerated the differences between the Report of the McNeice Committee which sat on it and the Bill itself, disappointed because, in listing what he termed the "minor differences", he had skated over certain important departures from those recommendations. The most astonishing departure, which he has only referred to en passant by asking us to refer to the Explanatory Note, is clause 21 - Qualifications of candidates. Sir, we have nothing against the machinery which this Bill will set up in so far as they are in accordance with the advice of experts to replace the machinery under the Municipal Ordinance. But we take strong exception to the not disinterested "tailoring" of qualifications. Under clause 21 (b) a person is eligible to be a candidate "if he is able to speak, and, unless incapacitated by blindness or other physical cause, to read and write with a degree of proficiency sufficient to enable him to take an active part in any proceedings as a member of the local authority". Let us see the explanatory note on clause 21, which says: "...sets out the qualifications for councillors of a local authority. The most important difference from the provisions of section 6 of the Municipal Ordinance is in paragraph (b) of this clause by which the present requirement that councillors must be able to speak, read and write the English language is omitted. Paragraph (c) provides that candidates for election to the City Council shall be resident in the City and that candidates for election to District Council shall reside in the division in which they stand for election." In effect, this means that you can speak Hebrew, you can speak Urdu, you can speak any language in the world, provided it is "with a degree of proficiency sufficient to enable you to take an active part in any proceedings as a member of the local authority". When multi-lingualism was first mooted as a departure from the sole and exclusive use of English in the constituted organs of government, those who opposed the use of vernacular languages in Government councils used the argument that there would be utter and absolute confusion. Finally everybody agreed that only certain limited and specific languages with the widest use in this colony would be allowed. Those were the recommendations of the McNeice Committee. We all know that when people are confined to speaking only English, Malay, Mandarin, or Tamil, the chances are, as far as Mandarin is concerned, the younger generation will predominate as they are the persons educated and proficient in this important language. How does one then cover up one's intentions? How does one overcome what is right in principle but is inexpedient because it militates against party interests? One does not want to confine it to the Mandarin-speaking, because one's supporters are 83-year old men who speak the dialects and not Mandarin! At the same time, if one starts enumerating all the Chinese dialects, it might attract unnecessary attention. Therefore, one blankets the whole by remaining silent on the languages or dialects that can be spoken. One puts it in this curious clause which is glossed over, en passant. One could perhaps try to justify clause 21 (c) that - although this was not recommended by the McNeice Committee and is not the accepted practice in civilised countries - a candidate can only be a candidate if he resides in the area. If you get people like the young intellectuals of the P.A.P. all grouped together living in suburban areas, then let them stand for election in those suburban areas where they will be defeated. Now if young master Lee has to stand for Cairnhill where he lives, that would fix him. This giving way to expediency and abandoning of principles is the most disheartening development of the last six months. I shall have more to say on those matters in this session of the Assembly. On this Bill itself I would like to draw attention to certain other points. For instance, in its recommendations the McNeice Committee agreed that for the first four years the Chairmen of these District Councils should be appointed by the Governor and that subsequently they should be popularly elected. But there is nothing in clause 17, as there is in clause 16, to say that it should be only for the first term. The McNeice Committee agreed that there should be three nominated members in each council for the first four years, and that limitation is set out in clause 16 (1) : "Provided that for the first four years from the date of the first ordinary elections held under the provisions of the Local Government Elections Ordinance, 1956, there shall in addition be three nominated councillors." Clear and specific - three nominated councillors for four years and no more. This limitation for only one four-year period for the Chairman of the District Council has been quietly dropped and no reference was made to it when the Minister explained where this Bill departed from the recommendations of a Committee on which the Government had the deciding voice. Again, in clause 4, the mechanics of varying boundaries: "The Minister may by notification in the Gazette, alter or vary the limits of the City." Then in a later clause, clause 14: "The Minister may by notification in the Gazette, alter or vary the limits of any District." Sir, if we want to avoid any gerrymandering, any alteration of boundary lines to suit whoever is the Minister and his Party, then let us have a Boundaries Commission - Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

Is it a point of order?

Is the hon. Member imputing improper motives to the Government and to the Minister?

The Member for Tanjong Pagar seems to be skating very near the point. I am watching it very closely.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the contrary, I think I was extremely careful not to impute - Mr Goode rose -

Point of order.

Does the hon. Member challenge the ruling of the Chair by talking on the contrary?

Order. I think the hon. Member was making an explanation.

It is a little pathetic seeing this attempt to harass and hamstring your opponent rather than meet the substance of his attack -

I will meet you anywhere, any time.

Sir, this sounds very much like a classroom brawl where the little students say. "Let us go outside and have it out!" I do not like to lower the dignity of this House by provoking Members on the other side into revealing their natural instincts! But I would like to point out that, although I am not imputing any dishonourable, base, vile or selfish motives to the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, I am stating, as a proposition, that in any part of the world, and more especially in this part of the world, people who assume the duties of government are somewhat tempted to use the powers with which they are temporarily vested to weight things permanently in their favour. If we want to avoid gerrymandering, the drawing of boundary lines to include kampongs where one's supporters are and to exclude kampongs where one's opponent's supporters are, then let us have a proper Boundaries' Commission. Let the mechanics of it be by the Minister notifying it in the Gazette, but let us have proper machinery to ensure that the working of parliamentary democracy, this wholesale importation of Western ideas of political organisation, is not perverted by feudalistic Eastern ideas of personal survival. Lastly, I would like to say this on the question of disqualification. Clause 22 says, amongst other things, that a man is disqualified if he has in any part of the British Commonwealth (it does not matter if he commits a crime in Indonesia and gets six years jail for gun smuggling or some such trivial crime, but he must not break any rule in any part of the British Commonwealth) "been sentenced to death or to imprisonment by whatever name called, for a term exceeding six months and has not suffered the punishment to which he was sentenced or such other punishment as may by a competent authority have been substituted therefore or received a free pardon". This clause is common form. But I think in this part of the world we ought to say specifically that political offences like sedition, particularly these days with a Government becoming very legalistic about offences like sedition and section 3 of the Trade Disputes Ordinance, should not be a disqualification. After all, the man to whom the Chief Minister of Singapore sent a telegram of congratulation, came out from prison to become the Prime Minister of the Gold Coast.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my hon. Friend and Colleague the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing spoke this morning on the principles and the merits that went into the making of this piece of legislation. I shall therefore now content myself with going briefly into the details of this Bill so that the salient points can be brought forth in this House. The final details will, of course, have to be considered in Select Committee later on. The Bill, Sir, is divided into 13 parts and the opportunity has been taken to rearrange certain parts of the existing law, which is the Municipal Ordinance (Chapter 133 of the 1936 Edition). The Explanatory Note outlines the principal changes part by part, and in the case of Part II, which contains the major alterations to the existing law, an explanation is given clause by clause. I do not think, Sir, I need add anything to what has been said in the Explanatory Note in regard to Part I of this Bill. Part II is explained clause by clause as it deals with the new constitution and organisation of the local authorities. Hon. Members will read it, I am sure, with particular interest. In addition to what has been said in the Explanatory Note, hon. Members will note that the present tenure of office of City Councillors, namely, 3 years, with one-third retirement annually, has been changed to a four-year period with half retirement every two years. The Bill also provides that appointments to certain senior City Council posts shall only be made with the concurrence of the Minister and that the holders of these posts shall not be removed without the Minister's consent. I would, however, refer hon. Members to the views of the McNeice Committee on this matter at page 44 of the Report. This Bill now makes provision to preserve the validity of acts done in his capacity as a councillor by a person subsequently found to be disqualified. Provision is also made for the payment to councillors of such remuneration, allowances or expenses as the Governor in Council may direct. Another provision prohibits councillors from being employed by the local authority whilst holding office and for twelve months afterwards. I am sure hon. Members will be pleased to see that provision is made for the appointment by the City Council of a Mayor and a Deputy Mayor, and this will be the first occasion, when the new Council comes into being, that Singapore will have a Mayor. Under Part III it will be noted that, in accordance with the White Paper, the minutes of the proceedings of meetings of the local authority shall be recorded in English, although it is not obligatory on the part of the councillors to speak only in English. Clause 45 of the Bill now makes it obligatory for a local authority to appoint a Finance Committee, and clause 49 gives a local authority powers to delegate the exercise of many of its functions to committees or to employees. At present, Sir, the lack of these powers in certain cases is hampering the quick carrying out of the work of the City Council, and the present system is that every decision of the committee in the City Council has to go to a full board meeting and consequently there is delay in carrying out certain urgent work. Under Part IV, as stated in the Explanatory Note, provision is made for any public street, or any part thereof, to be exempted from the general vesting in the local authority by order of the Minister. This is an enabling provision in accordance with the White Paper statement of policy with regard to the division of responsibility, in respect of the main road and drainage systems in the island, between the Central Government and the local authority. The Minister referred to here, hon. Members will note, is the Minister for Communications and Works. I have no additional comments to make on Part V. The Explanatory Note states quite clearly and at some length what the changes in Part VI dealing with finance are. I may mention, however, that two new purposes for which a local authority fund can be expended are: firstly, provision of community centres, children's social centres, creches and youth clubs, and of hostels other than those established by written law. I am sure the Member for Serangoon will welcome that provision. Secondly, payments in connection with visits by members of, or its employees on behalf of, the local authority including travelling and other expenses in any part of the world. Clause 71 lays down how the Municipal Fund accounts are to be kept. I wish to stress again that financial provision regarding District Councils is only for an interim period and amending legislation will be introduced to enable them to budget like the City Council when they become fully financially viable. With regard to rates and taxes under Part VII, my hon. Friend and Colleague the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing has already made some remarks in his speech. I would, however, point out that the present Bill reproduces the existing law which provides for exemption from rates of all S.I.T. premises except premises used for profit, and also now provides for exemption for all premises, vested in a local authority. By clause 111 referred to in the Explanatory Note, it will be possible for the Minister to order, within a certain period, after due consideration, parts of the Rural Board area now incorporated into the city area, for instance, to be rated at less than the rate prevailing in the city, and for any part of the former city area included in the District Council area to be rated at more than the rate ceiling for the District Council. With regard to taxes, in accordance with the White Paper which states that all veterinary services should be transferred to Government, dog licensing has been omitted from the provisions of this Bill. Further to what has already been said in the Explanatory Note regarding Part VIII which relates to streets, sewers and buildings, I might mention one or two other matters. In clause 144, in connection with the submission of a plan for a new street, a local authority is now empowered to give written directions to the person submitting such a plan, for example, on the materials and construction of a new street and the provision of foot-paths in a new street. With regard to sewers, in accordance with the White Paper, provision is made for the City Council to remain in control of, public sewerage on an island-wide basis, with appropriate charges being levied on the other local authorities for services provided. There is provision for the Minister to direct the amount of contribution in case of disagreement or dispute between the various local authorities and the City Council. In accordance also with the White Paper, provision is made for the division of responsibility for drainage in the island between the Central Government and the local authorities. Regarding buildings, most of the existing provisions are reproduced, with a few additional ones, as, for instance, under clause 171 (12) concerning the payment of a sum not exceeding ten times the prescribed fees in respect of submission of plans in certain circumstances; and clause 173 (2) with regard to action to be taken in respect of unauthorised erection of buildings on land vested in the local authority. Regarding Part IX I have already mentioned that the City Council is given power to continue supplying water, gas and electricity on an island-wide basis. One important additional provision of note here is that under clause 203 the City Council can now sell and not merely let for hire, water, gas and electrical apparatus and appliances, including air-conditioning plants. Sir, concern has been expressed to me by importers and distributors of air-conditioning plants and other electrical appliances in respect of these powers. I would suggest that the right course for them to take is to make representations to the Select Committee when the Bill goes to the Select Committee. A number of clauses under Part X, which relates to public health, have been altered to make them more effective. Provision is made for more effective control of markets, including private markets. The control and supervision of burial and burning grounds throughout the island are now made a local government responsibility, whereas previously in the rural areas such control was in the hands of the Central Government. Among those dangerous and offensive trades which will be subject to licensing are sawmills and those producing injurious or offensive dust or fumes. In accordance with the White Paper, Part XI provides for the City Council to continue to operate the Fire Brigade on an island-wide basis, subject to expenditure being met proportionately by all local authorities. Here again, the decision of the Minister shall be final in the event of disagreement between the local authorities. In Part XII, which relates to vehicles, although the Registrar of Vehicles is still responsible for registration, licensing and inspection of vehicles, the licensing of drivers of public service vehicles will no longer be carried out by his Department, since this function is being transferred to the police in keeping with the policy stated in the White Paper. Part XIII deals with the supplementary provisions and, as stated in the Explanatory Note, is largely a reproduction of Part XVI of the Municipal Ordinance, with slight alterations in some clauses and with a few new provisions, as, for example, clause 319 which provides that certain inaccuracies in documents shall not make proceedings invalid for want of form, and clause 320 which relates to the proving of local authority records in legal proceedings. Sir, I have briefly outlined the details contained in the Bill, and I hope that when the Bill goes to Select Committee all those who have views to express will come forward before the Select Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, under Standing Order 7 (4) , move the suspension of this sitting?

The Chief Minister has anticipated what I myself was going to do. I will now suspend the sitting and take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.06 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to learn from the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing that this important Bill is to be sent to a Select Committee. That there is need for it brooks no argument but as it is a Bill which affects the private citizen more intimately than perhaps any other Bill on the Statute Book, it is clearly important to have representations from the public given a careful hearing by Members of this Assembly. I do not propose to speak this afternoon on the whole Bill. It contains 325 clauses and an exhaustive examination of it would be almost impossible and lengthy. But I would content myself with consideration of certain points to be found in Parts I to III comprising the first 55 clauses. These Parts are concerned with what I might call the constitutional side of local government and not the side affecting the ratepayer directly and yet even in these three Parts, there are points of principle which require very careful examination before we accept the Government's proposals. We are forging a new instrument for local government which we wish to see effective for many years to come and while political Parties doubtless will hold sway in the new councils to be set up, the shaping of that instrument seems to me to be a matter above Party. With these preliminary observations, I will proceed to consider certain of the clauses in the first three Parts of the Bill. Firstly, in clause 3, Interpretation, I will mention in passing that the terms "Chairman" " Chief Administrative Officer" and "Mayor" are not included and I think their importance to local government is such that their status and functions should be defined at this stage. Secondly, as regards clause 5, while it is true that this clause cannot become operative until this Bill becomes law, nevertheless, I consider that the attention of the public should be drawn to the proposed changes in the limits of the city boundary by the method of advertisement intended by this clause. There are one or two proposed alterations in the city limits which are clearly controversial, namely, the exclusion of most of the suburban area of Katong and the inclusion of the rural area of Ulu Panjang. It is strange, to say the least, that only a few months after bringing Katong so much closer to the centre of the city by the opening of the great new highway and bridge, there should be contemplated its exclusion from the city area to which it has belonged for so long. I am aware that if the residents in the proposed area of the new Katong District Council have read clause 110 (3) of this Bill, they will perhaps not object to banishment from the city, as this subsection puts the ceiling of 20 per cent on the rate of assessment leviable by District Councils as opposed to 30 per cent in the city. But I wonder what the ratepayers in, for example, Haig Road who will continue to pay 30 per cent are going to say to their ex-fellow rate-payers in, for example, Joo Chiat Road who will in future pay 20 per cent, bearing in mind that both sets of rate-payers enjoy the same municipal services of made-up roads, street lighting, sewerage, electricity, water and gas, and bearing further in mind that Haig Road is purely residential and Joo Chiat Road has considerable business interests, and that the latter has a bus service. If I were living in Haig Road, I should have some questions to ask. Sir, there is an obvious anomaly here and in view of the fact that clause 111 allows for differential rating, it seems to me that we should give very careful consideration to establishing the principle of fixing a ceiling for the rates leviable in both the city area and the district areas at the same figure, differential rates being levied according to the number of municipal and other services enjoyed. This would seem to be more in keeping with the Government's general policy on taxation and, Sir, there seems to be no good reason why the principle of the "haves" paying more than the "have-nots" should not apply to the municipal level as well as the national level. I hope that the Minister will study this matter with the greatest care. The next important matter of principle comes in clause 6 (2) in which it is laid down that there should be 32 Members of the City Council, all elected. Now, this is purely a Government proposal because the Committee on Local Government made no representations on the numbers of elected Members, either to the City Council or to the District Councils. Is this number sufficient? First, bearing in mind that as the Mayor and Deputy Mayor must remain apart from contention and controversy and will, I think, have to remain out of most Committees in view of their positions, the effective working strength of the Council will be 30, or only 3 more than the present number excluding the City President. It is an undoubted fact that the present number of 27 is insufficient to run the City Council really competently and an increase in only 3 is patently not enough. Because of the paucity of numbers, each Standing Committee at present consists of only five or six Councillors which, to my mind, is insufficient and there have been many instances of the requisite quorum of three only being obtained with some difficulty. These Standing Committees cover a very wide range of responsibilities and subjects. A Councillor who has, as his two Committees, for example, health and public utilities, has to acquaint himself with the problems of health prevention, anti-malarial and veterinary projects, hawkers, stand-pipes, markets, infant welfare as well as gas, electricity and water. Now I doubt whether any Councillor however competent and conscientious can master all these problems during his term of four years, and I mean no disrespect to hon. Members in this House who are City Councillors. What then is the system in the United Kingdom? lt is simply this: of having larger Councils, larger Standing Committees, a sub-division of work of the Standing Committees through SubCommittees and greater delegated powers. The City of Worcester, where my father was a Councillor and an Alderman for over twenty years and a Mayor for three of them, has a population of only 60.000 and a Council of over fifty Members. If the City of Singapore were to have a Council of 64 Members, not 32, what would be the advantage? It would then be possible to have Standing Committees of 12 to 15 Members as they do in the United Kingdom to which you could delegate far greater powers than is desirable in the case of the present Committees of five or six. These Standing Committees could elect SubCommittees large enough to maintain some kind of balance between the Parties and which could concentrate on a smaller number of subjects. In the United Kingdom, a Municipal Health Committee has a Sub-Committee for infant welfare, another for veterinary matters, another for markets, and so on. A Councillor therefore becomes fully acquainted with one or two aspects of municipal work on which his opinion can become authoritative instead of attempting to become a Jack of all trades under the present Singapore system. A Public Utilities Committee of fifteen Members, for example, would be large enough to have the requisite leaven of responsibility and sufficient authoritative knowledge to be delegated wide powers of executive action without reference to the full Council. This would result in quicker decisions which after all the public is entitled to expect from the municipal service which affects their day-to-day lives and that leads me to another point in favour of a larger Council. It is the same argument at the municipal level that has been used in respect of the doubling of membership of this Assembly, namely, that there is too much work for too few people if the country is to be efficiently run. Not only does this apply to Municipal Councillors but it affects every one of us in this Chamber. Sir, I think that all hon. Members will agree that a large percentage of the calls upon our time from our constituents - it may be 75 per cent or even as much as 90 per cent - is connected with local government problems. Their problems are those nearest to their daily lives - in their buildings, electricity or water connections, standpipes, roads, drains, assessment, and so on. By and large, the public are not deeply concerned about legislative matters except at infrequent intervals. Now we Members of the Legislature are called upon to deal with these problems which belong more properly to the sphere of the local government Councillors and it seems to me that these problems can only be fully tackled if the wards are smaller so that a City or District Councillor can really know the people whom he represents. And if this argument has force, is it wise to raise the effective number of City Councillors from 27 to only 30 - I exclude the Mayor and Deputy Mayor - when you are increasing the muncipal electorates by tens or maybe hundreds of thousands? Sir, I believe that this whole problem - and it is a problem with obvious difficulties in having much larger Councils - must be considered with the greatest care and that is why I feel it necessary to give it an airing today before the Bill goes to Select Committee. Before I leave the question of the composition of the City Council, I must refer to one other point which has not received the attention either of the Committee on Local Government or the Government itself. I refer to the question of Aldermen. Now, I am well aware that the idea of having Aldermen has been derided in many quarters in Singapore but I hope that the House will have the patience to let me put the case for them as objectively as I can, because I think that the arguments in favour of the Aldermen system are at least strong enough to warrant their having further consideration at this stage. Now, Sir, I am quite aware that the chief argument against having Aldermen is that it is or can be a pernicious device by which a majority Party in the Council can increase its own majority. I accept that argument as an exceedingly strong one and the crux of the whole question. But, in theory at least, the system of Aldermen has much to recommend it. The idea is to have a group of experienced elder statesmen, if I may so call them, who can provide continuity in policy and perhaps a special stability of opinion by virtue of their being non-Party men. Because they are subject to less pressures through not being elected, they can use more objective judgment. I think, Sir, it will be agreed that there should be much less government by political Parties at the municipal level than at the national level because most municipal matters are not party matters at all. It is unfortunate though inevitable that the Party system should have crept into municipal affairs in the United Kingdom and in Singapore but, that being the case, a group of non-Party Aldermen who can keep the balance when party politics get out of hand over some quite trivial matter has considerable point. I think that the nominated Members on the City Council have in recent years shown this virtue of objective independence on numerous occasions and that elected Councillors have been grateful to them for it. The question however is: whether it is within the wit of someone in this Assembly or outside it to devise a means whereby City Councillors can elect Aldermen to the Council by a method which eliminates party bias. That may be a tall order but I submit to this House that it is worth more than a passing consideration. The next point that arises for consideration comes in clause 11 where we have a new proposal, namely, of the Minister controlling the appointment of the City Council's senior officer. I hope that the Minister in his reply will explain the reasons for this and not reserve it for the Select Committee, particularly as there seems to be no similar provision in respect of the District Councils. Does this mean that there are to be no District Council employees, no District Council health officers, assessors, engineers, and so on? If not, how are the District Councils to carry out their work effectively and not degenerate into advisory bodies? In clause 16, there is laid down twelve elected Councillors for each District Council and here we come up against the same problem which I have already posed in respect of the City Council. The District Council must have for its Committees a bare minimum - finance, public works, health, assessment, staff - and twelve Members are surely inadequate for this purpose. From clause 41 (3) of the Bill, it seems evident that the Government has been aware of this difficulty by fixing eight as the quorum for Council meetings. A normal quorum is about one-third of the total members on a Council or a Committee. The Government has had to fix it at about two-thirds as anything less would, of course, put decisions of District Councils in the hands of too few. Logic alone therefore suggests that 24 would be a better number for District Council. lt is further borne out by clause 34 (4) of the Bill where the quorum for the City Council is fixed at 11 out of 32. I now come, Sir, to clause 45 (2) which is a new subsection not to be found in the Municipal Ordinance. In referring to this, Sir, I hope that it will not be considered that I am straying into points of detail for it seems that a matter of principle may be involved. To make my point clear, I must draw the attention of the House to the entire clause. Clause 45 (1) reads: "A local authority may appoint from among their own number such and so many committees either of a general or special nature and consisting of such number of councillors as it thinks fit for any purposes which in the opinion of the local authority would be better regulated and managed by means of such committees." Subclause (2) reads: "A local authority shall appoint a Finance Committee consisting of such councillors as it thinks fit for regulating and controlling the finance of the authority and shall fix the term of office of the members of the Committee." It will be noticed that the unspecified committees in subclause (1) will regulate and manage, but the Finance Committee will regulate and control. This would seem to suggest that Finance Committees are to be statutory Committees not accountable to the Councils themselves. I cannot believe, Sir, that this is what the Government intends and I would ask the Minister to explain what this new subclause means. I come to my last point with reference to clause 50. This clause enables the Chief Administrative Officer of the City Council in times of emergency to use extraordinary executive powers without reference even to the Mayor. The Chief Administrative Officer under clause 11 (1) is nevertheless appointed by the City Council. I think therefore an important question of principle is involved here. Sir, I have raised a number of points in respect of the first 55 clauses which I consider need examination in Select Committee. There will be many others in the remaining 270 clauses. I have put them as objectively as I can because, as I have said before, I do not consider this Bill to be one in which party politics should be involved but a problem of how to make our local government work efficiently, smoothly and economically in the best interests of the ratepayer. One further question needs to be answered by the Minister and I hope he will answer it. What is the extra cost to the country going to be of setting up District Councils with their offices, staffs and equipment compared with the running of an island-wide Council which was the previous proposal? I think that the taxpayers and the ratepayers ought to know that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the introduction of this Bill into this Assembly. I feel that this Bill is in keeping with the constitutional progress of Singapore. I find, Sir, that this Bill has preserved the status of Singapore as a City which got its Charter six years ago. I also see, Sir, that in this Bill, there is provision for the setting up of rural District Councils which give a wider measure of democratic self-government in rural districts. Being a member of the Rural District in Seletar, Sir, I endorse the views of the people in my constituency that this is indeed a very welcome move and they wholeheartedly support it. I have a few comments to make on the various provisions of this Bill. The first one is that the Public Services Commission is to be consulted when appointments are made in the City Council. For a long time, Sir, the staff of the City Council have felt that this should be done and I am sure that they will welcome this new move. The qualifications for City Councillors have been dealt with by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew). Sir, this particular clause was a subject of considerable discussion in our Party and I can assure this House that, when we endorsed it, we had no ulterior motive behind this clause. We felt that if Members are elected from each Division and who are resident there, the people will be able to draw representatives from their own place - representatives whom they like, representatives whom they love. I thought that probably this would be a very good argument for more representation from rural districts. The language qualification for councillors was also dealt with by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I think, Sir, that Government was very wise in not specifying the language required because I feel that at this early stage of rural district elections, there might be people who know various languages and who will be equally qualified to become District Councillors, and I think, Sir, this is another example whereby we could draw out people who are able to tackle the job of councillors for these posts.

Including Eskimos!

Order, please.

Sir, the point about the number of City Councillors, in accordance with this Bill, was raised by the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede). In the city area at present, Sir, there are one million residents and for this number, I feel that 32 would be very adequate. If, according to the suggestion of the hon. Member, we are increasing the number, the Council will be larger than the Legislative Assembly itself. If there is any need for further decentralisation, I do suggest that we have some suburban councils added on to our existing City and Rural District Councils. I believe in more decentralisation rather than centralising the whole City Council machinery. The hon. Member further suggested that the membership of committees in the City Council would also be benefited by an enlarged number of City Councillors. I think, Sir, in effect, the membership of the City Council is adequate. I do believe that a committee of 15 Members would not be able to do much work. The smaller the committee, the more efficient the work would be. If there is any slackening in the work of the councillors, it is not entirely due to the decreased number. I was a Member of the City Council for three years and I know that, to be a City Councillor and to do the work that is expected, only two or three hours a day would be required to go through all the work.

Shame!

I do not think for a moment that the enlarged committees would help in any way. It is not a shame to me, Sir.I said three hours a day on paper work. You may have a lot to do in the way of touring your area, getting complaints and trying to sort them out. Sir, the question of Aldermen was also raised. There are advantages and disadvantages in the Aldermen system and it appears to me that even in the United Kingdom, where the Aldermen system exists, the existing trend is towards the abolition of Aldermen. There, too, democracy has been preached and the various Parties in the United Kingdom feel that the system of Aldermen in some areas should cease. Sir, the question of boundaries for the City Council and the District Councils was also raised and my personal view is that these boundaries can be adjusted from time to time. It is no fault giving the Minister the power for the adjustment because we feel that, when the Minister decides to have a new boundary, he will automatically consult the people concerned and fix the boundary to the satisfaction of all concerned.

All the Members on his side!

I do believe, Sir, that this is not a question which the Minister will tackle on a political basis because he, in his capacity as Minister, ought to know the views of the people and anything that he does, we can all imagine, will be in the best interests of the people.

Hooray!

Sir, before I conclude, I think that it is very appropriate at this juncture to pay a tribute to the Members of the City Council and the Rural Board for the work that they have done for our people. Before the elections to the City Council, there were a number of councillors who sacrificed their time, on various occasions, for the benefit of the people and I think that it is during this time that the Assembly, as a whole, should pay a tribute to all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as this Bill will be referred to a Select Committee, many of the points raised by Members on the opposite side of the House will, of course, receive due consideration by the Select Committee but I feel that there are two points raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) which require a reply from this side of the House. The first point I would like to speak on is what he said in regard to the residential qualification in clause 21(c) . From what he said, Sir, I think he would have us believe that this particular clause is aimed at his Party. Surely it is not a confession of the P.A.P. that they do not have suitable candidates throughout the whole of Singapore! Again, Sir, in clause 22 (c) , he touched on the qualifications of a candidate and as usual, Sir, he distorts clause 22 (c) by trying to have us believe that anybody who is imprisoned for crimes against the Trade Disputes Act will not be entitled to become a candidate. May I, Sir, ask him to read that particular sub-clause again? It clearly states that any person who has been sentenced for any crime committed against society, so long as he has served his sentence, is free to stand as a candidate irrespective of the extent and nature of the crime for which he has paid. Inche Abdul Hamid rose -

In reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to the point raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) on the question of language, I can assure this Assembly that it is still the intention of this Government to follow the policy which is laid down in the White Paper, that is to say, in the City Council, Malay, Tamil, English and Mandarin will be spoken and in the District Councils, any Chinese dialect, Malay, Tamil and English will be spoken. With regard to the subsequent alterations to boundaries, I would like to point out that clauses 5 and 15 of the Bill follow the existing provisions inviting persons affected by such alterations to make their objections known in writing to the Minister. With regard to the period for official Chairmen of the District Councils, here again, Sir, the Government has no intention of departing from its White Paper policy statement that these Chairmen will be appointed during an initial period of four years only. There are one or two points raised by the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede), in particular, clause 111 with regard to assessment. I can assure the Member for Tanglin that, when this matter comes up before the Select Committee, Go- vernment will do all it possibly can to meet the objections that may be placed before the Select Committee. With regard to clause 6, this is, I think, the first time that I, as Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, have heard the statement that the present membership of the City Council is not enough for the Council to carry out its policy or its work. I am somewhat baffled that an organisation like the City Council, who have had its constitution for these so many years, have not placed before the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing the suggestion that the number of its membership is inadequate. However, Sir, here again, it is a question of policy and I am sure that when the Select Committee sits, Government will bear in mind the objections that have been raised. The Member for Tanglin also did ask about the extra cost that may be involved in constituting all these four District Councils. I would refer the Member to page 207 of the Bill, the last paragraph of which reads: "The changes in constitution envisaged in the Bill will not, broadly speaking, affect overall revenue and expenditure, but provision will be necessary for certain additional staff, new buildings for Rural District Councils, and the acquisition of land, which is estimated at a probable cost of $700,000 subject to some margin of error." Sir, I beg to move.

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

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

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this is a very short Bill consisting of two clauses and the amendment proposed to the Public Trustee Ordinance by this Bill is designed to remove the Financial Secretary and the Attorney-General from the Public Trustee Investment Board and to replace both those Ministers by the Deputy Financial Secretary and the Solicitor-General. Sir, the functions of the Public Trustee Investment Board are to control and regulate the investment of the Common Fund which consists of capital monies in the hands of the Public Trustee and available for investment. Sir, this amendment reflects the policy of the Government to replace Ministers on boards and other public bodies by others. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Committee stage, what day?

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

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

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

Sir, I 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, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I second it.

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, legislation was brought into force early in 1955 which made certain temporary amendments to the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, of course, being the Ordinance which regulates the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale and use of opium and certain other dangerous drugs. Sir, the purpose of that temporary legislation was to enable Opium Treatment Centres to be established and also to enable certain classes of persons to be sent to those Centres. I should remind hon. Members that under that legislation, persons who are convicted for the first time of an offence of either smoking prepared opium or of being in possession of pipes or utensils used for smoking or consuming prepared opium must be remanded by the Court for examination and report by the Opium Treatment Centres Advisory Committee. That Committee, Sir, is required, amongst other things, to assess the prospects of the person on remand being able to overcome or assisted to overcome his addiction and the Committee is also required to say whether in their opinion a period of treatment at an Opium Treatment Centre would be likely to cure him of his habit. Now, after considering such a report, the Court is required either to send him to a Centre for a period which may be for between 3 and 12 months or to send him to prison for three months. Second offenders go to prison for twelve months. What this Bill proposes, Sir, is to allow magistrates a discretion as to whether or not to sentence to a term of imprisonment first offenders who are not considered suitable for treatment at an Opium Treatment Centre and accordingly, Sir, if this amendment is made, the Court will be enabled in suitable cases to fine or otherwise deal with the first offender, perhaps by putting him on probation. Now, Sir, this Bill is also concerned with another matter. It proposes another amendment which relates to the use of medical certificates which are issued following a Court Order that a person accused either of possession of prepared opium or of consuming prepared opium shall be medically examined. At present, Sir, these certificates are admissible as evidence during the course of a trial and what is now proposed is that they should not be admissible in evidence except on the application of the accused or after his conviction should he be convicted. I think I might usefully add, Sir, that these certificates can be of considerable assistance to an accused who is charged with a possession offence because that offence carries a sentence of up to five years and also the liability to a fine of up to $10,000. They might be of great assistance because if the Court is satisfied that the opium in the possession of the convicted man was for his own immediate personal consumption, the Court may deal with him as if he had been convicted of a smoking offence which carries a lesser penalty. Sir, the two amendments with which Bill is concerned are amendments which are put forward following the experience of the working of the temporary legislation relating to dangerous drugs and Opium Treatment Centres and I hope that they will commend themselves to the Assembly. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Committee stage, what day?

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

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to Bill considered in Committee.

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

Sir, I 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, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I second it.

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 Bill comes before the Assembly as a separate measure because the amendments proposed are not directly related to the temporary provisions of the law relating to Opium Treatment Centres with which the last Bill, which has just been before the Assembly, dealt. I think hon. Members will have seen from the Explanatory Note which is attached to this Bill that the main purpose of the amendment proposed by it is to empower police officers who are not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police as well as, as at present, magistrates and Justices of the Peace, to authorise the search of premises in which there is reasonable cause to believe that there is concealed any dangerous drugs or any articles relating to the commission of an offence under the Ordinance. Sir, this amendment will do away with the procedure involving a very considerable waste of time which has to be followed when the Officer in charge of the Narcotics Branch of the C.I.D. is not a Justice of the Peace. Sir, briefly, this procedure involves the transportation from the old Kreta Ayer Police Station to the Central Police Station of the Duty Officer and of each detective whose information forms the basis of an application for a search warrant. This normally involves a large proportion of the detective staff attached to the Narcotics Branch every day and sometimes, indeed, it involves the transportation of the whole of the detective staff to the Central Police Station. It is clear therefore, Sir, that if this amendment is made, the Narcotics Branch will be enabled to devote all its time and energies to the suppression of the traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs instead of, as at present, using a considerable amount of time in obtaining the warrants which are necessary before they can undertake their work. In view, Sir, of the importance of the work of the Narcotics Branch, I hope that this Assembly will support this motion. I would, before formally moving the Second Reading, Sir, take this opportunity of indicating to Members that in the event of the Bill being given its Second Reading, I propose to move in Committee the deletion of paragraph (d) in clause 2 which is considered to be unnecessary. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Committee stage, what day?

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

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

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

Sir, I have an amendment to move to clause 2. Would you like me, Sir, to give it to you now before indicating its nature or shall I first indicate it?

As the hon. Member pleases.

What I wish to move in respect of clause 2, Sir, is the deletion of paragraph (d). The effect of that amendment will be to allow a search warrant issued under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance to be executed by any police officer no matter what his rank. A further consideration suggests, Sir, that the existing law which provides that such warrants may not be executed by a police officer below the rank of Sergeant, should be retained. I have accordingly, Sir, to move the deletion of paragraph (d) and a number of consequential amendments. May I now hand in, Sir, the amendment which I propose to move? The Chairman indicated assent. Amendment handed in.

Will the hon. Member formally move the amendments in the order in which I have indicated?

Sir, in relation to clause 2, firstly, I move, At page 1, line 14, after the semi-colon, to add the word "and", secondly, At page 1, line 18, to leave out the semicolon and the word "and" and insert a full stop, and thirdly, At page 2, lines 1 to 3, to leave out paragraph (d).

Question, "That the word 'and' proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the semi-colon and the word 'and' proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the full stop proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Question, "That paragraph (d) proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, with Amendments.

Third Reading, what day?

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

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, 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." I have the Governor's consent Sir, to proceed with this Bill. Sir, the Local Government Elections Bill is of its very nature complementary to the Local Government Bill in that while the latter Bill makes provision for the establishment of the City Council and District Councils, the purpose of this Bill is to provide for the elections of Councillors to those Councils and, in particular, to enable the registration of electors for the purposes of elections to the proposed Councils to take place. That is why these two Bills are introduced concurrently in the Legislative Assembly. As the drafts of the relevant legislation stand at present, while the Local Government Bill sets out the qualifications and disqualifications relating to candidates for elections as Councillors, the Local Government Elections Bill sets out the qualifications and disqualifications of electors. Again, while the boundaries of the new local government areas are defined under the provisions of the Local Government Bill, the names and boundaries of electoral divisions within these local government areas and the sub-division of these electoral divisions into polling districts are made under the Local Government Elections Bill. Until the boundaries of the local government areas have been defined and approved, a Proclamation specifying the names and boundaries of the electoral divisions and a Gazette Notification specifying the polling districts cannot be made. In the White Paper, Sir, it was pointed out that the McNeice Committee did not deal with the question of the franchise for local government electors as it was not included in its terms of reference, but Government has, however, given it considerable thought and proposes that: "(a) the basis of the franchise for the proposed new City Council and District Councils should be universal adult suffrage qualified by a period of at least five years' residence in Singapore, the elector being required to be resident in the division in which he wishes to vote; (b) registration of electors should be effected by a system of automatic registration based on identity cards." This Bill accordingly makes provision for these two proposals. These are the two major changes in the Bill which, in the main, follows closely the provision of the Municipal Elections Ordinance, 1948, to be repealed on the enactment of the present Bill. As stated in the Explanatory Note to the Bill, "Clause 5 provides that any person who was not less than twenty-one years of age on, and has been ordinarily resident in the Colony for a period of not less than five years immediately prior to, 1st April in any year shall be entitled to have his name entered in the register of electors in the division in which he is resident that year." It will thus be seen that the new franchise is different from the qualifications of City Council electors described under the Municipal Elections Ordinance, 1948. This means that the right to vote will be extended to a far greater number of the adult population resident in Singapore. Citizenship will not be a pre-requisite qualification. Under the present Bill, the system of automatic registration of electors, now in force for Legislative Assembly elections, is to replace the former system of voluntary registration under the Municipal Elections Ordinance, 1948. The register will be prepared automatically from identity cards and provision is accordingly made for presuming that persons to whom identity cards have been issued before 1st April in any year are on that date ordinarily resident in the Colony. Provision is also made for particulars in the identity cards regarding age and addresses to be presumed to be accurate for purposes of preparation and revision of registers. In the White Paper, it was proposed that plural voting should be permitted so as to allow a person living in one local government area to have a vote in another local government area in which he owns property if he registers himself voluntarily for the purpose. Therefore, a person living in one area and owning properties in all other four areas could exercise five votes in all, one in each local government area. This proposal has however been reconsidered and it was felt that the present Bill should not include any provision for such plural voting. These then, Mr Speaker, are the general features of the Bill. It is the intention of this Government to commit this Bill immediately after the Second Reading to a Select Committee. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have one plea to make with regard to this Bill and that is in clause 28 regarding deposits by candidates. I am making this plea on behalf of the prospective District Councillors and City Council candidates. 1 see that they are required to pay $250 deposit. I would suggest, Sir, that either the deposit in the case of these councillors be waived or, if there is any particular objection to that, to have about $50 or $100 instead of $250 deposit. I am aware, Sir, that deposits are usually waived in the case of some county and borough councils in the United Kingdom. It may be a new practice in Singapore but I would like the Government to give consideration to this suggestion when it goes to Select Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is only one point I wish to bring to the attention of the House on this Bill, namely, that it has made no provision whatsoever for the limitation of transport of candidates. Any man who has taken part in elections in Singapore knows that the availability of friends with free motor cars and free petrol is a very useful advantage in getting people to the polls to vote for a candidate. It is a principle in countries which profess a democratic system that factors such as the wealth of a candidate or the wealth of his friends are not allowed in any way to affect the result of an election. Now, we have in this Bill a provision carried over from the old Municipal Elections Ordinance which says that no money shall be expended on transport. But the dodge is to get friends to provide not only free cars but also free petrol and free syces. I suggest that when this Bill goes to Select Committee, the Government should seriously consider putting in provisions to stop this reprehensible practice and to limit each candidate to a specified number of cars depending upon two things: the size of a constituency and the number of voters on the electoral register. In that way, the Government can ensure - and I am sure all honest democratic governments want to ensure - that there should be a free competition of opinions and candidates popularly and democratically elected. The Member for Ulu Bedok (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat) in the days before he became a Member for Ulu Bedok must have experienced great difficulty getting transport to get the voters of Ulu Bedok to the polls, particularly competing with other candidates who happened to be wealthier than he was. I am sure that in the next election, he would not like to undergo all the stresses and strains of worrying about the wealth of his opponents and their friends. We can do that by putting a proviso ensuring that every candidate is limited to the same number of cars.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the suggestion by the Member for Tanjong Pagar to limit the candidates to a fixed number of cars is a very good one provided it could be carried out by our candidates in the right spirit in which, I hope, it is meant. You will notice, Sir, that there is another clause in this Bill which says that electors are free to provide their own transport which presumably means that four or five electors can join together, hire a taxi and go to the polling stations. Therefore, if we provide a limit on the number of cars a candidate can use, obviously the way out is for the candidate's friends to band together and provide another hundred cars and say that it does not concern the candidate; that these cars are used by the electorate on their own volition and that the candidate has no say in it. Therefore, they can easily defeat the -

On a point of information, Sir.

Is the hon. Member giving way? Mr J. M. Jumabhoy resumed his seat.

I wonder if the Minister for Commerce and Industry is, aware that in England, during election time, it is an offence to carry any friend to a polling booth?

Well, Sir, evidently here it is not so.

We can make it so.

Yes, then the hon. Member should propose an amendment to that clause.

We will, in Select Committee.

I have nothing further to say. I hope that when the Bill goes to Select Committee he will put up an amendment. Inche Abdul Hamid rose-

In reply?

In reply, Sir. The points raised by the Member for Seletar (Mr Nair) and the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) will be considered by Government in Select Committee, not because the Member for Tanjong Pagar mentioned about my difficulties during the election in Ulu Bedok.

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

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

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's consent to proceed with the Bill.

Hon. Members will remember that during the last Session, the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) introduced a Shop and Office Employees Bill. At the Second Reading of this Bill, the previous Government introduced Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 11 which laid down the labour policy of the previous Government and included as an annexure a Bill to regulate the conditions of employment of clerks and shop assistants. In committing the Bill of the Member for Serangoon to Select Committee, this Assembly ordered that it be an instruction to that Select Committee that regard be had to the terms of the draft Bill annexed to the Government White Paper. The Select Committee, Sir, did not have time to conclude its investigations before the end of the last Session and the Bill therefore lapsed. A considerable amount of further study has been done on the Bill attached as an annexure to Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 11. Due regard has been given to the representations made before the Select Committee by employers and trade unions in addition to the advice of the Labour Advisory Board to which the Bill was referred for comment. The greatest change that has been made, Sir, is the splitting of the Bill into two: one relating to clerks and the other to shop assistants. Despite the fact that both Bills are similar in the protection and benefits they give to these two types of employees, it is considered that separate Bills are desirable. Clerks and shop assistants are after all two distinct types of employees and it may well be that the experience gained in administering this Bill over a number of years will show that the type of amendment and addition which is necessary to one Bill is unnecessary to the other. Sir, apart from the drafting of two separate Bills, the main difference from the provisions of the previous Government's Bill is the inclusion of a new designation of "industrial clerks" in the Bill which is the subject of my motion. This has been done to meet objections that many clerks, for example, tally clerks, storekeepers, etc., must have the conditions of employment with regard to hours of work and holidays as the workmen with whom they work. As the matter of legislation for clerks has already been debated at considerable length during the previous Session of this Assembly, Sir, I do not propose to cover the ground again. The need for legislation to protect clerks is too obvious to require a lengthy oration. I intend therefore, Sir, merely to summarise the main features of the Bill, a Bill which I am quite sure will go a long way to give fair conditions of employment to a hitherto neglected section of the community Briefly, Sir, this Bill regulates contracts of service, lays down conditions for the payment of salaries and limits the type of deductions which may be made from salaries. It provides for, in the case of clerks, 16 days paid public holidays, 14 days paid annual leave. It limits their hours of work to 39 a week and provides for overtime at time and a half for hours worked in excess of this limit. In the case of industrial clerks whose conditions of service must be similar to those of workmen for the reasons I have already given, it provides for 11 days paid public holidays, 7 days paid annual leave. It limits the hours of work to 44 per week and also provides for overtime at time and a half. Paid sick leave up to a limit of 28 days is provided for both clerks and industrial clerks. Another important feature of the Bill, Sir, is that it permits clerks to lay their complaints in the Labour Court thus saving them the formality and expense of proceedings in the Civil District Court. It provides for adequate powers of inspection and suitable penalties for infringement of its provisions to ensure that it is successfully enforced. Sir, it is Government's intention to refer this Bill to a Select Committee which will, no doubt, take into consideration any views which hon. Members may express on the Second Reading. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a Member of the Select Committee which sat last Session to consider two Clerks and Shop Assistants Bills, one drafted by the Liberal-Socialist Party and the other by the Government, I think it had become clear that we had been setting ourselves problems of legislation which it would not be at all easy to surmount. I am glad therefore that the Government has taken the course of drafting two Bills to meet two rather different sets of problems. In the Clerks Employment Bill before us, the further conundrum with which the old Select Committee was faced has been met by defining two categories of clerks: industrial and otherwise. Whether this is going to be a satisfactory solution or whether it would result in invidious distinctions and further complications is a matter on which I have an open mind, but to which a Select Committee of this House should call for evidence. It has been suggested, Sir, that a 39-hour week will be extremely hard on the numerous small businesses in Singapore. If this is so, I hope that the Government will call for evidence and, at the same time, make their own investigations, because a Bill of this kind while giving much needed protection to the clerks should not impose undue hardship on the small employer on whom so much of the ordinary trade of the country depends. Further, it has been stated that a 39-hour week is not at present being worked in Government and City Council offices. This rather surprises me and I should like to know from the Minister whether this is a fact and, if so, what will be the extra bill which the ratepayer will have to meet, bearing in mind that the Government's and City Council's, wage bills already swallow up too high a proportion of the country's revenues. There is one other specific point to which I wish to refer, namely, in clauses 44 to 46. It seems to me that they give inspecting officers very wide powers indeed. An Inspector may enter premises under clause 44 without previous notice at any hour of the day or night and under clause 46 (a) , he may put questions concerning the employees to their employer or to the employees themselves or to any other person whom he may consider desirable to question. There seems no obvious justification for these wide powers. Surely, it is sufficient that an Inspector makes his enquiries during hours when the premises are opened for business, and that there also should be the proviso to be found in section 9 (2) of the present Weekly Holidays Ordinance now to be repealed, namely: "...no person shall be compellable to answer any question if the answer may tend directly or indirectly to incriminate himself." I may add, Sir, that similar clauses which seem to me objectionable are to be found in the Shop Assistants Employment Bill, clauses 48 to 50. Unless, Sir, there are good and convincing reasons for their retention, I think that the Minister should consider modifying them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the definition of "clerk" in this Bill is contained in clause 2 which reads: "'clerk' means any person employed in or about the business of an office whose salary is not more than five hundred dollars per mensem or such other sum as may from time to time be fixed by the Minister by notification in the Gazette and, subject to such salary limits, includes such classes of person employed by the Government or by Her Britannic Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom functioning in the Colony as the Governor may from time to time declare to be clerks for the purposes of this Ordinance...". Now, it is true that we must have an arbitrary figure but I would like to know why the figure 500 was chosen. With the tendency of wages to get more and more inflated because the money becomes less and less valuable, it seems quite obvious that there will be many clerks who will not be in supervisory or special categories drawing more than $500 a month. It is not an altogether satisfactory method of dealing with the definition of "clerk" to allow the Minister to vary the definition by gazetting the salary limit by which a person is deemed to be a clerk or not a clerk. However, that is a matter which could be more usefully dealt with in Select Committee. Since the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) has stated that he has an open mind on the subject, I see no merit in dividing clerks into two categories: Industrial clerks and ordinary clerks. One would have thought that a Socialist Government's policy would, as a matter of principle, have been directed towards some more or less classless society. This process of not only creating more classes but sub-divisions of classes is one which must be a Socialist heresy. A tally clerk will have to work 44 hours a week instead of 39 hours a week. He will be entitled to 11 public holidays instead of 13. He will be entitled to 7 days annual leave instead of 14, and so on. I think this question of principle should be resolved at once. The Government would be well advised to define its attitude to legislation of this nature: whether its intention is to stratify classes into sub-divisions of classes or whether its intention is to bring about a more egalitarian and less stratified society. Mr Lim Yew Hock rose -

In reply?

In reply, Sir. As I said earlier, this Bill will be committed to a Select Committee and the various points raised by the two speakers, the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) and the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) will receive due consideration in Select Committee. The Member for Tanglin has criticised that the number of hours of work per week of 39 is, in his view, not satisfactory in so far as small employers are concerned. I said, Sir, earlier that this Bill was considered by the Labour Advisory Board on which employers and employees are equally represented. He asked for information as to the working hours of Government clerks. I am sure that he must be aware that the working hours are from 9 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. with an hour break for lunch on Monday to Friday and from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturday. This works out to less than 39 hours a week. The Member for Tanjong Pagar has said that in the definition of "clerk" the figure of $500 is an arbitrary figure. I agree that it is an arbitrary figure but the hon. Member will also remember that in the previous Bill, the figure was put in at $400 and there was no protest whatsoever and because I have felt that it should be increased by another $100 in order to cover more clerks who by the very nature of their employment should be protected by legislative measure, he has now seen fit to say that $500 is not enough whereas $400 at that time was quite adequate. The Member for Tanjong Pagar too, Sir, if I remember rightly, was a Member of the Select Committee during the last Session.

No, I was not.

I am sorry about that. I thought he was. During the deliberations of that Select Committee, Sir, employers did explain to the Select Committee the difficulties of their having industrial clerks working for less hours than their ordinary workmen - labourers - especially as these workmen have to work together with the clerical supervisors. Of course, all the points that have been raised will be given due consideration by the Select Committee and I therefore need hardly say anything more at this juncture.

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

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

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the Report from the Select Committee on the Shop and Office Employees Bill in the previous Session of the Legislative Assembly, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 6 of 1956, be referred to the Select Committee on the Clerks Employment Bill. Sir, the purpose of this motion is to ensure that the Select Committee to be appointed will have the benefit of the deliberations and the representations made to that Select Committee.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Report from the Select Committee on the Shop and Office Employees Bill in the previous Session of the Legislative Assembly, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 6 of 1956, be referred to the Select Committee on the Clerks Employment Bill.

Sir, I think it is approaching the moment of interruption. I 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 3.58 p.m.

Wednesday, 3rd October, 1996

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether he will state the tonnage (notthe value):-

Imports and exports are declared not only by weight but also in square yards, numbers, gllons and value. Therefore, it is not possible to give an aggregate in tonnage. Figures are, however, available from 1948 onwards interms of freight tons which are based on weight or volume according to the nature of the commodity. The following figures of freight tons have been obtained in respect of 1948 to 1955 from the relevant Digests of Economic and Social Statistics published by the Chief Statistician. EXPORTS AND IMPORTS(Cols 0295-0296)

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether he will state the tonnage (notthe value) in respect of Safo Flour, Cloves and Dates:-

and (b):- SAGO FLOUR, CLOVES AND DATES: IMPORTS AND EXPORTS(Cols 0297-0298) (c), (d) and (e):- SAGO FLOUR, CLOVES AND DATES: IMPORTS AND EXPORTS(Cols 0297-0298)