Hansard, 1956-12-06

The following Member has, 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 Seah Peng Chuan - 6th December, 1956.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that hon. Members would like to complete the business set down for today's sitting, and I therefore seek your consent and the assent of this House under Standing Order 23 to move a motion under Standing Order 7 (11) .

The Hon. the Chief Minister is, I think, aware that the Member for Queenstown has gained the right to speak on the Adjournment, and the effect of a resolution to suspend Standing Orders will automatically deprive the hon. Member of that right.

May I therefore raise this matter again, Sir, after the noon suspension? Mr Speaker indicated assent.

Sir, may I move, under Standing Order 9 (2) , That items 2 and 3 take precedence before item 1 in the Order Paper.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That items 2 and 3 take precedence before item 1 in the Order Paper.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.05 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, His Excellency the Governor has signified his consent to the Bill being proceeded with -

Nobody ever doubted that.

- under the Standing Order. Sir, in rising to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," I want to stress, first of all, that it is not normal government practice to compensate its officers for loss of expectation of career where such officers are prematurely retired. It is common knowledge that all Government officers hold office at pleasure, and so long as the requisite notice is given for termination of service, the person can have no claim on the Crown. This Bill, Sir, to compensate expatriate officers for loss of career as a result of Malayanisation of the public service, is therefore an unusual measure to meet changes brought about by constitutional advancement in Singapore. Up to now, the Secretary of State has been responsible for the expatriate officers who came out here expecting a full career, that is to say, a career in the service until the normal retiring age. Constitutional changes have brought about a frustration of this expectation of a full career, for one of the fundamental rights of a self-governing country is that it must have control of its public service and no outside authority must be in a position to determine appointments, promotions and discipline in respect of the civil service. The Government not only cherishes this right of determining its own civil service matters, but is of the firm conviction that true self-government means that the entire control of the government machinery must vest in the local people. The people of the country must solve their own problems and determine what is best for them. A civil service staffed and dominated by expatriate officers will make self-government a mockery. We are on the threshold of self-government and it is of the greatest urgency that we must prepare to govern ourselves. I said yesterday, in moving the adoption of the Government's policy on Malayanisation, that it is the Government's firm view that the principal civil service advisers of Ministers must be local men. The most effective way of achieving the objective in the determination of our own civil service is to remove from the Secretary of State and the Governor the final control over those officers who were appointed by the Secretary of State, and this is brought about by the establishment of a Public Service Commission with executive powers. Hon. Members will hear from the Hon. the Chief Secretary in due course how the new Public Service Commission will work before our present constitution is amended. To all intents and purposes, the new Public Service Commission will be executive. All these measures, Sir, have brought about a change in the conditions of service of the expatriate officers, and it is for these reasons that a compensation scheme has been negotiated and agreed with the Staff Associations representing them. During the negotiations we were in constant touch with the Federation Government to ensure that their scheme and ours were as nearly the same as possible. The only material difference is in the ceiling of the compensation, and this is due to the generally higher emoluments ruling in Singapore. There is urgency in bringing this scheme into operation as soon as possible, for without it planned Malayanisation cannot proceed, and we do want early Malayanisation of the public service which, as I have pointed out, is both a political and an administrative necessity. I do urge hon. Members to view the need of this Bill in this setting, and not to make it more difficult for officers whose careers are already frustrated as a result of constitutional progress in Singapore. Let us not look back into the past, but let us look forward to the future to see how we can make these expatriate officers go willingly and cheerfully. Our task will be made all the less difficult if during the interim period both local and expatriate officers will co-operate fully to make the change-over as smooth as possible and with the least friction. I have said that we must look forward to the future to see how we can make these expatriate officers go willingly and cheerfully. I should have also said, Sir, that we should also look to the future to see how we can make these expatriate officers remain willingly and cheerfully where we need them. I said in my speech yesterday, in introducing the White Paper on the Government's Malayanisation policy, that it is better to be without an officer than to have an unwilling one. An officer who is retained in the service against his wish is not only useless to the service, but is a potential danger to the service. I fully appreciate that there is always a danger of a mass exodus of expatriate officers and that it might have a deterrent effect if the scheme now before the House provides half compensation instead of full compensation to those officers who wish to leave without the Government's permission. This principle of half compensation was recommended by the Malayanisation Commission and was supported by a statement in this House in June this year by the then Chief Minister, the Member for Cairnhill. Since June, Sir, we have given further careful consideration to this question of half compensation and have come to the conclusion that although it may have a deterrent effect on officers going without the Government's permission, the result may well be that we have a service staffed with a large number of discontented officers. Discontentment added to frustration of a full career may well be the end of efficiency in the government machinery. It is also clear that any half compensation scheme would have met with firm resistance from the Secretary of State. In view of Her Majesty's Government's declared policy that once an executive Public Service Commission has been introduced and conditions of service have been changed by the removal of ultimate control from the Secretary of State, officers will receive compensation for loss of career. Also, Sir, other colonial governments, seeking to introduce a compensation scheme, have accepted the principle that no clear-cut distinction can be drawn between the actual termination of a career, through compulsory retirement, and an officer's right to terminate his own career once his conditions of service have been materially altered. The career of every officer in the service, even if the Government wishes to retain him for several years, is automatically prejudiced from the moment the Government's intention is made known. There can be no guarantee that he will be able to get the job if he stays for as long as the Government wants his service, and he must have the right to go after giving reasonable notice at the time most convenient to him. A more satisfactory result is likely to be achieved under the present scheme which I consider gives every expatriate officer a fair deal. I have stated earlier, Sir, that there have been very close consultations with the Federation Government. A similar scheme has already been approved by the Federation Legislative Council. We are now on the threshold of self-government. Let us show the world that in our attainment of self-determination the people of Singapore can show understanding and appreciation of the services rendered to Singapore by expatriate officers who will suffer a loss of career resultant upon our gain towards nationhood. Some hon. Members will like to know how we arrived at those figures shown in the tables at the end of the Bill. On this, I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to the Malayanisation Commission's recommendation that the services of an actuary should be enlisted to compute the amount of compensation and that the main basis should be the capital value of loss in respect of future salary and pension less that of prospective future employment. The calculations by actuaries, both those briefed by the Staff Associations and by the Government, indicate that any scheme based on a pure actuarial calculation of loss will be completely out of line with other schemes and would produce compensation at a rate very much in excess of that now proposed: something like a factor of seven at the peak age of loss compared with 4.96 that has been agreed with the Staff Associations. The figures, Sir, in Table B of the Second Schedule to the Bill are the result of hard bargaining with the Staff Associations. Under this scheme any expatriate officer who retires during the operative period, which is five years from 1st January, 1957, may have his compensation calculated at any interim date between 1st January, 1957, and his date of retirement which is most advantageous to him. This is not an ungenerous inducement and I hope that members of the expatriate service will take advantage of this and give their co-operation during this interim period. Let us part as friends and not as enemies, so that when we do meet again, we shall be able to look back and smile and say the job was well done.

Who is going to pay their passage out to the United Kingdom?

Some hon. Members, and indeed some members of the public, may be staggered at the total cost of compensation and the highest amount which an expatriate officer may expect to get under this scheme. The total cost of this scheme, Sir, will be approximately $21.4 million which will be spread over a number of years until the last expatriate officer leaves these shores. Against this expenditure of $21.4 million, we must not forget the amount of savings that we will have as a result of dispensing with the services of the expatriate officers. The estimated saving is about $5 million a year when the last expatriate officer leaves this country. The savings will be in expatriation pay, passages and hotel allowances, plus the number of man-days saved, because there will be no long furloughs every two or three years.

Now we know what has been going on!

If the -

Order. I would like to remind hon. Members of a Standing Order which says that while a Member is speaking, all other Members shall be silent. I have allowed interjections in the past, but these interjections have become longer and longer. If there is to be an intervention, there is a Standing Order which allows an hon. Member to get up and if the Member speaking gives way, then that hon. Member can make his intervention.

Thank you, Sir. As I said just now before the interruption, the savings will be in expatriation pay, passages and hotel allowances, plus the number of man-days saved, because there will be no long furloughs every two or three years. If the expatriate officers go as we have planned in accordance with the picture in the White Paper on Malayanisation adopted at yesterday's sitting, the savings that can be effected on account of Malayanisation will be half a million dollars per year by 1st January, 1958; by 1st January, 1959, it will be $1.1 million per year: by 1st January, 1960, it will be $2.3 million; by 1st January, 1961, it will be $3 million; by 1st January, 1962, it will be nearly $4 million, and so on until the last expatriate officer leaves our service, when it will be approximately $5 million a year. Sir, with regard to the ceiling of £11,900 receivable by an expatriate officer on retirement under Malayanisation, I would like to stress that very few officers will, in fact, get this amount. To be exact, the number of officers in this category is 12, and other officers will get varying amounts from £11,900 to £534. As to the amount of pensions payable in addition to the compensation, I would like to remind hon. Members that we must pay these pensions in any case when the officers ultimately retire from the public service. By the premature retirement, the total pension bill will, in fact, be reduced. If, therefore, we now strike a quick balance, we will have an expenditure of $21.4 million spread over a number of years against savings of $5 million a year plus a smaller pension bill, and I am sure in the end we will not be badly off. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 10.25 a.m.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am conscious of some of the difficulties of the Government in negotiating this compensation scale, and I would like to say that I appreciate the statement of the Chief Minister when he spoke of hard bargaining. I also appreciate the fact that in the ultimate there was a pistol held to our head by the Colonial Secretary refusing merdeka unless the civil servants were satisfied. And because I appreciate the difficulties of the Government and because I ask this House to recognise the fact that they have no alternative, I fully support, without reservation, the Bill before us. But I think the Chief Minister and his colleagues will be at one with me in understanding the cry of pain of the people of Singapore at what many deem to be extortionate compensation. It has been said that the basis of this compensation is for termination of the expectation of a full career by the civil servants. Sir, most of these 500 civil servants who are sharing between them the $21.4 million, averaging $43,000 per person - a sum, Sir, which not many in this country can save in a lifetime - $43,000 without income tax plus pension - I say that many of those who are sharing this have been appointed since the liberation. It is my impression, Sir - I am prepared to be corrected by the Chief Secretary if he can - that Her Majesty's Government, through her Secretary of State for the Colonies and through her Prime Minister, have repeatedly indicated that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to see that the Federation and Singapore should soon achieve self-determination. Consequently, if it is suggested that cadets of the ages of 20 to 23 appointed around 1946 to 1956 were told that they could expect a full career in Singapore, it would mean that there has been a fraud perpetrated - a fraud perpetrated either on them by the Colonial Office which, if it intended to fulfill the undertaking of Her Majesty's Government to grant self-government, must have known full well that none of these officers could expect a full career in the colonies, or a fraud perpetrated on this territory - the fraud being, Sir, that they led us to believe that it was the intention to grant early self-determination when there was, in fact, no such intention at all and in practice. Civil servants were continuously recruited - youngsters - and told that they could expect a full career of more than 40 years. In these circumstances, Sir, on whoever it may be that the fraud has been perpetrated, it is obvious that the fraud is at the door of the Colonial Office, and I ask the Government of Singapore to consider sending this bill to Her Majesty's Government for payment. I have but one other comment to make, Sir. As I say, though the sum is large, the conditions under which we are compelled to fork out are such that we might even consider ourselves lucky that it is only $21.4 million. I would also draw attention to the fact that those whose careers are supposed to be terminated are in some instances granted back their careers of more than five years and in some cases ten years. Therefore, Sir, they are really getting double payment. I would ask whether it is possible to reconsider the question of limiting payments in respect of those who seek to leave the territory when it is not convenient to Government's phasing plan. I would ask Government, even though it may be late, to consider this aspect, because otherwise it may mean that not only do we spend $21.4 million but we may have to spend a great deal more in short-term contracts, which are never attractive, to bring out specialists to fill the technical posts which I have in mind. I know, Sir, that there will be criticism of this measure, but I do ask Members on the opposite side, when they consider it, to appreciate the acute difficulties in which the Government has found itself and of which they have ample indication. 10.32 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has been termed the "Retirement from the Public Service (Compensation) Bill". I think it would be more appropriate to call it the "Public Service (Sweepstake) Bill". Judging by the nature of the give-away prizes, I should think there are now three ways in which an Englishman in tax-ridden Britain can get rich: (1) Win a football pool; (2) Be a barrow boy and not pay income tax; (3) Go to the colonies and be abolished. We were told, when we wanted these men - or rather when our masters wanted these men to come - that we had to pay the price for them, to attract and retain their rare qualities. Now that we have to get rid of them for the excellent reasons given by the Hon. the Chief Minister, we are told that we have to pay through our noses to get them out of the place. We could wax quite eloquent and bitter about this if we went on and recounted all the dirty tricks that have been going on in the past, all the machinations, all the fictitious and fabulous reasons why we should have these white men rule us. But it was not really the fault of this handful of white men. They just took advantage of the situation. They were human beings. But what does trouble us is, who is going to pay for this? The Chief Minister gave us logical, coherent reasons why we are, in fact, going to save, and why, by implication, we have been losing millions of dollars every year. But let me compute the figures in a way which the people of Singapore will understand better. $21.4 million - what can that money buy for the people of Singapore? We were told, when the Government was putting up their housing schemes, that one housing unit would cost $4,000. Divide $21.4 million by $4,000 and we get somewhere around 7,100 housing units. Seven people at least can be housed in one housing unit. That means 50,000 people could be housed with this money. Those are the terms in cost to the people of Singapore. The white man's burden is becoming somewhat heavy for the black taxpayer. Sir, the present Chief Minister is a much more modest man than his predecessor. His predecessor always went gallantly out in front and got shot! The present Chief Minister carefully chose to go behind the Tunku's sarong! First, he gets the Federation Government to say that $74 million is the price for freedom. I wish I could believe that $74 million is the only price for freedom. Then, that having become a fait accompli, he comes before this Assembly to tell us how careful consideration, careful co-ordination and careful husbandry has produced these fantastic figures at the end of the table. He says he willingly undertakes the burden because he wants the white men to go willingly and cheerfully and hope that those who remain behind will remain behind willingly and cheerfully. We like willing and cheerful people, but not at this expense. Who is going to pay for this? We are told that it is going to be a phased programme and that the cost will be spread over many years. Be that as it may, someone must find the money. If this Government wants to show the people of Singapore that it is not throwing away the people's money, that it is not acting like company directors giving large bonuses to themselves and all their friends at the shareholders' expense, they might consider a capital levy on white enterprise in this country to pay for this. I do not think the suggestion of the Member for Cairnhill that we should present the bill to the Secretary of State for the Colonies would be a practical proposition. Britain, on the verge of economic bankruptcy after a gamble on the Suez Canal, is not likely to be able to afford anything like the fabulous sums their white agents require. But we have white vested interests in this country subject to our fiscal laws and I am all in favour of their paying off this handful of European civil servants who have held the ring for this group of European enterprising businessmen to make money out of this country. I think it is only fair and decent that they should share their spoils with all these honourable, hardworking, efficient administrators who have kept the shop going while their friends do business. I have looked up the income tax figures on public limited companies. I think the majority of the public limited companies, as opposed to private limited companies, are European. The Chinese, and I think the Indians too, prefer not to publish their accounts every year. They prefer to form little family concerns. The returns of a straight levy of 20 per cent just for one year on profits would produce the required sum. The Financial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong and give us the correct figure. My computation shows that a straight levy of 20 per cent on profits for one year would produce this $21.4 million which will keep all the European civil servants happy. We also will be happy, and those who are unhappy we can afford to ignore. That, I think, is the spirit in which we should approach this problem. We do not really want to take it out of this hard-working group of guardians who have been looking after our interests. We wish them a happy retirement. We hope they will be able to find their way to some other colonial territory from which they will be abolished at some later date, so that they will again have another big sweepstake with which to buy a little house in the south downs of England and live happily ever after. 10.42 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I said yesterday during the debate on Malayanisation of the civil service, "Let us part as good friends"; but at the same time I would not like to incur the wrath of the taxpayers who have sent me to this Assembly. It is possible that most of the Members on the Government Benches may not stand for the next election. This may be the reason why they are putting before us such a huge compensation Bill. Sir, the Chief Minister said that we must satisfy the frustrated men. I do agree with him that the local men should get their rightful place. The Chief Minister also said that we do not want an unwilling civil servant to work for us. The remedy is to dismiss him if he is unwilling and discontented. The third thing that the Chief Minister said was that he thought there might be a mass exodus. Why? After all, the expatriates are paid to serve us. It is for us to say who are to leave and who are to stay. Sir, what is the compensation that we are proposing to pay to those who would like to leave? Is there any comparison? Have we taken into consideration the terms of compensation to be paid in the other British colonies? I understand Nigeria paid £5,000 or something like that to each expatriate. As far as we are concerned, I believe we are copying the Federation's scheme. Even then I think we are paying more than what the Federation pays. I do agree in principle that when we do not want an expatriate, we must give him abolition terms which are reasonable; but if we go beyond that, I think we will only be hurting ourselves as we have to pay out from the taxpayers' money. The Member for Cairnhill has touched the right note in his speech when he said that Malayanisation was coming. Sir, the Colonial Office knew very well that Malayanisation was coming. In 1952 when the previous Legislative Council passed my motion on Malayanisation, the expatriates knew that in a short time they would be going out. How many have been brought in since then and joined the service as newcomers? Should they get such a big sum - as my good friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar has said - a sweepstake or a lottery? Sir, we do say, "Let bygones be bygones." But we have to look to the future because we have to put up the money. In this connection the Chief Minister has said that he has done a lot of hard bargaining with the expatriates. Is it hard bargaining when we are paying the most that any British colony has ever paid to the expatriates? Sir, after gaining a lump sum in compensation, the expatriate who leaves will certainly serve somewhere else. Has that been taken into consideration? Has the Government also considered the fact that these expatriates will still be able to serve in other places for many years? I wonder whether the Government has considered the points which I have raised. 10.47 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the old days the colonial rulers had a theory to explain why it was necessary to pay higher and fatter salaries to expatriate officers. It was claimed that expatriate officers had to be paid more because that was the only way to attract and retain them in service. They were hard to come by. It was therefore necessary to compensate them for self-exile in the outposts of the Empire by rewarding them with expatriation pay, better conditions of service and so forth. That was the theory before Malayanisation. We had to attract and retain expatriate officers who were most reluctant to bear the white man's burden. Now we have a new theory. Now that Malayanisation is on the cards, the theory is that they need inducements to leave this attractive country. To judge by the abolition terms now being offered, it appears that it is more expensive to get them to leave their jobs than it was to attract and retain them. We must pay them handsomely to take jobs in the colony. We must pay through our noses to get them to give up their jobs. The scale of compensation being offered by the Singapore Government is far higher than that offered by any other country so far, including India. Let us be clear about the right of an expatriate officer to abolition terms. It is not a legal right. An employer does not guarantee an employee a job for life. No firm in Singapore, not even European firms, can guarantee that a discharged employee must be compensated for loss of a career. I cannot understand why this vague moral claim should be made an occasion for outright plunder of the taxpayer. Generosity towards its employees has not been a marked feature of Government. Certainly when postmen and daily-rated workers of the Government asked for a miserable addition of one dollar a day, the Government never failed to beat its breast and mourn about impending bankruptcy. But $21 million is being gladly given away to highly-paid European officers. I cannot be a party to this. 10.50 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have very little to add to what I said yesterday when I was talking on the White Paper on Malayanisation, but I would like to bring to the attention of the House the rather Gilbertian suggestion by the Member for Tanjong Pagar that we should raise the money by taxing the 127 public limited companies in Singapore - make the white men pay for it. He may be interested to know that many of the public limited companies in Singapore are branches of companies in London and they are not the ones which submit the balance sheets locally. The ones that submit the balance sheets are locally established companies. Many of them may sound European, but if the Member for Tanjong Pagar likes to go to the Registrar of Companies and pays his dollar and examines the list of shareholders, he may find that the bulk of them are Chinese. So he will be robbing his own people!

I am much obliged! Now we know how to catch them! The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Chief Minister, in reply? 10.51 a.m.

Yes, Sir. Sir, in my opening speech just now, I made reference to the Report of the Malayanisation Commission. This is to be our Bible. On this Commission were the representatives of various political Parties. Although they sat on the Commission not as representatives of their Parties, they were and still are members of Parties represented in this Assembly and each and every one of them did say in this Report that, in fairness to the people who have served us, they should be paid some measure of compensation. They did even recommend that the services of an actuary should be obtained, and I did say earlier in this debate that the Government as well as the Staff Association had briefed actuaries to work out the factor on the basis recommended in this Bible, and the actuaries, on that basis, recommended a factor of seven; and here this Government negotiated with the Staff Associations representing people who are now going to lose their careers in the service of this Govern- ment, and both of us agreed that a factor of 4.96 would be fair to the people of Singapore. Yet these people are being maligned in this Assembly. If they had stuck to their guns, they might have obtained a factor of seven as recommended in this Report. They felt that they had to play the game right to the end to the people of Singapore. Sir, we have two Members in this House who claim to represent the workers of Singapore. Yesterday we heard the Member for Tanjong Pagar raise a hue and cry because the workers, he felt, are being intimidated and exploited by the employers. Sir, his warped mind seems to think that workers, and only workers, are black people-

Order. I cannot allow the use of the word "warped".

I withdraw it. The Member for Tanjong Pagar, Sir, has a peculiar sense of appreciation of the justice that should be meted out to workers. On the one hand, there should be proper justice to people who are represented by him, and on the other hand there should be no justice to those people because they happen not to be represented by him. Sir, some Members, I feel, have not made a proper study of the scheme. They seem to think that everyone, irrespective of his period of service in the Government, irrespective of his age and the period of retention offered by the Government, would get the same amount of compensation. It is not so, Sir. I also said, Sir - let us not look back, but let us look forward to a happier Singapore, to a Singapore civil service staffed with local people, to a Singapore run by local people; but in this advance towards nationhood, let us not trample down on those who have served us well.

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.

Sir, I second it.

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

Clauses 1 to 19 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. First Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Second Schedule 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. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir, I second it.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 11.00 a.m.

Sir, I have the Governor's consent under Standing Order 33 to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As the Chief Minister mentioned just now, Sir, this Bill is designed to introduce an executive public service and thereby enable Singapore at this stage to obtain control over its own civil service. The Bill, in the main, Sir, incorporates the recommendations on the Public Services Commission which were made by the Malayanisation Commission in Part VI of its Majority Report. As hon. Members will no doubt recall, there were, I think, two main recommendations which were made by the Malayanisation Commission. The first recommendation was that the Public Services Commission should have executive control over appointments, promotions, dismissals, and the discipline of government officers in the public service. That, as I will explain in a moment, we seek to achieve through this Bill. The second major recommendation was that the composition of the Public Services Commission should be changed in that the Chairman should be a Malayan and that the membership of the Commission should be enlarged from two to five members. As I have said, Sir, with some few exceptions, this Bill incorporates the recommendations made on the Public Services Commission. There is, however, one very obvious peculiarity about this Bill, and that is, although as I have said it seeks to establish a Public Service Commission with executive control, in fact, that is the one thing which is missing from the Bill. Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill, which lay down the functions of the Commission, prescribe that the Commission shall only advise the Governor. The reason for this apparent contradiction is that at the present stage, when we are still governed by the present Singapore Colony Order in Council, it would not be proper by legislation here to over-rule the provisions of section 11 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council; but, as was explained in the White Paper on Malayanisation, the Secretary of State has agreed that, save as regards a few specified appointments, the Governor shall act on the advice of the Public Service Commission subject only to the right to refer a recommendation back to the Commission once, and once only. The Secretary of State has agreed and that agreement will be embodied in Instructions sent from the Secretary of State to the Governor; and in due course we expect that a new Colony Order in Council will be made, and when that is made, then it will provide formally and finally for the Public Service Commission to have executive authority. The functions of the Commission, as set out in clauses 12, 13 and 14 of the Bill, can be divided into two types. There is, first, those functions in which the Commission's advice will be accepted by the Governor. Those are the functions specified in clause 13, namely, appointments, promotions, transfers, dismissals and discipline. Other matters such as schemes of service, qualifications for appointment, which are dealt with in clauses 12 and 14, will not be matters for executive decision by the Commission. I think the reason for this should be apparent in that, for example, while it is proper that a Public Service Commission should apply a code of discipline to individual officers and that it should be responsible for enforcing that code, it should not be responsible for drawing up the code itself. The code itself is at present prescribed in our various Government regulations and that code should be subject to the decision of the Government and not to the decision of the Commission. There is another field in which also it would not be right that the Public Service Commission should have the final word. I refer, Sir, to matters which are the subject of negotiation between Staff Associations and the Government: such matters, for example, as rates of pay where we have now established a machinery for the officers concerned, through their Staff Associations, to make their claims and do their negotiating direct with the Government. It would not, in the view of the Government, Sir, be right that the Staff Associations should in any way be deprived of their right to negotiate direct with the Government on matters such as pay, and indeed the Staff Associations have already got the ultimate right to go to arbitration on those issues. It is true that certainly in one other country, Australia, the Public Service Commission or its equivalent has been given authority by the Government to fix rates of pay, but we do not think that we should, at least at this stage, adopt that procedure here. The matters which are the proper field for negotiation between the Staff Associations and the Government have been defined in the agreements which now exist between the Government and the Staff Associations covering the Civil Service Joint Council and covering the arbitration agreement, and I would like to make it quite clear, Sir, that nothing in this Bill will affect the existing rights and procedure of the Staff Associations in those matters. I should perhaps draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that the judiciary is deliberately excluded from the operation of this Bill. As was explained by the Chief Minister yesterday, the question of appointments and dismissals of Judges is a matter to be incorporated in constitutional arrangements and it is a matter which will be for discussion at the constitutional conference in London, and the results of that discussion will no doubt be incorporated in a new Order in Council in due course. So it is that the judiciary is deliberately excluded from the field covered by this Bill and it may be that a separate Judicial Service Commission will ultimately be agreed upon. I do not think there is any other particular point that I need mention at this stage, Sir. I would, in conclusion, repeat that this Bill re-enacts the provisions of the present Public Services Commission Ordinance with the amendments which follow from the recommendations of the Malayanisation Commission. The reasons for asking that the Bill should be put through on a Certificate of Urgency are, of course, that, as Members will have seen from the White Paper, we wish to start Malayanisation if possible from the 1st of January next year and we wish to get the new Public Service Commission established so that it can start its task at the beginning of next year by selecting the first local officers to take over the nine posts of Permanent Secretary grade. There is one further point which I think I should mention, and that is that it is the intention of the Government that the contents of this Bill will be included in the new Colony Order in Council which the Chief Minister hopes to obtain in the near future. There again, that is in accordance with the recommendations of the Malayanisation Commission which was emphatic that the composition, establishment and the working of the Public Service Commission should be enshrined in an Order in Council so that the Commission is shielded from day-to-day decisions in the Legislative Assembly. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.14 a.m.

Mr Speaker, we support the principle of the Bill. The proposed Public Service Commission differs from the previous one in that it will serve different ends and work towards different goals. The old Commission was a purely advisory body and unless the Governor chose to accept its recommendations, its deliberations and decisions would come to nought. Now for the first time we shall have a Commission whose conscious aim would be to select men of integrity and ability to work the apparatus of state, men on whose integrity and ability the future efficient administration of this country depends. But whilst we are all in agreement with the machinery which this Bill proposes to set up, we have very grave doubts as to the intentions of the Government, or perhaps it may be of the Governor, with respect to the men to be chosen to fill this Commission. Singapore is a small place and one hears all kinds of curious goings-on. There are even rumours that a distinguished record in the field of sports might win somebody a seat on this Commission. There are also rumours that an office in some established church might entitle a person to a seat on this Commission. There is considerable dissatisfaction over the person who is unofficially the Chairman-elect of this Commission. Sir, if this group of five men are not people with imagination, ability and learning, they will not be able correctly to appraise the candidates and choose the men who will run the government machine. It is absolutely vital that the features which have marked the old Commission - feeble and flabby men chosen to sit on the Commission because of their docility and servility to a colonial government, men who dare not take over the chairmanship of the Commission until a white man has shown them how to do it - should be wiped out. In the proposed Commission we must put men who are going to choose the future workers of the State on the basis of ability, integrity, drive and a spirit of independence, not a spirit of servility. Sir, the service today is filled by the English-educated elite. Most of the people in the service are either our friends, our neighbours or were our class or college mates; and we know the gibes that are going on amongst the student generation - if you want a good cushy job in the service, then be nice to your professor, be nice to your master, and keep clear of politics and other dangerous and controversial issues. The result is that we will have, at best, an able but a docile instrument with no imagination and no guts. There is another type of students, those who have rebelled against the system, those with a great deal of drive, impatient and exasperated with the existing system, so much so as to want to go over to the other extreme and to destroy the whole machinery of government. This question of the Public Service Commission was one of the issues which divided the political Parties when they went to London. We stated then and we say it now that we will not be bound unless it is done with scrupulous honesty. We will not be bound by the men whom the Governor may choose to put on this Commission. If we are going to have people who have distinguished themselves by looking after the sporting interests of the Colony of Singapore to sit on this Commission, then let us scrap the whole thing. Let us have the boldness and courage to choose men who, whether we agree with their political views or not, are men whose spirited opposition to colonialism, whose fervent desire to see an independent and vigorous country free and absolutely divorced from all those evils of colonialism, will be able to choose other men who will be as equally spirited and as equally determined to build this independent State. With this one reservation concerning the personnel of the Public Service Commission, we support the machinery which this Bill proposes to set up. Mr Goode rose -

Mr Chief Secretary, in reply?

Yes, Sir. I have no doubt that my hon. Leader the Chief Minister will, as he always does, give very full weight to the views expressed by the Member for Tanjong Pagar when he comes to advise the Governor on these points.

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.

Sir, I second it.

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

Clauses 1 to 13 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14- Question proposed, "That clause 14 stand part of the Bill." 11.25 a.m.

Sir, in clause 14 (b) it is said: "The Commission shall advise the Governor on all questions relating to the following matters:- any representations concerning Schemes of Service which may be referred to the Commission by the Governor;". In the previous Public Services Commission Ordinance (Chapter 59), section 11(1) (e) says: "The Commission shall advise the Governor on all questions relating to the following matters:- any representations concerning terms of service which may be addressed to the Commission by any body of officers;". Sir, I understand that the Staff Associations have expressed considerable opposition to the alteration made to section 11 (1) (e) of the Ordinance now to be repealed. I would like to hear the reasons for the alteration in the terms of that particular provision. 11.26 a.m.

The hon. Member, Sir, is correct that the old Ordinance included section 11(1) (e) , which meant that any body of officers could make representations to the Public Services Commission on any matter, and we have been in consultation with the representatives of the Staff Side on the Whitley Council over the appropriate wording in this Bill. I think I can say with confidence that there is no divergence of views between the Government Side and the Staff Side in this matter. We are agreed that there are certain important matters which now should not go to an executive Public Service Commission, as I indicated in moving my motion. We are also agreed that there are other matters, such as representations on the general principles of promotion, over which the Staff Side should still have the right to make representations to an executive Public Service Commission. Sir, the Government came to the conclusion that they could not incorporate in the new Bill the very wide wording which appears in section 11(1) (e) of the existing Ordinance, because that would lay open the possibility at least that the Public Service Commission would infringe on this field with executive decisions where we and the Staff Side are agreed that they should not infringe, namely, matters for direct negotiation. I think it would not be improper for me to add that we did attempt a new wording to go into this clause of the Bill, to try and define those matters on which it is quite proper that the Staff Side should make representations to the Public Service Commission and those matters which should be excluded. We have not, unfortunately, been able to arrive at a definition which is satisfactory and we have therefore not attempted any definition at all. I have tried to cover the matter to some extent in speaking on the Bill. I would just add that if we could find a satisfactory definition, working in consultation with the Staff Side and indeed with any assistance which the hon. Member could give us, then I think we could certainly get that additional clause put into the Order in Council in due course to cover the point which the hon. Member raised.

Could the Chief Secretary explain to us what is intended by the change of the phrase "terms of service" to "schemes of service"? It seems to me that there is very little difference in the actual meaning of the phrase, but some difference in meaning must have been intended before the phrase was altered.

To me, Sir, as a government officer, there is an essential difference between the phrase "schemes of service" and "terms of service". "Terms of service" primarily mean things like rates of pay. "Schemes of service" primarily mean things like the qualifications required for entering a particular service, the length of time you will have to be in it, the opportunities for promotion, the pyramid from the number of posts at the bottom up to the top and so on. They are, to me at any rate and I think to the public service generally, quite different. Perhaps the hon. Member will accept that assurance from me.

There is one further point on the same clause, which I wish to direct to the Hon. the Attorney-General. In every one of the clauses where there are sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses, it is the practice to put clause 14 (1) , then (a) , (b) , (c) ; then 14 (2) (a) , (b) , (c) . But it is not the practice in this Bill and in every other Bill before this House to put a sub-clause using the alphabet when there is no sub-clause using a number. Perhaps the Attorney-General would like to correct me.

Is that of any great importance?

Sir, it does seem to me untidy -

The hon. Member would like a tidy Bill!

I take it that the hon. Member wishes to make the form of clause 14 conform to the form of clause 12. Is that right?

That is right.

If the hon. Member cares to move an amendment, no doubt -

Can I draw the hon. Member's attention to clause 4 which has already been passed?

May I also say that the (a) , (b) , (c) here could not be sub-clause at all? They are the enumeration of the matters under clause 14.

In any case, there is no amendment before the House.

Question, "That clause 14 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to. Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 15 to 25 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule 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."

Sir, I second it.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 11.35 a.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with this Bill and beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Hon. Members will recall that in a public statement issued on 19th November, attention was drawn to the need to conserve supplies of petroleum fuel in view of the situation in the Middle East and the possibility that deliveries of petroleum products from normal sources of supply might suffer a slight decrease in frequency. It was also pointed out in that statement that the Governments of Singapore and the Federation would be most reluctant to introduce rationing of petroleum products but that it was desirable that steps should be taken to review the administrative arrangements necessary for the introduction of rationing so that a suitable scheme could be put into effect with the minimum of inconvenience, should such a step ever become necessary. As part of the preliminary measures to be taken, this Bill, Sir, has been drawn up to enable control over the distribution and rationing of petroleum fuels and lubricants to be brought into effect if and when required. This is solely a precautionary measure and it does not mean - I repeat, Sir, it does not mean - that the introduction of rationing in the immediate future is contemplated. Before rationing could be introduced, it would still be necessary for the Governor to bring the Ordinance into force by notification in the Gazette. I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to clause 4 under which the Minister has the power to apply, by order, such sections of the Ordinance as might be necessary. This would mean, Sir, that the Minister, if and when he considers it necessary that rationing should be introduced, would make such an order applicable to any of the items or all of the items stated in the Schedule to this Bill. Rationing would then come into force at that time. The position, in brief, Sir, therefore is that we must be ready to ration should the necessity arise and that it will not be possible for us to do this unless this legislation is passed. I repeat, Sir, that the presentation of this Bill does not mean that there is any present intention to introduce rationing. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.38 a.m.

Sir, in no independent territory in South-East Asia has there been any need for hasty legislation precipitated by the adventures of the British and French armies in the Middle East. If ever anybody doubted that we are tied up with the destinies and the misfortunes of the British and their Empire, this Bill is a timely reminder. We have had in the past few weeks a stream of reassuring statements as to the supply of petroleum from all the distributors of oil products. We were, in fact, reminded that our source of petroleum comes from the East and not from the Middle East. But it was pointed out by some Government spokesmen that it might become necessary to divert the supplies available from the Indonesian islands to Britain, because Britain might be short. As far as I know, neither Ceylon nor India nor Pakistan nor Indonesia has been affected by what has been termed "Eden's war". As a gesture of protest, we will vote against this Bill. We are against British imperialism. We are against British militarism. We are against Britain anywhere in the world where she tries to subjugate other people, let alone try to re-subjugate a once subject people who have become free. We will not, I repeat not, share their misfortunes as a result of their stupid and brutal acts in the Middle East. 11.40 a.m.

Sir, I would like to know where we get our supplies of petrol for our requirements. Is it from the Middle East or is it from our neighbouring territories? We have not been told of this. Before I speak further on the subject, could I be informed, Sir?

I suppose the Minister in charge of the Bill will give the hon. Member an answer when he replies.

Sir, I would like to get an answer from the Minister before I go further. Without his answer, I am in the dark.

Can the Minister give that answer now?

Sir, as I understand it, most of our supplies come from Indonesian territories and from Borneo, but we do draw a certain amount of supplies from the Middle East. Certain types of fuel come from the Middle East. The refineries in Borneo are, to a certain extent, supplied with petroleum from the Middle East.

Does the Member for Telok Ayer want to continue now?

I might want to later on, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I really do not understand why we should have this Bill before us now. Britain blundered in the Middle East. Let Britain pay! Why should we suffer for Britain's blunder? Enough of this stuff about the British Commonwealth which is a symbol of the brotherhood of nations within the British Commonwealth and which was displayed by the British Canberra bombers over Egyptian territory! We cannot take the blame of the weak and stupid man, the Prime Minister of Britain, who has blundered. If there is any shortage of petrol, the petroleum companies should inform us. Only very recently these companies have issued a statement in the Straits Times that there is enough petrol for the consumption of this side of the world. If we take the blame or share the blame for the crime committed by Britain, it is up to us to make it up to our victim also , I would suggest, Sir, that we should make up to the Egyptian Government -

Hear, hear! Get the Governor's consent!

I will! Sir, I suggest that this Government make a cash gift to the Egyptian Government of £1 million.

Order. May I ask the hon. Member to confine his speech to the Bill?

Sir, I am confining myself to the Bill because the Minister, when he moved the Second Reading, said that this Bill was necessary because of the crisis in the Middle East. I am only referring to that. So I give you formal notice, Sir, that I am going to move a motion at the next sitting of the Legislative Assembly that this Government must donate £1 million to the Egyptian Government as a relief fund. This is more or less conscience money because we are also a part of the British Commonwealth. Britain blundered and, as a result, the Egyptian Government suffered, and this £1 million will be in the form of a relief to the Egyptian Government.

Order. I should like to remind the hon. Member that he must confine his speech to the Bill.

Sir, I have said what I had to say and I just wish to remind the House that I am going to move a motion. I do not think Mr Deputy Speaker will stop me by saying that this is not relevant. I wish to point out that if this House is competent to debate an issue which is the result of the Suez Canal dispute, then this House is also competent to debate the motion which I am going to move at the next sitting of the Legislative Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I understood from the answer to my question that we get our supplies of petroleum from our nearest territory. If that is so, I do not think we should be deprived of our share of petroleum which we have been regularly getting. If England and France have made mistakes in the Middle East, it is their problem. We should not be made to suffer here. If the oil companies do take away our portion of supplies and send it elsewhere, I think it will not be fair to this colony. Sir, I understand that this Bill is only a precautionary measure. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

Mr Minister, in reply?

Yes, Sir. The arguments that have been put up against the introduction of this Bill were political arguments and did not have much bearing on the Bill. I did not say that we are getting our supplies from the nearest territory. What I said was that most of our supplies come from Indonesia and Borneo, but we do get a certain amount from the Middle East. The Member for Farrer Park mentioned that Britain blundered, so let Britain pay. That, Sir, is a matter of opinion of individuals, but, in my opinion, that has no bearing on this Bill which is a precautionary measure. Whoever blundered, whoever has to pay for it, is one thing, but we must be ready to see that there is no chaos in our petrol supply position, and that is why this Bill is necessary, as it will enable the necessary machinery to be set up so that we will not be caught napping in the event that it is imperative that petrol rationing should be introduced. The Member for Telok Ayer mentioned that we should not be made to suffer and be deprived of our petrol supplies because of Britain's action in the Middle East. I repeat, Sir, that it is not contemplated to introduce petrol rationing immediately, but this Bill is to enable machinery to be set up so that if and when it becomes necessary, because of conditions which are beyond our control, we would be ready to meet the situation. Petroleum supplies to Singapore are controlled from Britain. There is also the question of tankers. We do not own any tankers, and we might find that, because of the diversion of tankers, the reduced tanker-carrying capacity may not bring us sufficient supplies of petroleum in the future; and whether we like it or not, and whether we agree as to who is to blame or who is not to blame, we will have to face the situation, and that is why this Bill has been brought up before this Assembly. Question put.

Division, Sir.

Clear the lobbies. The House divided: Ayes, 20; Noes, 4; Abstention, 1. Ayes Noes Abdul Hamid Bin Ahmad Bin Ibrahim. Haji Jumat. Goh Chew Chua. Braga, A. J. Lazarous, A.R. Butterfield, C. H. Lee Kuan Yew. Ede, John. Goh Tong Liang. Abstention Goode, W. A. C. Hart, T. M. Lim, R. C. H. Jumabhoy, J. M. Jumabhoy, R. Absent Lee Choon Eng. Lim Choon Mong. Chew Swee Kee. Lim Yew Hock. Lim Cher Kheng. Mak Pak Shee. Lim Ching Siong. Marshall, D. S. Lim Koon Teck. Mohd. Sidik Bin Haji Nair, M. P. D. Abdul Hamid. Ong Piah Teng. Sutherland, G. A. P. Seah Peng Chuan. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam. 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.

Sir, I second it.

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

Clauses 1 to 25 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule 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."

Sir, I second it.

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

Order read for resumption of discussion on Motion (5th December, 1956): "That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 11 of the Customs Ordinance (Chapter 160 of the Revised Edition), resolves that the Customs (Duties) (No. 2) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1956, published as Notification No. S 347 in the Gazette Supplement No. 90 of 3rd December, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 37 of 1956, be confirmed."-(The Financial Secretary). 12.00 noon.

Sir, at the moment of interruption yesterday I said that I had His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 11 of the Customs Ordinance (Chapter 160 of the Revised Edition), resolves that the Customs (Duties) (No. 2) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1956, published as Notification No. S 347 in the Gazette Supplement No. 90 of 3rd December, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 37 of 1956, be confirmed. I had reminded hon. Members that on 7th November, 1956, the rates of duty on unmanufactured tobacco were raised from $4.40 per pound full and $4.20 per pound preferential to $6.00 per pound full and $5.80 per pound preferential by virtue of Customs (Duties) (No. 2) Order, 1956, which was published in the Gazette on that day. I now say, Sir, that subsequently representations were made by the trade to the effect that this increase of duty on leaf tobacco would adversely affect the local cigar manufacturing industry and increase the cost of what was mainly the poor man's smoke. The Government considered these representations and, as I reported to the Assembly on 20th November, agreed to reduce the rates of duty on unmanufactured tobacco to pre-Budget levels. A Gazette Notification to this effect was published on 3rd December, and the object of this motion, Sir, is to obtain the consent of the Assembly to this reduction in duty. Sir, I beg to move. 12.02 p.m.

Sir, I rise to second the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. Sir, when the Financial Secretary laid his taxation proposals before this House at the Budget sittings, the rate of duty on this item was proposed to be increased. Later on, Sir, representations were made to me by manufacturers that the local industry dealing with this item would suffer and, as a result of their representations, the Government has taken action in the interests of the local industry and of the poorer section of the community who smoke this type of cigarettes and cigars. I would like to emphasise, Sir, that Government has been very democratic in having listened to these representations. Sir, there have been charges levied against the Government in the past for being undemocratic, but this is one instance where the Government shows that it does listen to representations if they are genuine.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 11 of the Customs Ordinance (Chapter 160 of the Revised Edition), resolves that the Customs (Duties) (No. 2) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1956, published as Notification No. S 347 in the Gazette Supplement No. 90 of 3rd December, 1956, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 37 of 1956, be confirmed.

The sitting is suspended now until 2.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.05 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as it is clear that the business set down for today will be completed before the moment of interruption, may I move, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned till Wednesday, 9th January, 1957.

Have I the assent of hon. Members? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Thank you, Sir. I beg to move, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned till Wednesday, 9th January, 1957.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned till Wednesday, 9th January, 1957.

2.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, namely, That this Assembly resolves - that the Second and Final Report of the Standing Orders Committee, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 5 of 1956, be adopted; that pursuant to section 54 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, the First Standing Orders of the Assembly made by the Governor on the 14th day of April, 1955, as amended by the Assembly on 10th February, 1956, be revoked with effect from 1st January, 1957; that pursuant to section 54 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, the Standing Orders as contained in Appendix II of the aforesaid Second and Final Report of the Standing Orders Committee be made as the Standing Orders of this Assembly with effect from 1st January, 1957. Sir, I wish to place on record the invaluable assistance which you have rendered in the deliberations of the Standing Orders Committee. As a result of your assistance, Sir, the Standing Orders Committee has recommended a number of amendments for improvement in our present Standing Orders. These proposed amendments are detailed in the Report, and I do not propose to take up the time of hon. Members by touching on them. The Report has been in the hands of hon. Members for some months and I am sure they will no doubt have already studied these proposed amendments. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I rise to second.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves - that the Second and Final Report of the Standing Orders Committee, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 5 of 1956, be adopted; that pursuant to section 54 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, the First Standing Orders of the Assembly made by the Governor on the 14th day of April, 1955, as amended by the Assembly on 10th February, 1956, be revoked with effect from 1st January, 1957; that pursuant to section 54 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, the Standing Orders as contained in Appendix II of the aforesaid Second and Final Report of the Standing Orders Committee be made as the Standing Orders of this Assembly with effect from 1st January, 1957.

2.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, namely, That this Assembly resolves that the Standing Orders Committee, appointed under paragraph (3) of Standing Order 61, do consider and report on such further amendments to the Standing Orders of this Assembly as in the opinion of the Committee appear to be necessary or desirable. The wording of the motion, Sir, is self-explanatory. The Government has one matter which it would like to refer to the Standing Orders Committee, and you, too, Sir, have one very important matter which you felt should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I rise to second.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the Standing Orders Committee, appointed under paragraph (3) of Standing Order 61, do consider and report on such further amendments to the Standing Orders of this Assembly as in the opinion of the Committee appear to be necessary or desirable.

2.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, namely, That a Select Committee comprising Mr Speaker as Chairman and thirteen members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection be appointed to examine, report upon and make recommendations in respect of matters necessary to enable effect to be given to the resolution of the Assembly on 9th February, 1956, that for the purposes of oral debate the languages of the Assembly should be English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil; and that the Report from the Select Committee on Languages in Legislative Assembly Debates in the previous Session, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 7 of 1956, be referred to this Select Committee. Sir, in moving this motion, I would like to refresh the memory of hon. Members that, pursuant to a resolution passed on 9th February this year, a Select Committee was appointed to examine, report upon and make recommendations in respect of matters necessary to enable effect to be given to the proposal that, for the purposes of oral debate, the languages of the Assembly should be English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil. You will remember, Sir, that you were Chairman of the Committee and a report of that Committee was tabled as Sessional Paper No. L.A. 7 of 1956. The Committee was unable, within the little time at their disposal, to conclude their investigations, and recommended that a similar Select Committee be appointed in the next session of the Legislative Assembly, and that Paper S.C. Languages No. 3 annexed to the Report should be referred to that Select Committee. The purpose of this motion, Sir, is to give effect to this recommendation. I think, Sir, enough has been said on the need for multi-lingualism in an Assembly in a place like Singapore. Certain objections were voiced during the debate in February this year, one of which was that the introduction of multi-lingualism would tend to encourage racial consciousness and racial antagonisms. I consider that objection to be a very dangerous one, putting ideas into people's heads. After all, language is a means of communication of ideas and to say that it will tend to encourage racial consciousness and racial antagonisms is deliberately putting ideas into people's heads. Is multi-lingualism not in use in our everyday lives, since the people of different races came to live in Singapore? I speak at least three languages with members of my family, with my friends and with my staff in the office, and I am sure other Members of this House also do the same, and indeed, some may be using more than three languages in their everyday life. It is grossly unfair that a man born in Singapore with all his birthrights or is otherwise qualified cannot sit in this House and help in governing this country simply because he is unable to speak English. Let us all not pretend in this House that it is only through English that we can express ourselves clearly and forcefully. I am sure that at moments some of us feel that if multilingualism were in use we would have put more force into our arguments and with a firmer conviction. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that the day will not be far away when every person born in Singapore or is otherwise qualified will be enabled to sit in this Assembly irrespective of the language in which he was educated. It is also my fervent hope, Sir, that the Select Committee to he appointed under this motion today will deal with this matter expeditiously so that multi-lingualism will become a reality and not remain as an academic discussion. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That a Select Committee comprising Mr Speaker as Chairman and thirteen members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection be appointed to examine, report upon and make recommendations in respect of matters necessary to enable effect to be given to the resolution of the Assembly on 9th February, 1956, that for the purposes of oral debate the languages of the Assembly should be English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil; and that the Report from the Select Committee on Languages in Legislative Assembly Debates in the previous Session, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 7 of 1956, be referred to this Select Committee.

2.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, That the report from the Select Committee on the Singapore Youth Sports Centre Incorporation Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 13 of 1956, be adopted. Sir, the Singapore Youth Sports Centre Incorporation Bill was committed to a Select Committee and from Sessional Paper No. L.A. 13 of 1956, it will be seen that the Select Committee held three meetings. The minutes of these meetings can be found in Appendix III and in Appendix IV Members will find the minutes of the meeting at which the Committee heard evidence from the President of the Singapore Youth Council, the Hon. Secretary of the Federation of Boys' Clubs, and the pro. tem. Secretary/Organiser of the Singapore Youth Sports Centre. Due regard has been paid to the representations made both orally and in writing, and, as a result, the composition of the Board detailed in clause 3 (4) has been altered. The number of members to be nominated by the Minister for Labour and Welfare has been reduced to one, and the Singapore Youth Council now has the right to nominate four instead of two members. In addition, the Singapore Junior Chamber of Commerce has been given the right to nominate one member. These changes, as hon. Members will realise, make certain that youth will be well represented on the Board of Management. The remaining amendments are either consequential or for the purpose of improving the drafting of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it. Question proposed, "That the Report of the Select Committee be adopted." 2.41 p.m.

If it please you, Sir, I have a very small point to make. I think that many Members of this House are conscious of the fact that in the City Court every day there are about 800 cases of hawkers, and a very material proportion of the number of hawkers are juveniles under the age of 16 and youths between 16 and 25. The City Magistrate, Sir, has considerable experience of the youths who appear before him hawking without a licence, and every Magistrate sitting in that Court has expressed concern about the activities of these youths who learn, so young, to flout the law because of the necessity of living. Sir, it is true that it might not seem within the scope of the Bill that will be before us to consider the youths who hawk, but I am conscious that the City Magistrate is very anxious to try and do something for these youths; and I would like to suggest that when Government makes its appointments to this Board of Management, it will consider nominating the City Magistrate pro. tem., whoever he may be, so that that portion of the population with which he is in contact by virtue of his position can have some assistance through him, and he can give guidance to the Board of Management in its activities to give helpful opportunities for the young. It is my hope, Sir, that the Government will consider the whole problem of the welfare of these youths in the not distant future and the possibility of the creation of a Young Hawkers Welfare Board which would utilise, as a commencement, the quarter of a million dollars or more a year in fines from hawkers in order to rehabilitate the youths. But I think we can start now if the Government would consider the appointment to the Board of Management of the City Magistrate in order to assist the activities of the Board. Mr Lim Yew Hock rose -

Mr Minister, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill which we are considering at the moment is the Singapore Youth Sports Centre Incorporation Bill and is in connection with a sports centre for youth. While I do share the feelings of the Member for Cairnhill for the welfare of young hawkers and while I do agree with him that the City Magistrate is in a position to assist the Government in looking after their welfare, I find it difficult to see how his membership on the Board of Management of a sports centre can be of help to the persons whom he has expressed a desire to help. In so far as the welfare of youthful hawkers is concerned, I have taken note of all that the hon. Member has said and will direct the Department of Social Welfare to make a close study of the problem and put up suggestions for the improvement of these people.

Thank you.

Question, "That the Report of the Select Committee be adopted," put, and agreed to.

Third Reading, what day?

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

Sir, I second it.

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

2.47 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Sir, I second the motion. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Communications and Works said yesterday that he would prefer a debate on my question rather than answer supplementary questions, and in reply to that question, Sir, he stated that a language qualification is necessary to qualify for a driving licence, that is, either English or Malay. In my opinion, Sir, there is no connection between a language qualification and a driving licence. As long as the applicant for a driving licence is competent to drive a vehicle without jeopardising the lives of the public and he has some knowledge of the Highway Code, I think he should be given a licence. Sir, if the applicant is going for a job where he has to control labour, speaking either English or Malay, then he has to have a knowledge of these languages in order to make himself understood. Or if a man is applying for a special language appointment in an academy, then I have no reason to disagree with the Minister that that language qualification is necessary. But in this instance, it is entirely nonsense to enforce a law where a language qualification is necessary for a driving licence. Sir, if in the opinion of the Minister a language qualification is necessary, why should it be in English and Malay only? What is wrong with the Chinese language? What is wrong with the Tamil language? As the Minister has said, we here in Singapore speak so many languages. So what is wrong with languages other than Malay and English? By this, I hope the Malays will not misunderstand me or that I am casting any reflection on them or their language. What I am trying to point out, Sir, is the language concerned which an applicant must know before he can qualify for a driving licence. As we all know, Singapore is a place where there are many nationalities - the English, the Malays, the Chinese, the Tamils, the Eurasians and so on. If Singapore has a state language, then, of course, we have to speak that language. I remember the Chief Secretary at one time said that Singapore has no state religion. So if we have no state religion and no state language, why should Malay be a compulsory language qualification for a driving licence? Sir, when the local district councils come into being, there will be four languages for the purpose of oral debate. In this Assembly we have just appointed a Select Committee to go into the question of languages for the purpose of oral debate. The Chief Minister has just said that he hopes the day will not be far off when several languages will be used in this Assembly for the purpose of oral debate so that we could all express our views in a more forceful way. I should say that the present Road Traffic Ordinance is out of date. This Ordinance, I suppose, was framed by the colonial officers and not by an elected government. Now, sitting on the Front Benches, we have a row of elected Ministers with the exception of three ex-officios; and unfortunately, Sir, the Minister who is in charge of this matter is a Nominated Minister and not an elected one. I think that is the reason why he cannot understand the views of the general public. He has his own views as a Nominated Minister, so he can have his way. The Minister may put forward one reason for this insistence on Malay as a language qualification, and that is, most of the police constables are Malays, and as such applicants for a driving licence should be able at least to speak Malay. If that is so, then I think it is entirely wrong, Sir. In the Courts, we have Court interpreters and in some offices I think there are also interpreters who are engaged for the job of interpreting for the benefit of the public. Can we not have Chinese or Indian testers, instead of confining ourselves to Malay and English testers? The Government should try to help the applicant who comes to apply for a driving licence and try to understand his language. Even the "Safety First" literature issued by the Government is printed in four languages! So why should there be this insistence that an applicant for a driving licence must be able to speak either English or Malay? There is one more comment I want to make on the Traffic Department, and that is an application for a date for a driving test. I have here, Sir, a licence which was issued on 14th January, 1956, and the learner in question applied for a test yesterday, i.e. 5th December. On it is endorsed - "Test booked for 17th May, 1957". So it takes the Department five months and twelve days before it can test the applicant. Is that fair, Sir? A provisional licence is only valid for six months and it costs the applicant $10. After applying for a provisional licence, the learner will have to take up a course of driving under a tutor. It does not mean that by just applying for a licence he is fixed for a test. When he feels that he is ready for a test, which may be in three months' time, he goes to the Traffic Department and applies for a date for a test. This will take another five months and twelve days plus the three months during which he is learning how to drive, which makes it eight months and twelve days, before he could sit for a test. By that time, Sir, the licence has already expired and the applicant will have to pay another $10 to get another provisional licence. If he is fortunate enough, Sir, within that eight months he may pass the test; but if he is unfortunate because of language disqualification, he may fail the test, and because he has failed, he will have to wait for another month before he can apply for a date. Then again he will have to wait for another six months before he can have the actual test. All in all. Sir, it may take 16 months before a learner can qualify for a test: three months learning how to drive a vehicle; six months for the first booking: a wait of one month because of his failure to pass the test the first time; and then another six months before he goes for his second test. And having to wait all this time, I am afraid he will have forgotten how to drive! Apart from all this, Sir, there is the question of cost to the learner. As I have said, Sir, a provisional licence is valid for only six months, and in this 16 months the licence will have expired three times. All in all, he will have to pay $30 for the licence. On top of that, when he applies for a test, he will have to pay $5 for it, and if he takes two tests to pass, he will have to pay $10. So the total cost will come to $40 for a provisional licence, and all this is apart from the fee that he has to pay his driving tutor and the cost of petrol while he is learning how to drive. I would suggest, Sir, that all bookings for a driving test be cancelled immediately and that as many applicants as possible who come to the Department be tested. In the morning they could register those who have come to register and test them and those who have not been tested in the morning could be tested in the afternoon, and those who have not been tested in the afternoon should get priority for a test the next morning. Another reason that the Minister may give to account for the applicant for a driving licence having to wait such a long time before he can be tested is that there is a big backlog of work in the Department. I think it is all wrong. It is the inefficiency of the Department rather than the backlog that is at the root of all this delay. The backlog is caused by bookings because a learner, as soon as he gets a provisional driving licence, books for a date irrespective of whether or not he is ready to go for a test. The reason for his immediate booking is that he wants to catch up on the time that he is forced to wait before he is tested. Unless he books immediately, he may have to pay $40 or $50 before he finally passes his test. Now after booking that date for a test, it may be that when the time comes he is not ready and he consequently fails to pass the test. Then another booking date is given. So if these bookings are allowed to carry on and on, it is the Department which is creating a backlog and not the public. The public are forced into it. So if the Minister could arrange for all bookings to be cancelled and the applicants tested as soon as they come to the Department, I think that would help to clear the backlog. I have one other comment to make, Sir. If a learner fails a test, I think he has the right to demand why he has failed the test or how he has failed the test. Sir, there is a printed statement to the effect that testers are not required to give reasons for failing an applicant. I wonder who has given that authority to the Department - that testers are not required to give reasons for failing an applicant? When I went through the Road Traffic Ordinance, I could not find anything at all to indicate that that is so. How come then that this statement is there? I cannot understand. Is it on the initiative of the officer in charge, or is it with the permission of this Assembly or the Minister himself? As a learner who has failed his driving test, he should be told where and how he has gone wrong so that he will be able to correct himself, and when he appears for the next test he will be able to guard against his faults and drive properly. Apart from this, Sir, I feel that the applicant's tutor should accompany him when he goes for a test, because the tutor should also know how his pupil failed. According to law, only two persons are allowed in the vehicle, that is, the driver (in this case, the learner) and the tester. But I have seen many cases, Sir, where the tester takes the learner out in his vehicle and he brings along a police officer or another tester who sits at the back of the car. If the law only says two, why then allow four where the police are concerned? So I would suggest, Sir, that the next time that a learner goes for a test, his tutor should accompany him and so would be able to know the faults of his pupil and then correct him later. I think it is high time that the Road Traffic Ordinance be revised. Whether the Minister is nominated or elected, I think he should consult his colleagues who are mostly elected Ministers and revise the Ordinance which should suit the people and not the Minister himself. 3.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just to round off the many points raised by the Member for Queenstown in his speech, perhaps the hon. Member has forgotten to mention that if he wants this driving test in all the various languages, then all the traffic signs should be multilingual.

I think I have pointed out before in this Assembly, Mr Speaker, Sir, that Members of the Opposition are advised not to get heated until they find out what the facts of the case are. We have heard stirring claims from the Member for Queenstown about inefficiency and backlog and scrap this and destroy that. He has drawn a painful picture of a man who has bought a car and has obtained a provisional driving licence and has started practising. After three months he says, "Well, I can go ahead now and apply for a test." After six months he goes for a test and he fails, of course, because he has only had nine months of practice and does not feel confident. He tries again but keeps failing. All that takes 16 months. Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact of the matter is that the Department is working to capacity on the following basis. There were six testers in 1955 and the number was increased to 12 at the end of 1955 and to 18 in June of this year. The number is now 120 persons tested a day and the testers are working to capacity. If you want to put your name down for a booking, you will get it about 165 days ahead. I am advised that that is the approximate date at the moment. But what the hon. Member has overlooked and what he could find out if he made enquiries either from the Traffic Branch or from me is that, in fact, about 50 per cent of those who put their names down for bookings do not make use of them. The booking is primarily a thing which serves the needs of the person who is going to buy a car and who has a provisional driving licence and who goes to a school of motoring and says, "I will take a six-month course and then I will go for my test." At the same time as he gets a licence he puts his name down for a test, and he knows what date he will have to be ready for and then he goes along and takes it. If he has any doubts about his driving, he will write in and say, "I will postpone my driving test because I do not feel quite ready for it yet." Consequently the booking of tests is a real convenience to the public. But if you want to get a test in a hurry, I am assured by the Traffic Branch that you can get one at very short notice, certainly within one week. So if the hon. Member's friend, who has applied and got it on 5th December, 1956, and got a date for a test on 17th May, 1957, feels in a hurry, he can go along to the Traffic Branch and try to get a booking. If he does not get one in a reasonable space of time, he can go to a Licensing Officer, and if the Licensing Officer does not give him satisfaction, he can go to the hon. Member and the hon. Member can speak to me about it and we will see what we can do about it. In short, I do not think this backlog is a thing which matters in the least because, as I say, as things are going at present, there is every possibility that a man will get a test within two or three days, at the most within one week. If there was any question of priority, of course priority would be given to those whose needs are obviously greatest, such as the man who has got a car, or who wants to buy a car for his business, or a man whose livelihood depends on it, that is, a professional syce driver, and so on. There may be a few cases where there is hardship of some sort or another. That is inevitable when you are dealing with an enormous number of people who are not subject to orders and you have got to get them through as quickly as you can. If a man feels that he has hardship, he should see a Licensing Officer, and if he still feels that he is having hardship, he can of course go higher. About this question of testing, I might mention that representatives of important motoring organisations with a large Asian membership were invited not so long ago to watch the testing and to express their views, and they were very favourably impressed. The other main question was the question of multilingualism. I will first take the point raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar about traffic signs in four languages. The object of a driving sign is that it should be something which can be quickly seen and interpreted by a person who is moving in a vehicle which is perhaps going of 20, 25 or 30 miles an hour, and he cannot stop and linger and study the thing in the way that a pedestrian can. If you are going to have a notice board with traffic signs in four languages, it will have to be a very large board to get the writing big enough to be seen and even then it might be confusing because one goes up and down, one goes across, and one goes the other way. Then, of course, if you do not have it big enough, it will be illegible for anybody except a pedestrian who goes and stands in front of it. The answer to that, I think, is that as far as possible all signs should be symbols which can be understood by anybody, regardless of language. It is not always possible to provide satisfactory symbols, but we are frequently making changes to them and trying to improve them. The other question is the question of a language qualification. I stated yesterday that the applicant for a test has to have a knowledge of either English or colloquial Malay. That, of course, is not, to my nominated mind, a brilliant idea but it is in the 1948 Rules. I cannot accept responsibility for drafting this qualification, but I am prepared to accept responsibility for changing it. I should like to clear up what perhaps is a misapprehension in the hon. Member's mind that many people fail because of this language qualification. The qualification is there because you must have some means of communication. You must have some means of understanding the language between the driver and the tester and, in fact, the traffic police, I am assured, interpret it very generously and as long as they are able to understand each other, that is about all that is required. They tell me that, although they do not keep figures of the people who fail specifically on the grounds of language - because the number is too small to be worth recording - they do, in fact, keep figures of the reasons for failure. As far as they can break down the figures, they do not think it is more than one or two persons out of 3,000 tested a month who fail because of language difficulties. That is a very minute proportion and even that is a guesswork figure. The causes of failure are, of course, inability to perform the road test - starting and parking and turning and all the other things that you have to do in a road test. When a question is asked of an applicant, allowance is made for the fact that he may not speak good English or Malay. On the question of language, there is also the point which the hon. Member mentioned that motorists on the road should desirably have some language of communication in case a driver has a minor accident or in case he has to be given directions in case of an emergency, and if he cannot understand the term "Turn right" or "Pusing kanan", or whatever the policeman says to him, well, he is going to be in a difficult position. No doubt it is an insignificant point because most motorists do not get into emergencies and do not have to be given instructions by the police. It is not that which lies behind the language qualification. It is really a matter of administrative efficiency. The system of testing is that every one of the 18 testers can speak English and Malay and consequently can take any applicant for a driving licence. The applicants do not know beforehand who is going to test them. If you are going to introduce a Hokchew or a Cantonese tester, or whatever tester you like, then everyone who is going for a test in that language will know that Mr So-and-so is the man who is going to test him and nobody else. The effect of that would be that they would, from experience in the past, put very great pressure on him or temptation in his way so that he will pass them through the test. That is a matter of experience. I do not remember any allegation in the past that there had been corruption amongst the testers. I am happy to say that I am assured again that there is no question at all of the complete honesty of the testers now, and in my view it is very important that public servants doing this difficult job should be protected from any allegation that they have been corrupt in their contact with the "testee". If you put it down that Mr So-and-so is the man who is going to test all the applicants speaking his language, then allegations of corruption and, of course, the possibility of real corruption will certainly start. That is a very important point, I think, for making sure that the applicant cannot know beforehand who is going to test him. Moreover if the applicant fails, he goes to a different tester on his second test, and if he fails again, he goes to a different tester again. This is partly to protect him just in case there was some personal dislike on the part of the tester, or on the part of the "testee" for that matter. The simple answer to all this, of course, is that every tester should be able to speak every language or dialect, but it is not easy to get testers of the right character and ability and education and other qualifications required, and if we were to insist that they also had to be fully multilingual, it would be almost impossible to get the number of testers you need. I am just mentioning these difficulties because the effect of the language qualification lies largely in the administration of these tests, the need to see that they are efficiently conducted and do not lead to any allegations of unfairness. I do not say that the difficulties which I have mentioned are insuperable and I propose to try and get them overcome. I am going to give instructions that Kuo-yu should be allowed as a third language for testing, and I think suitable arrangements can be made to deal with that at present. If we can add further languages or dialects at a later date without damaging the efficiency or lowering the standards of driving, then I will certainly consider them further. I think Kuo-yu will meet the major needs at the moment and if we find that that is successful and if there is a clear demand or reason for further languages or dialects to be added to meet the needs of the public, I think we can consider them further.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Three o'clock p.m.