Hansard, 1957-02-13

I have received two messages from His Excellency the Governor dated 18th January, 1957, and 2nd February, 1957, respectively, informing me that His Excellency has, in accordance with the provisions of section 62 (2) of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, assented to the following Bills: (i) City Councillors Indemnity and Validating Bill; (ii) Municipal (Amendment) Bill; (iii) Final Supply (1955) Bill; (iv) Singapore Industrial Promotion Board Bill; (v) Singapore Improvement (Amendment) Bill.

asked the Chief Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to Malayanise the post of Solicitor-General which has become vacant. The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock): The post of Solicitor-General is not one of those posts set out in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 55 of 1956 to be malayanised immediately. It is a post to which local officers and expatriate officers who are asked to remain in service can aspire during the next five years. The Member for Tanjong Pagar is referred to the heading "Legal Service" in the Schedule of the Sessional Paper referred to, and also to the conditions under which expatriate officers are asked to remain in service, as set out in paragraph 11 of the same paper.

Does the Chief Minister not agree that if we are to malayanise the job of Attorney-General in the not too distant future, it should be desirable to have a Malayan Solicitor-General now?

Sir, the position of the Attorney-General is dependent on the constitutional talks in London early in March.

Is the Chief Minister aware that the question is not the position of the Attorney-General, in the new constitution, but the colour of the skin of the holder of the post?

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare whether the Government intends to introduce legislation to remove the existing disabilities of Trade Unions to participate in political activities.

Sir, legislation to permit trade unions to set up political funds is being drafted, and the Government intends to introduce a Bill at an early date. With regard to the affiliation of trade unions with political parties, trade union organisations are being consulted as to their views and as soon as these are received, the Government will give immediate consideration.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he will state the number and nature of the incidents caused by the indiscriminate firing of crackers during the Chinese New Year period, and whether he is satisfied that adequate precautions have been taken by the police in this matter.

Sir, incidents caused by cracker firing as reported by the departments concerned are as follows. The police received reports of only nine incidents. Three were of public brawls over cracker firing, two of burns to children, three of crackers causing damage inside buildings and one of nuisance to women in the streets. Thirty-six cases of injury from crackers were treated as out-patients at the hospital. There were two ambulance calls but one of these was probably not due to cracker injury. There were eight fire calls. In four of these, serious fires could have developed, and in the other four there was no risk. I am satisfied, Sir, that the police took such precautions as were possible to deal promptly with incidents involving danger to person or property.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the widespread public concern in this matter, will the Chief Secretary give an assurance that Government will take very careful steps to see that hooliganism does not take place during the traditional firing of crackers in future?

Sir, we shall certainly do all that we can to prevent the traditional firing of crackers on this festival being used as an occasion for violence and disorder by hooligans, but I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me when I say that the question of limiting nuisance over this festival must depend very largely on a sense of responsibility by members of the public, particularly parents, and on the cooperation of the public in seeing that the proprieties are observed.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he will make available to the English-reading public of Singapore by public subscription the Information Services' Daily Digest of Non-English Press.

Sir, the request to make the Daily Digest generally available to the public raises a number of problems which I have not yet had the time to resolve, and I regret, therefore, that I am not yet in a position to give the hon. Member an answer to his question. I will, however, inform him as soon as a decision has been reached.

Will the Chief Secretary give some indication as to the probable period when he may be in a position to inform me of what his decision is?

I am sorry, Sir, that the Member for Cairnhill should imply that I am not making a serious attempt to give an answer. I hope to give him an answer within a fortnight.

Thanks.

asked the Chief Secretary: (i) to state the total amount of professional fees earned by each of the following medical specialists: surgeons, ophthalmic surgeon, orthopaedic surgeon, radiologists, ear, nose and throat surgeon, pathologists, physicians and gynaecologists and obstetricians, whether employed by Government or by the University, for each of the years 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956; (ii) what amount of the fees earned in each case is retained by the medical specialist mentioned above, and what amount is paid to the Government or to the University; and the basis of allocation of those fees.

Sir, this information is regarded as confidential since it is supplied by the officers concerned on the strict understanding that it is kept confidential. The amount of fees earned to be retained by the officer concerned is governed by Regulation 27 of the Fees (Public Officers) Regulations, 1951 which were published as Council Paper No. 26 of 1954.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that there is great public concern at the fact that it is reputed that some of these specialists earn, with the use of public equipment, specialists' fees in the region of $70,000, $80.000 and $90,000 a year?

Sir, I am not aware of such public concern.

If the Chief Secretary knows that these figures are true, would he not be concerned that such fees are being earned with the use of public equipment and public funds?

No, Sir. I cannot accept the implication that the specialist officers in Government employment earn fees which are out of proportion to their specialist knowledge and skill, or out of proportion to the earnings of the medical profession in private practice.

Is the Chief Secretary aware that, in the case of a large number of local men who are specialists, they were trained to be specialists at enormous public expense?

We are getting into a debate. That is not allowed. The hon. Member will have an opportunity, perhaps on the Adjournment or some other occasion, to raise the point.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the chest physicians and the radiologists of Tan Tock Seng Hospital and T.B. Clinic, the Medical Superintendent of Trafalgar Home, and the Medical Superintendent and Physiologist of Woodbridge Hospital, are Medical Specialists, and what is the total amount of professional fees earned by each of these Medical Specialists for each of the years 1955 and 1956.

Sir, the chest physicians and radiologists of the Tan Tock Seng Hospital, and the Medical Superintendents of the Trafalgar Home and Woodbridge Hospital are specialists. There is no physiologist at the Woodbridge Hospital. The amount of fees earned by each officer is again based on the confidential returns made.

Will the Chief Secretary agree to a special committee to investigate this matter and make a report to this Assembly?

Sir, perhaps I should tell the hon. Member that we are already engaged in reviewing the present regulations governing the retention and earning of fees by these specialists. I do not want to imply, when I say that, that there is any question or any suggestion that these officers - many of whom are very distinguished members of their profession - are earning fees which are out of proportion. But there are a number of unsatisfactory features about the present regulations. One, for example, is the discrepancy between the fees earned by officers of comparable distinction in different branches of the profession, and we are now, and have been for some time, engaged in a review of these regulations with a view to revising them.

Is the committee that the Chief Secretary has referred to aware that the Municipal Analyst was earning $5,000 a month in fees until the City Council decided to abolish the right to collect fees?

I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. Member whether the committee is aware of that.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing when titles to the land now occupied by persons under Temporary Occupation Licence in the Bedok Settlement will begin to be issued.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Survey Department is already surveying the Bedok region according to present occupation and, on completion of this work and agreement on occupation boundaries, title plans will be prepared for the issue of leases.

Is the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing aware of the urgent demand of the occupiers of the land? If so, can he give an early date when the titles will be issued?

We will give every consideration to hasten the work in progress now.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing what steps is the Government taking to supply the following facilities to the residents of Sembawang Rural District: (a) street lighting and electricity for private houses between the 11th milestone and 15th milestone Sembawang Road; (b) more public water standpipes for the District.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the City Council is about to lay a cable and establish a sub-station at the 13th mile, Sembawang Road, which will make it possible for the Rural Board to consider the provision of street lighting where it is needed and for houses in that vicinity to apply for domestic supplies. The answer to the second part of the question is that the Rural Board is already considering the installation of two new standpipes and the re-siting of three existing standpipes, and also the installation of two others, one at the 13th milestone and the other at the 15th milestone Sembawang Road.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing what steps is the Government taking to ensure that more and cheaper houses will be built for ordinary working-class people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 4 of the White Paper on housing subsidy policy which was tabled at the last sitting of the Assemb1y.

asked the Minister for Education whether he is aware of the public opinions expressed on the Grant-in-Aid Regulations, 1957, and whether he proposes to make amendments to the Regulations to meet them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to the question is yes. I am aware of criticisms of grant-in-aid regulations from certain quarters, but so far I have received very few constructive proposals. These, for the most part, have involved only minor changes to remove possible causes of misunderstanding, and I have already promised that these changes will be made at an early date. I would add that the regulations are designed primarily to protect the interests of pupils and their parents, and to ensure that public funds are wisely and properly accounted for.

The target date set by the Minister to permit Chinese schools to apply for the full grant-in-aid is April 1. In view, however, of the important amendments promised now by the Minister, can he give an indication of when the final target date will be?

I have already indicated, Sir, that I will make the changes to the regulations which might cause misunderstanding, and these changes will certainly be made before April 1.

asked the Minister for Education whether he is aware that parents who registered and expected their children to be in a certain English-language school found that their children had to go to other schools far away from their homes; and if he will state the reasons therefor.

Sir, I am not sure what school the Member for Bukit Panjang is referring to. There are, however, certain areas where the demand for places in schools greatly exceeds the number of places available. It has therefore been necessary to direct some of the children to schools further from their homes than I should like. I have already made a public statement expressing my regret for any inconvenience caused, and my readiness to do what I could to remove any avoidable difficulty or to alleviate the worst hardships. But the basic trouble is that in areas like Pearl's Hill, there are not nearly enough schools for all the children, and few sites on which more schools can be built. I am doing what I can to improve the situation but no quick solution is possible.

asked the Minister for Education to state the number of children of both sexes who now cannot go to school at all on account of the difficulties of transport and of expense involved in having to go to schools far away from their homes.

Sir, I am sorry I cannot give the Member for Bukit Panjang an accurate answer to this question. However, children who could not be accommodated in schools in the densely populated urban districts were directed to suburban schools, and it is known that some 1,600 places which were there made available have not been taken up. There are several reasons for this. First, the distance is too great for the very young children concerned. Second, the parents could not afford the cost of transport. Third, they had applied for places in other schools aided or private which they had subsequently accepted, without informing the Government or the Ministry. And, fourth, they had already been posted to schools nearer their homes.

asked the Minister for Education whether he is aware that there is a large number of over-age pupils of both sexes who were not allowed to sit for the Common Entrance Examination for Secondary Schools last year and who are now unable, although eager, to continue their academic study; and what does he propose to do about them.

Yes, last year the Ministry organised special evening classes for pupils from primary schools who were unable to find places in secondary schools. More of these classes have been started this year. For further information about them, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 8th February last year to the Member for Tanglin (Mr John Ede).

asked the Minister for Education to explain the Government's policy on Malay Secondary Education and the reason for the delay in replying to the Memorandum submitted by the Malay Education Council in August 1955.

The policy governing Malay secondary education has been explained in the Malay Education Council at a meeting between the Hon. the Chief Minister and representatives of the Malay Education Council, at which meeting the Member for Sembawang was present. A reply has also been given by the Chief Minister to the Malay Education Council.

asked the Minister for Health whether the Government is taking any steps to establish an out-patient department at the newly built Sembawang Maternity and Child Welfare Clinic at 14th milestone Sembawang Road.

No, Sir.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works whether and when telephone lines will be extended up to l4¾ milestone Sembawang Road.

A new telephone exchange to be built in the Nee Soon area is now in the planning stage. It is expected that the exchange and its associated cable network will be ready for service by January 1959. This new cable network will include the extension to which the hon. Member refers.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the encouragement of the tourist trade, on the contents of the New Zealand expert's report, and on whether it is intended to carry out the latter's recommendations.

Sir, the report is now under consideration and I am therefore not in a position to make a statement yet, but hon. Members may perhaps have read in the newspapers that the Pacific Area Travel Association has agreed to Singapore as the venue for the 1959 conference.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of what the Minister said regarding the meeting of this Association in Singapore in 1959, and in view of the spadework needed before this conference, will he consider the immediate secondment of a whole-time officer to give full attention to this matter and to take up the task of setting up the tourist bureau?

Sir, in view of the fact that the report is now under consideration, I cannot give any such assurance now. The matter will be fully considered when the report comes up for Government's decision.

Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members will recall my repeated assurances to this House that Government is constantly alert to the possibilities of improving our trading relations with our neighbour, Indonesia. I am happy to announce, Sir, that the Indonesian Government has now agreed to free trade channels to Indonesia for 30 per cent counter-exports originating from Singapore in part payment for produce imports from barter areas. Hitherto, such exports had to revert solely to the barter areas. Now, local merchants may supply up to two-thirds of their counter-export commitments direct to the following Indonesian main ports in the form of rice, building materials, tools, machinery, transport items and so on. The ports are Belawan, Padang, Palembang, Tanjong Priok, Semarang, Surabaya, Macassar, Bandjermassin and Pontianak. The remainder one-third of export commitments may revert half as rice and half as building materials to the usual barter areas. This long-pressed-for relaxation of control over destinations for 30 per cent counter-exports has been welcomed in local trade circles which, I understand, feel confident that improved trading relations with Indonesia will result.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer to item 2 on the Order Paper under "Orders of the Day"? Item 2 deals with the Second Reading of the Seamen's Registry Board Bill. I am afraid, Sir, I will have to move that this Bill should be withdrawn because the long title of the Bill, as put in by me at last month's sitting, it seems, does not give sufficient indication of the intentions of the Bill. There are clauses in the Bill which deal with selection and procedure for selection of seamen, and that has not been stated in the long title of the Bill which I introduced last month. Sir, I therefore propose to move that this Bill be withdrawn, and then I propose, on a Certificate of Urgency, to introduce another Bill which is precisely the same except for the long title which has been amended to make it more indicative of the intentions contained in the Bill. Sir, I beg to move, That the Order for Second Reading of this Bill be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.

I second it.

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

Sir, I have here a Certificate of Urgency signed by His Excellency the Governor to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to incorporate the Seamen's Registry Board and to make provision for and to regulate the registration, engagement and selection for engagement of seamen." Certificate of Urgency handed in

The Certificate is in order. Please proceed.

Sir, I beg to present a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to incorporate the Seamen's Registry Board and to make provision for and to regulate the registration, engagement and selection for engagement of seamen". Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Immediately after item 1 on the "Orders of the Day", Sir.

Are typed copies of the Bill available?

Yes, Sir, they are. Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

" to consolidate and amend the law relating to education and the registration of schools", presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 24th April, 1957, and to be printed.

"to amend the Singapore Polytechnic Ordinance (Chapter 204 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 24th April, 1957, and to be printed.

"to amend the Pawnbrokers Ordinance (Chapter 195 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary (Mr M. P. D. Nair); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 24th April, 1957, and to be printed.

10.30 am. Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor to proceed with this Bill, and I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill, Sir, proposes the introduction of light dues to be paid by shipping using the port of Singapore, and the establishment of a Light Dues Fund which will be administered by a Light Dues Board. In Singapore at present, no light dues are charged and, as a result, the Colony budget has to bear the cost of the maintenance of lighthouses, flashing beacons and light buoys. It has also to meet the salaries, allowances, cost of uniforms and rations for lighthouse personnel, together with other similar items attributable to shipping lights. However, in the Federation of Malaya, Hong Kong and the British territories in Borneo, as well as in all other major ports of the world, shipping is made to pay for these services by the payment of light dues. The Allen Report on the Major Ports of Malaya which was published in 1950 advocated that the cost of providing these navigational aids should be charged to shipping in the form of light dues. The shipowners have indicated - though reluctantly, I must confess - that they have no objections. The scale of fees proposed in the Schedule to this Bill has been carefully assessed in relation to the services provided and the cost, so that the fees are kept down to as low a figure as possible. For the sake of comparison, Sir, I may mention that whereas in the Federation the fees are ten cents per net registered ton, our scale is only two cents per net registered ton for ships working cargo, and one cent for ships calling in for bunkers, etc. Also, in order that the dues may not throw an undue burden on ships calling very often, the collection of dues has been restricted to a maximum of ten times per year per ship. Provision has also been made for the exemption of fishing boats, small craft, Singapore Government ships and ships of war, and an annual rate has been fixed for Singapore registered ships. It is estimated that if light dues are introduced on the scale proposed in the Schedule to this Bill, the money to be collected and paid into the Light Dues Fund will amount to $414,000 per annum. The Fund will be devoted solely to the maintenance and improvement of light and navigational aids. The Light Dues Board will consist of the Master Attendant as Chairman, and six members to be appointed by me, and I propose to give adequate representation to shipping interests. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I move, That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

I second it.

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

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

Sir, I move, At page 1, line 6, after the full stop, to insert the figure "-

The hon. Member can only move one amendment at a time, but in moving the first amendment he can always refer, of course, to connected amendments. So will he please move the first amendment, to start off with?

Sir, since I have given the reasons for all the amendments. I now move the first amendment, At page 1, line 6, after the full stop to insert the figure "-

That, as I have indicated, opens a debate on the other two amendments in the notice paper before hon. Members. Question. "That the figure proposed to be inserted, be there inserted." put, and agreed to.

Sir, I move, At page 1, to leave out lines 13 to 17.

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

Sir, I move, At page 2, after line 6, to insert the following new sub-clause (2) : "(2) The tonnage in this Ordinance referred to means the net tonnage: Provided that in the case of a ship whose net registered tonnage has not been ascertained, the gross tonnage shall be deemed to be the net registered tonnage." Question. "That the new sub-clause proposed to be inserted, be there inserted." put, and agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5-

Sir, I move, At page 2, line 37, after the words "of the", to insert the word "light". The reason is simple, Sir. It is better to refer to "light dues" throughout in order to avoid doubt. Question. "That the word proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 6 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule -

Sir, I move, At page 4, lines 1, 2, 4 and 5, to leave out the words "net registered" in each case. The reason, Sir, is that the reference to net registered tons in the Schedule is wrong. It should be only to tons as in the Schedule to the Merchant Shipping Ordinance. Question. "That the words proposed to be left out in each case, be left out." put, and agreed to. The Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

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

Third Reading, what day?

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

Sir, I second it.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 10.42 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor to proceed with this Bill. Sir, I therefore move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the lot of the seamen in this region is a hard one. Not only has a seaman to work hard for a living but also, by the very nature of his occupation, he has to face stretches of unemployment on shore when he has finished serving articles on a ship, not knowing when he will be offered employment on another. In addition to this occupational uncertainty, he has in the past been the victim of unscrupulous ghaut serangs, who have fattened themselves on this unfortunate type of workers. These ghaut serangs were agents who were licensed to supply seamen, and who charged fees from seamen for this service. In order, Sir, to eliminate the ghaut serangs, the Government of this Colony set up a Seamen's Registration Bureau entirely under governmental control in 1948. Legislation was passed setting up a Bureau for the registration of seamen and apprentices to the sea, at which they could make application for employment, and to which notifications of vacancies could be sent. The legislation also made it an offence to engage seamen, except in an emergency, other than through the Bureau, This amending legislation also constituted a Seafarers' Administration Board with an independent Chairman, three members nominated by the shipowners and three by the Seamen's Union. The Board was to act purely as an advisory board, to give advice to the Master Attendant on the procedure of registration and the working of the Board, and to advise the Governor on matters arising out of the working of the Bureau. This Board never functioned smoothly or effectively from its inception and became hamstrung from March 1950, when vacancies in its membership were not replaced. From then on, it became moribund and shipowners and unions have never been able to offer their services or their advice on the working of the Bureau in matters which affect them vitally. The Bureau therefore continued to function entirely under the Master Attendant, with the result that it came under a great deal of criticism, especially from the unions, on the score that though a Register of Seamen was maintained, it was rendered ineffective because unemployed seamen were not offered employment according to the dates of their applications for employment, and because of the practice of pre-selection by masters of ships through their own agents. There has been bitter criticism of partiality and favouritism in the selection of crews by masters or agents. It has been said that though the ghaut serang system has been abolished certain individuals were able to set themselves up in a favourable position to the detriment of those seamen who did not co-operate with those individuals. An enquiry commission was appointed in January 1950 to look into the working of the Seamen's Registration Bureau, the method of engagement of seamen, the constitution and duties of the Seafarers' Administration Board, the practice of pre-selection and the legality of the division of the roster of unemployed seamen into two parts, one for deep-sea seamen and the other for local ships. This commission reported in January 1951 but no major changes were recommended and no action was taken by the authorities on this report. Then, Sir, into this confusion stepped in the newly appointed Minister for Commerce and Industry, my predecessor, Mr David Marshall, and, as a result of his intervention-

Order. The Hon. Minister has probably forgotten himself. He cannot refer to a Member by name.

I am sorry, Sir. Into this confusion stepped the Member for Cairnhill, my predecessor, and, as a result of his intervention, an ad hoc committee was appointed by the Government in April 1955 to examine the working of the Seamen's Registration Bureau in the light of its experience since the commission's report. This Bill that is now before hon. Members mainly follows the recommendation made by this committee, except for a portion of the procedure set out for the engagement of seamen. The intention of the Bill is to incorporate a Seamen's Registry Board - on which will be represented in equal numbers, representatives of Government, shipowners and seafarers, under an independent chairman. This Board will in future be responsible to the Minister for Commerce and Industry for the registration of seamen at the Registry Board, and for their selection for employment according to the procedure laid down in the Bill. As it is the intention of Government that the Board will eventually be independent of Government, it is thought fit to set it up under a separate Ordinance rather than by an amendment of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance. The main duty of the Board will be to establish and maintain one or more registers of seamen and, in its discretion, to limit its or their size by various qualifying requirements, so as to create a balanced labour market which will serve not only the needs of the shipping industry, but also, at the same time, ensure that there will be reasonable continuity of employment for all registered seamen in Singapore. The procedure for engagement, Sir, set out in the Bill will guarantee to ship-owners reasonable freedom of choice of crew, and to the seamen concerned reasonable freedom of choice of ship. This will not only overcome the grounds of criticism that the present Bill is subjected to, but will also fully accord with the resolution adopted at the international Labour Organisation's Asian Maritime Conference in Nuwara Eliya, Ceylon, in October 1953, at which the Government of this Colony was represented. For the information of hon. Members, I may add that this conference was gravely concerned with the malpractices prevalent in the recruitment of seamen in a number of Asian countries, and recommended a solution on lines similar to what the present Bill proposes. A reasonable freedom of choice of crew by the shipowner means that his choice of crew should not be unlimited. To this end, it is provided in clause 5 (2) (b) that, if a shipowner fails to select any registered seaman, or selects less than the number he requires from the names of registered seamen put forward for selection according to the priority on the Register, the shipowner will be given only one further opportunity to make or complete his selection from a second list of names of registered seamen next in order of priority on the Register. Clause 5 of the Bill introduces the principle of a strict roster for the selection of seamen by shipowners with a view to their employment. This provision is, likely to be very strongly resisted by shipowners for reasons which hon. Members may guess themselves. On the other hand, it is a provision on which the unions will not compromise under any circumstances. I therefore repeat again, Sir, that the advantage of the strict roster system laid down in the Bill is that it will do away with favouritism by shipowners' selectors and lay at rest for ever the charge by unionists of favouritism by the Registration Bureau officials. It will also give all registered seamen a fair chance of finding employment. The Bill requires all selection of seamen with a view to employment to be made by responsible employees of the shipowner or agent, or by the Secretary of the Board, and, in the case of foreign vessels, by consular officials approved by the Board to act as selectors. These selections have to be made at the Board's office. Seamen who are re-engaged within a period of seven days for service on the same ship will not be required to present themselves for selection through the Seamen's Registry Board, but with one very important proviso, and that is provided that these re-engagements are limited to a maximum period of four years on the same ship. This limitation of the period of service of a seaman on the same ship to a maximum of four years is necessary to enable the other seamen on the Register to have a reasonable chance of finding employment. Seamen who come from territories other than the Federation of Malaya intending to join ships in Singapore will not be required to present themselves for selection at the Registry Board, provided that before their arrival in the Colony they have signed articles. This provision is necessary to ensure that foreign seamen are not given opportunities of seeking employment in Singapore without being required to comply with the procedure laid down in the Bill, and to protect local registered seamen from unfair competition by foreign seamen in the matter of employment. Seamen who are left behind in the Colony and who have applied for engagement with a view to their being sent out of the Colony are not required to be selected in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Bill. The reason for this is obvious. In addition, Sir, the Bill gives the Minister the power to make rules for the carrying out of the objects of the Ordinance, and also gives the Board power to make regulations after consulting the Minister to enable the Board to carry out its functions under the Ordinance. Sir, I am sure that this legislation will be welcomed not only by all the Members of this House, but also by the ship-owners and the unions. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we support this Bill. The Minister for Commerce and Industry has recited in his speech the fact that the unions have made charges of malpractices in the old Registration Bureau. The tone in which he recited them in this House implied that they were baseless and without foundation, that these charges were in fact untrue. But I think the number of seamen that have sought help from their unions and are left without redress because of the completely arbitrary way in which the Master Attendant could operate the roster, has led to a great deal of dissatisfaction in the past. We therefore welcome, and the unions welcome, the fact that the method of selection will now be laid down in the Ordinance itself, in other words, the margin of discretion to whoever operates the roster is reduced to the barest minimum, and the reasonable choice offered the employer will be one which will mean that, whilst he is still given the freedom of choice, he will not be in a position to select those whom he desires but who are well down the roster. It is true that when the Registration Bureau was first instituted, it got rid of the evil of the ghaut serangs, and I was glad to hear the Minister speak of them in derogatory terms. People like Mr Abdul Majid, founder-member of the Labour Party and one-time President of the Labour Party, he was a ghaut serang, and quite rightly they have now been assigned to oblivion. We hope that with this new Registration Bureau the seamen will get a fairer deal. But I think the Minister is aware that there is one very thorny problem to which the unions have not found an answer; that is the declared intention of the Government to reduce the roster. As I understand it, there are no less than 20,000 on this roster, and it is proposed to reduce it to some 10,000. I do not say that, on principle, it is bad to reduce the roster if, in fact, there are innumerable persons on the roster who are no longer seamen, who either through sickness, infirmity or old age, or personal inclination, have given up the sea as an occupation. But what are these tests, what are the yardsticks, which will decide whether or not a man remains on the roster, is entitled to get a job, or whether he is struck off the roster and is forever debarred from going to sea to earn his living? Unless consultation takes place with the unions beforehand, and methods of selection or criteria of selection are agreed upon, there is bound to be a great deal of dissatisfaction and a great deal of trouble even before the roster is settled. That, of course, does not in any way detract from the merits of the Bill, but I do ask the Minister to bear in mind the fact that unless he can get the unions to feel that the roster has been properly settled, there will be no end of trouble over the roster itself.

Sir, I take pleasure in supporting this measure which is yet another to the credit of the Government in seeking to protect the seamen of Singapore, who in the past have been in a completely hopeless state, bludgeoned by a powerful organisation of shipowners wholly responsible for the malpractices of which we have heard in the selection of seamen. I am glad to see some further measure of protection for this group. The Bill is a fairly well thought out one, and I am happy to learn that the Opposition is supporting it. But I would like to draw the attention of the Minister responsible to the need for investigating the possibilities of applying sanctions to shipping which seek at present to avoid engaging our seamen - which they have been doing traditionally - and going abroad, to Karachi or Calcutta, for their needs. I know that the issues raised by that problem are of a far wider character, but they must be tackled, and I hope that this Assembly will, in the not distant future, hear more from the Minister. In the meanwhile, Sir, I would like, as a citizen, to express my appreciation of a measure in the right direction. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose-

In reply?

In reply, Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar stated that I recited the allegations hurled at the Seamen's Registration Bureau in tones which implied that I thought the allegations were baseless and without foundation. Sir, in the absence of definite proof of favouritism and partiality, I cannot definitely state that it did exist, but I must say clearly here, Sir, that I have been unhappy with the working of the Bureau - and so has been my predecessor - and that is why the whole purpose of appointing this ad hoc committee to go into the working of the Bureau shows that both of us have been unhappy over the way the Bureau has been functioning. As an outcome of that unhappiness, this Bill is the result. Now, Sir, I must warn this House that the principle proposed in the Bill has wide implications. The shipowners have told me that if the roster system is insisted upon, they will feel free to recruit seamen elsewhere, for example, in Hong Kong, which is one of our competitors for the supply of seamen. Therefore, I am proposing, Sir, that this Bill should go to a Select Committee. I do hope that this Committee will consider the Bill quickly and report back before the next sitting of the Assembly, so that we can have the measure passed as quickly as possible. The other point that was raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar was the reduction of the roster from 20,000 to 10,000, and his query about what tests are to be applied in the selection of names to be put on the roster. The tests to be applied, Sir, I leave entirely to the Board. Clause 4, paragraph (b) of the Bill, on page 3, states: "The duties of the Board shall be . . ."; then paragraph (b) "... upon application by a person desiring to be registered as a seaman and upon his satisfying the prescribed qualifications to enter his name in the appropriate register and issue him with a registration card;". These qualifications will therefore have to be worked out by the Board, on which the unions' representatives will be present in equal number to the representatives of shipowners and the Government. Roughly, Sir, I can say that the present roster contains more than 20,000 names - in fact, about 25,000, if I am not mistaken - and possibly if a new register is opened, we may find that probably 10,000 of these may not register because they have found other employment, or some of them have died, shifted and so on. Many of them are not traceable at the moment. This fact alone may mean a reduction of about 10,000 names when the new register is being compiled. Further, the Board will conduct a medical test, and it may find that a few thousand more seamen may not be medically fit to be registered. This is a matter for the Board to decide. The question raised by the Member for Cairnhill, Sir, about sanctions to be applied to ships which avoid recruiting seamen here and going to Calcutta or Karachi to do so - the main competitor against us for the supply of seamen is Hong Kong, not so much Calcutta or Karachi. This is a question which is very difficult to answer because you cannot force a foreign-registered ship - say, one registered in Britain or the Netherlands or Panama - to take on seamen here. Singapore is just one of the ports of call of such a ship and if we insist that any ship calling here must take on seamen here, India will insist on the same thing, and so will Indonesia. I do not think we can do anything about this.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee with Mr Speaker as Chairman and five Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

I second it.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 11.05 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill amends Section 44 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance in order to ensure X-ray and medical examination of registered seamen before each of them is engaged. These medical examinations are distinct from the X-ray medical examination provided for in the Seamen's Registry Board Bill which I moved just now and under which persons must successfully undergo a medical examination before they are qualified to be registered as seamen. The medical examination prescribed in this Bill will be required prior to each engagement of a seaman, to ensure that he is in a good state of health and free from disease when he signs on a ship. There is provision in the Bill for the establishment of a panel of medical practitioners approved by the Minister for Health to examine seamen before engagement. Power is also given to the Minister for Health to prescribe the fees to be charged for the examination. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Committee stage, what day?

24th April, Sir.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.07 a.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, I think it is common knowledge to Members of this House that we are making arrangements to hold a census in June. During the course of making those arrangements and completing the plans to take the census, a number of points have come to notice on which it is considered desirable to amend the Census Ordinance. As a result, Sir, this Bill is now before the Assembly. The purpose of the amendments is set out in some detail in the Explanatory Note and I shall not take up the time of the House in going through them in detail. Very briefly, they first of all bring the Ordinance up to date by providing that reports should come to this Assembly and by transferring to the appropriate Minister certain powers now exercised by the Government. Secondly, there is a new provision to enable further abstracts to be taken from the census reports for use in welfare and other research projects. And, lastly, there is a new provision which is contained in the Schedule which specifies the particulars which may be sought from the population during the census. At the present moment, our Ordinance gives full power to the Governor in Council to lay down such particulars as they think fit. We shall now, in this Schedule, limit the field within which questions may be asked. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.10 a.m.

Sir, I am a little unhappy about item 6 in the Schedule. It seems to me that it is extremely widely phrased, and that provisions of the Schedule-

Order. Perhaps the Member can best raise that point in Committee.

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

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I move, That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

I second it.

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

Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6-

Sir, I move an amendment as set out in the Order Paper, that is At page 2, line 36, to leave out the words "require the Superintendent of Census to". The purpose of that amendment, Sir, is to delete the reference to the Superintendent of Census because it is possible that the post of Superintendent of Census will not be filled after a census has been taken, and it is better, therefore. to leave it to the Minister to obtain the extracts from the Statistics Department.

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

Sir, I move a further connected amendment, At page 2, line 39, to leave out the words "by him".

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." put, and agreed to. Question proposed, "That clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Is the Hon. the Chief Secretary aware that Section 17 of the Census Ordinance now requires amendment in view of the amendments he has now made to clause 16? This comes from making hurried amendments. Section 17 says: "Any census officer and any person employed by the Superintendent of Census in the preparation of the abstracts to be made by him under the last preceding section-". Sir, this can no longer apply because we are not referring to the person employed by the Superintendent of Census in the preparation of abstracts to be made by him. I may be wrong, Sir. I have looked through the Ordinance very quickly - I have had no notice of this - and it may well be, Sir, that the Minister in charge of the Bill would like to defer consideration of the Committee stage to a later date, in view of the amendments, and to seek assistance from the Attorney-General's Department as to whether any consequential amendments may be required to other sections of the Ordinance.

The matter certainly does not arise under the present Bill, except incidentally. I take it that the Hon. the Chief Secretary will take note of it, unless he wishes to say anything?

I only wish to refute the suggestion that this Bill has been hurriedly drafted. Question "That clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7-

On the Schedule, Sir, it seems to me that under item 6, being as it is, the citizen may be compelled to give information of an extremely personal and confidential character. The words are: "Any other information with respect to which it is desirable to obtain statistical information with a view to ascertaining the social or civil condition of the population." I think I know what is intended but I was wondering, Sir, whether the Hon. the Chief Secretary would consider eliminating the extremely wide wording of this particular part of the Schedule.

Is the Member moving an amendment?

No, Sir. I am just drawing the attention of the Chief Secretary to the extremely wide character of this particular aspect of the Schedule. Question proposed, "That clause 7 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, if the Hon. the Chief Secretary will assure the Member for Cairnhill that he is not proposing to carry out a Kinsey Report, a copy of which I once saw at the Member for Cairnhill's bungalow by the sea, I am sure the Member for Cairnhill will be quite happy, and so will we.

Sir, unlike the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Tanjong Pagar, I am not familiar with the Kinsey Report, but I can explain that the drafting of this item 6 in the Schedule has been based on the following consideration. The present position, as I said in moving the motion, is that the law imposes no restriction whatsoever on the type of particulars which may be asked in the census. We gave thought to specifying in this Schedule some limits within which the questions might be asked. We do not, of course, intend - nor is it practical - to hold a census of the whole population of Singapore, to ask questions of too intimate detail. But the census, inevitably, of course, does ask questions which could be described as of a personal and a confidential character. For example, one of the kind of questions is to ask a person whether he is now widowed or divorced, and he might well maintain that that was his private business. But to get back to the wording of clause 6, which I think is the one which causes some concern, we took a look, Sir, at legislation in other places, and we took a look at the corresponding legislation in Ceylon. There, the limit is referred to as relating to the social, civil and economic conditions of the population. We thought, Sir, that that went too far, that the primary purpose of census information was much more concerned with welfare conditions than with economic. We then turned to the United Kingdom Act, and the words which appear in this Schedule are taken from the United Kingdom Act. It is truly wide but I do not think there is any reason to expect that it will be abused here in Singapore, and I would again remind the House that there is a very severe limit on the type and the detail of questions which can be asked in a whole population census. Inevitably, the questions have to be limited to very simple questions which can almost be answered with a "yes" or "no", and there is a limit, a practical limit, to the number of questions which we can ask. I feel, Sir, that I can, with confidence, commend to the House the use of this phrase which has been used in the United Kingdom for some years.

Question, "That clause 7 stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

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

Third Reading, what day?

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

I second it.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 11.22 a.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Civil Law Ordinance which this Bill is designed to amend provides, generally, in section 12, that a claim for damages may be made for the benefit of the family of a deceased person where his death has been caused by the wrongful act, neglect or fault of another. And that section, Sir, goes on to provide that a claim of that kind must be brought within 12 months of the date of death. Sir, the Ordinance also provides that where the deceased has an executor or administrator, and no action for damages has been brought by the executor or the administrator for the benefit of the family of the deceased within six months of the date of death, such an action can be brought by any of the members of the family of the deceased, on whose behalf the executor or administrator might have sued. Sir, the period of 12 months to which I have referred is considered to be too short, and it is proposed by this Bill to extend that period of 12 months to one of three years. Sir, if that amendment is made, the result would be that this provision of our law will be brought into line with the corresponding legislation of the United Kingdom on which this particular part of our law is based. In the United Kingdom, Sir, I think it was in 1954 that the period of 12 months was extended to one of three years by an amendment to the United Kingdom law. Another effect, Sir, of extending this period from one of 12 months to one of three years will be to make the period of limitation in cases of this kind the same as that which applies in the case of actions for damages for personal injury. With regard to the period of six months to which I referred a moment ago, that is the period within which the members of a family cannot sue if there is an executor or administrator of the deceased, with regard to that period, this also is considered to be somewhat too short. This is because it not infrequently happens that more than six months elapse before letters of administration are issued, and until then the administrator cannot bring any action. As I have said, Sir, the amendment proposed by the Bill is to increase that period from one of six months to a period of one year. I do not think, Sir, that there is anything which I can usefully add to what I have said about this Bill. It is a very short measure but I think Members would like to know that it has the support of the legal profession in Singapore. I would also like to say that I am indebted to the Member for Cairnhill who, a little while ago, suggested to me that it was time that our law was amended on the lines I have indicated. I hope, Sir, that this measure will be acceptable to hon. Members on both sides of this House, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second time. Question proposed. 11.26 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I heartily support this Bill. It will be a very dreadful thing if the person who suffered a loss in his family through accident is unable to claim compensation because of one year's limitation and the fault was due to some negligence of his executor or ignorance of the members of his family. I say that this amendment is long overdue, and we on this side offer our strongest support.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as you are no doubt aware, this is an amendment I had hoped to introduce and I am very happy the Government has adopted it and improved it. It arises from the realisation that in this colony there are many who are not literate in the English language and who are not conscious of their rights, and it is only many months after the death of a member of a family due to the negligence of some other person that members of the family of the deceased are made conscious of their right to claim damages. It is then often found, Sir, that, due also to the delays in obtaining letters of administration, they are estopped by the provisions of the Civil Law Ordinance from pursuing their claims - quite unnecessarily estopped. There is no magic in the 12 months and in the six months. I say in fairness to insurance companies that quite often they have settled claims although made out of time, but, Sir, the position is an unsatisfactory one where you have to depend on the indulgence of commercial concerns like insurance companies. The amendments here sought merely increase the time so as to give a reasonable time to the dependants of victims of traffic accidents. I do not know whether the learned Attorney-General did mention it, but I think I should add that these amendments have in fact taken place in the English law about three years ago. I am happy to support this Bill. 11.29 a.m.

Sir, it used to be a game among solicitors who appeared for insurance companies to dilly-dally with the inexperienced solicitor who appeared for the poor dependants of the deceased, keep him hoping and waiting until the six months is up and the axe has fallen, and then smartly suggest to the inexperienced solicitor that he had better watch out for a suit for damages for negligence for having allowed the limitation period to elapse. We support this amendment because the man-made law which says that after a year the estate of the person should either sue or not sue is unnecessary. But I am concerned that legislation of this nature has to await the personal initiative, the personal flair of individuals. Our legislation is mainly based on English legislation. Our legislation is usually introduced several years after that legislation on which it is modelled has been working successfully in England. But it seems that that is the end of the matter, In innumerable instances, social conditions change and the law in England is changed to meet changed conditions. But the law in Singapore goes on without any change. Is there no committee, is there no machinery, that keeps the law of Singapore up to date? Take, for instance, the question of contributory negligence and the doctrine of common employment. They were two principles of law which obtained in England and obtained in this Colony. They were iniquitous. The doctrine of common employment said that if you are killed or injured as a result of the negligence of your fellow-worker, who is in common employment with you, then you have no remedy against your employer because you are deemed to have undertaken the risk of injury by that fellow-worker. That doctrine was abolished when the British Labour Party assumed office after the end of the Second World War. But it was not till some seven or eight years later that some enterprising lawyer lobbied the bar and the Attorney-General, and finally got it through in Singapore. But the enterprising lawyer had this interest because he represented many such clients who were often debarred from recovering damages because of this doctrine. I have cited two instances to show that the position is unsatisfactory, that amendments and the bringing of our law up to date should not depend upon spasmodic and haphazard amendments - that there should be some machinery to keep the law all the time up to date. I think it should not be beyond the Attorney-General's Department, in conjunction with the Legal Department of the Colonial Office, to supply Singapore with information on the progress of Bills, Acts of Parliament, that have taken place since those Acts were adopted by the Government. Mr C. H. Butterfield rose-

Mr Attorney-General, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to follow in reply the points raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar on general questions relating to bringing our legislation up to date, but I would like to say this, that I will give full consideration to what he has said. I would like also to add this, that of course so far as I am concerned, I shall always welcome any suggestions which the profession may wish to make through the Bar Committee. I shall welcome suggestions of that kind, and of course they will be of the greatest assistance to me. It can frequently happen, of course, Sir, that the Bar Committee which represents the profession here is frequently in touch with perhaps a number of aspects of legislation which do not come my way, so to speak, and of course in that sort of matter, matters affecting members of the profession, it would be helpful if they would make suggestions to me. But of course this is a little wide of the matter with which we are here concerned, and I do not think that there is any other point which I wish to deal with today.

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 will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Sir, I second it.

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

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

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

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

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to 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.

11.42 a.m.

Sir, I move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 10 of the Public Service Commission Ordinance (No. 41 of 1956), resolves that the remuneration of the Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission shall be as follows:-

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 10 of the Public Service Commission Ordinance (No. 41 of 1956), resolves that the remuneration of the Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission shall be as follows:-

11.45 a.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1,549,428 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 10 of 1957. Sir, the items in the Schedule are explained in the paper and I have nothing to add. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

Committee of Supply, what day?

Now, Sir. Motion and Schedule considered in Committee of Supply.

Schedule

Hon. Members, the summary of totals appears at page 8. Head 6- The sum of $9,370 for Head 6 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 14- Question proposed, "That the sum of $13,210 for Head 14 stand part of the Schedule."

The explanatory note reads: "A supplement of $13,210 is required to pay arrears of expatriation pay to an officer who, owing to a misinterpretation of the regulations, was not considered to be eligible for expatriation pay when it was introduced in August 1947." Sir, this is a most curious little item. We in the Assembly should want to know more of it. How far does it go back? What is this misinterpretation, and how is it that this man is going to get a bounty of $13,210?

As will appear from the Sessional Paper, the story goes back a considerable time. The officer concerned was born in Portuguese India and was serving in Burma in 1923 when he was offered appointment, through the Government of India, in the Gardens Department of the Colony Government as a Field Assistant. He accepted the appointment and served in Singapore until the date of his retirement, I think, in 1952. When the expatriation pay rules were introduced, it was considered - mistakenly - that because he was appointed originally as a Field Assistant, which had subsequently been classified as a Grade III post, he was not eligible for expatriation pay. He petitioned the Government but his application was rejected on the grounds which I have stated. Again he returned to the charge and I am glad to say that the matter was examined carefully and it was clear, on further examination, that he was entitled, without a shadow of doubt, to expatriation pay, and the object of this vote, Sir, is merely to right a wrong which was done in 1947. I feel sure that every Member in this Assembly will support this application for the vote on these grounds.

And regret the delay.

Could we ask whether this man is now re-engaged as a Government pensioner, or whether he has retired and, if so, whether he has retired in Malaya?

I am happy to say, Sir, that the officer made his services available as a re-employed pensioner to the Gardens Department after his retirement. He is still serving with the Gardens Department and we are very glad to have his services. He is at the moment residing in Singapore. Whether or not, on his ultimate retirement from Government, he will return to Portuguese India or not I cannot say.

Is he in receipt of expatriation pay as a monthly employed Government pensioner?

I believe not, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $13,210 for Head 14 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 15- Question proposed, "That the sum of $78,180 for Head 15 stand part of the Schedule."

On a point of clarification, Sir, Item 17 gives the commencing salary of the Information Officer concerned as $560, and items 19, 20 and 21 give the commencing salary of an Assistant Information Officer as $690. I cannot see how it can be for an assistant to receive a commencing salary of $690 whereas a senior officer commences at $560.

This difference, which seems rather an absurdity, Sir, is explained by the fact that in certain cases the officers are put on what we call a long scale which starts at a low salary and works right through a whole period of 15 or 20 years; others are on a short scale which only provides for a limited range. 11.52 a.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, there is considerable addition to the expenditure of the Information Services and I think some explanation is called for. I know we are all conscious of the deficiencies of that organisation in the past, and if it is a question of re-organisation, well, let us hear a little about it, and not merely be presented with this paper. I would like to say that in the past, Sir, the most useful aspect of that organisation that I found was the Daily Digest in English of the vernacular Press - the only opportunity the English-speaking citizens of this country have of knowing what the rest, and the majority, of the population do and what they think, and the only opportunity, more often than not, of refreshing themselves with ideas that are not steeped through with colonialism. Sir, if we have to depend upon the garbage that is dished out in the English Press for inspiration, there would be no men in this country. I ask - I insist, Sir - that an undertaking be given by the Hon. the Chief Secretary that, in return for this additional payment, the Daily Digest of the vernacular Press in the English language issued by the Information Services - the only thing so far which they can be proud of - should be made available to members of the public who are prepared to pay the cost thereof.

The Member for Cairnhill asked for an explanation of the reorganisation of the Information Services. I regret, Sir, that I cannot add anything to the very full explanation which is already given in the Sessional Paper. Anything which I could add would merely be padding-padding of something which has already been said. 11.54 a.m.

Sir, the experience of the past years in the Public Relations Office has shown that there is much room for improvement in the organisation for making Government policy known and for keeping the various Ministries of the Government informed of the trends of public feeling. An organisation for the effective public presentation of its policies and actions is an essential requirement of a modern parliamentary government. The basis for such an organisation in Singapore, Sir, already existed in the Public Relations Officer and his staff working as a department within the portfolio of the Chief Secretary. This instrument, Sir, has not been as effective as desired, mainly for the reason that the title "Public Relations Office" suggested an organisation mainly of a press liaison agency. The duties of the Public Relations Officer have never been defined in detail and there has never been any prescribed contact between the Public Relations Officer and the other Ministries and Departments of the Government. A good public relations organisation, Sir, is much more than a press liaison unit. The public presentation of the Government's policy, if it is to be effective, cannot depend on sporadic campaigns and statements arranged according to the particular needs and events, but requires a continuous effort to obtain an atmosphere, an audience receptive to Government policy. To get this effect, the instrument responsible must be accorded the necessary degree of importance and authority, and be given a corresponding position of trust, and facilities in carrying out that trust. Sir, the re-entitlement of the Public Relations Office to Information Services itself has gone so far to indicate the part it is to play in the Government structure, and would serve to lift the organisation above what is commonly but erroneously thought to be a simple function of the press liaison officer. Sir, the Government has considered all these aspects and recognises the important role to be played by information services in this democratic system of government in Singapore. It regards that there should be adequate funds and staff to meet the needs of this service. The tendency to neglect the information services, Sir, until a moment of crisis, is bad. It is not possible for information services to be an effective instrument overnight. Having considered all these subjects, Sir, the Information Services is now equipped with a Central Translation Bureau, and it is intended that, from now on, the non-English speaking population will be served better than in the past. I can assure the Member for Cairnhill, Sir, that every effort is being made to reorganise and improve even the daily and weekly digests and make them more effective and useful in future.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am a bit confused by all this because before, when the Member for Cairnhill was the Chief Minister, we were so often told that the Information Services were excellent, and they were complimented on many occasions. I remember one particular occasion most distinctly, when I took them to task for doing a lot of things irregularly with a bias in favour of people like Chief Ministers - distributing their speeches and blacking out the Opposition. As I understood it, everything was well and everybody was happy. But it now seems everything was not all well, and even the former Chief Minister was not happy. I am therefore a little bit disturbed by all this uncertainty and doubt. I hope in future we will not be regaled with Ministers who, having stepped down from office, thereupon dispel all the beautiful compliments they had paid while in office.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $78,180 for Head 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 16- The sum of $39,600 for Head 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 18- The sum of $133,180 for Head 18 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 25- The sum of $1,127,143 for Head 25 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 28- The sum of $10 for Head 28 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 50- Question proposed. "That the sum of $49,155 for Head 50 stand part of the Schedule."

Sir, on the first item which reads, "New Subhead-item (1) Director of Legal Aid, Grade F ($1,620)". I would like the Hon. the Chief Secretary to tell us, as I did not have the opportunity to question him during the Budget debate, why this particular post has been graded as F in the Civil Service hierarchy. 12.02 p.m.

In the original report which we had on this question of legal aid, Sir, it was indeed recommended that the post of Director should be, if I recall rightly, Grade D. This recommendation was considered by a committee consisting of representatives of the Ministry of Labour, the Chief Secretary's Office and my own office, and it came to the conclusion that it would be more appropriate, having regard to the duties which will be discharged by the officer holding this appointment, and having regard to the grading of posts in the Legal Service of Singapore, that it would be more appropriate, for the time being, if this post were graded F. The fact that the post has been graded F does not exclude the possibility that, in future, as the duties attached to the appointment grow, and perhaps when a deputy has to be appointed to assist the Director, the post will be upgraded. For the moment, I feel that it would be desirable for the post to be graded F, and hope Members will accept that recommendation, which has been made after most careful consideration. 12.03 p.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am extremely unhappy at this grading. I would like to remind the Minister responsible, and I would also like to remind the Front Bench, that this Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance received the unanimous support of the House, that it was intended that the concepts of justice and the machinery for justice in this country should be made available to all the people in the country. As I see it now, Sir, we have nothing but a head peon with a sub-peon. That is the Department we have created to bring justice to the people of the country and to bring the law to all the villagers. Sir, there is a suggestion that we must depend upon the Bar for the working of the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance. This Ordinance is not a lawyers' aid Ordinance. It is not intended to put money into the pockets of lawyers, although as a lawyer I have no objection to having money being put into my pocket! At the same time let us make it clear that this Ordinance was not intended to assist members of this trade union - who are doing extremely well, thank you! It was intended to bring the law to the people, and they need it. Therefore, to begin with, Sir, unless this country is going to spend fantastic sums of money which it has not got, it has to create a large and efficient department, a public defence department, and it was the intention as I understand it (and I am proud that I was mainly responsible for this Ordinance), it was the intention that the officer-in-charge should have equal status with the Attorney-General. He should have a large, qualified staff. He should have branches in the various parts of the country so that he can give aid and advice. Out of those ambitions and ideals we have nothing but a mouse! I would ask, Sir, how come that this Ordinance, after having gone through the various Civil Service departments, has been whittled down to a farce? We had been promised in November 1956 by the Chief Minister that additional appropriation would be asked for from this House in December 1956 to bring into effect the first part of the Ordinance. These provisions are two months late already. I take it that before they are even in force there will not be a Department of Legal Aid at all. Sir, I view with considerable concern the approach and attitude to this problem. Either we have a Legal Aid Department, or - if that is the intention of the Government let us have it frankly - the whole thing is going to be shelved. But I am quite certain that the present Chief Minister, who as Labour Minister at the relevant time so warmly proposed and carried through the Bill, would not and does not intend to bring about what seem to be the present consequences. It may also be that representations of the Bar Committee are having their effect, not upon the Ministers who are sitting on the Front Bench, but upon other organisations which are responsible for seeking to minimise the stature of the person responsible for this Legal Aid Department and the whole working of the Department, and seeking to nullify it. 12.07 p.m.

Sir, may I clarify just one point? When I supported the Legal Aid and Advice Bill, we did not envisage branches of the Department all over the country, nor did we envisage a competitor to the Attorney-General! I would like to clarify this point because I did not have that in my mind when we passed the Bill. But I do agree with the Member for Cairnhill - even if I cannot say so as vehemently as he has done - that a very serious attempt should be made by the Legal Department to get this machinery going. It is no use telling the people that you have a wonderful democratic machine if you do not offer them the mechanics to operate that machinery for them as and when required. It is also important that we should not call it a Public Defence Department because if we do so the public will soon lose confidence in it. It has been said at the Bar, of course, that if you have one department of the Government prosecuting and can nip around to the other Government department to defend you, the public may think that it is not likely that the Government should want to contradict itself, that it should want to prosecute a man and then get the man whom it is prosecuting off. Therefore the Bar would, in spite of all the effort of this legal aid scheme, still be stuffing their money with pockets - I mean their pockets with money - I get confused when I think of the stories that have been floating around! If you go to see a government lawyer to get you off from a government prosecutor, how would you think you are going to get off? Therefore, I would not dismiss so lightly the representations of the Bar Committee. After all, they do represent 125 members at the Bar who, in spite of the fact that they have financial interests in this Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance, have also considered the matter carefully and have made representations based on the principles upon which the legal aid scheme has been working in England. Sir, I am not speaking on behalf of the Bar Committee but I think the Member for Cairnhill was somewhat unfair when, in the heat of argument, he sloshed at everybody. I do not think the Bar Committee really deserve to be sloshed at in that way. 12.09 p.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Bar Committee has been obstructing free legal aid to my personal knowledge since 1939. I should imagine the Member for Tanjong Pagar was still knee-high to a grasshopper! Sir, if we are to depend upon the Bar for the working of this Ordinance, it would cost us far too much and, consequently, the Ordinance would not work. If we approach it from the practical point of view, Sir, and appoint our own men - and we have some very fine men coming out and practising at the Bar today, youngsters who would do credit to any task assigned to them for the purpose of the practice of the law - I say, Sir, that it can be worked and it can be worked at a moderate fee. As regards the public fears that one government employee would not be able to defend you where another government employee prosecutes, let us remember that in New South Wales, where I first learnt about this system, the Public Solicitor's Office is a flourishing one which is consulted by very considerable numbers who cannot afford to go to a lawyer. The point is not that we should compel people to go and seek advice - if they do not want it they do not have to. The point is that we should try to make available to those who cannot afford to pay for legal consultation. We should make available to them at such cost or without cost, as they may be able to afford, the machinery for enforcing their just rights, and make available to them advice which they may need to understand their rights. By the creation, Sir, of just one individual at $1,620 and an assistant, we do not do so. That is my argument, and I would like to ask now, Sir, for a full explanation as to what is intended under this Legal Aid Ordinance. 12.12 p.m. The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Sir, the meeting has been quiet so far, but now we come to a position where a back-bencher of the Government attacks the Government, and a Member of the Opposition tries to defend the Government!

On a point of order, Sir, I object to being misrepresented in that way. I was defending myself. I do not wish to be misconstrued by any Member in this House, let alone the Member for Cairnhill. I was saying something on behalf of the Bar Committee because it has been unjustly attacked. But let me not carry any of the burdens the Chief Minister has on his shoulders!

Order. I think the Member for Tanjong Pagar called it a point of order. It is not a point of order but appears to be a point of elucidation. The Chief Minister did give way.

I gave way, Sir, because I am in a very friendly mood, even with the Opposition. Sir, when the Opposition said it was trying to say something to defend the Bar Committee it said something that I would have said myself. Sir, the purpose of putting in a request for a vote for the sum in question is to set Part I of the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance in motion. As to the other parts of the Ordinance, I have pointed out at previous sittings that it is because of representations from the Bar Committee, and mainly because of their assurance that they wish to cooperate with this Government in making the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance work, that I feel we should hold more consultations with them. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, Sir, I said that it could only work if we had, the cooperation of the Bar Committee. However, if after discussions with the Bar Committee we are unable to come to a satisfactory solution, the Government will of course have to go ahead with what the Government think is right for the people of Singapore. The Government have not given up hope that the Bar Committee, after expressing their desire to co-operate with the Government, will not come, shall we say, to an amicable solution on the opposition which they have raised. For the operation of Part I of the Ordinance, Sir, it is felt that the posts now to be created under this vote are sufficient. The Department will be set going to have discussions, to work out with the Bar Committee the putting into operation of the other parts of the Ordinance as soon as possible. Members have remarked on the grading of the Director of Legal Aid. In this matter, I gave the assurance that their views on the grading of this post will be duly considered and reviewed by the Government, but I would emphasise that the purpose of this vote is to enable the Government to set the Department going. 12.16 p.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, surely the Hon. the Chief Minister is conscious of the delay, as I have tried repeatedly to explain. For 16 years and more - for 20 years - I have been trying to get the Bar Committee to support some kind of free legal aid. Since 1939, Sir,I have been trying. I had, by the grace of God, to become Chief Minister before I could get anything done. And now, Sir, if we are going to depend upon negotiations with the Bar Committee, are we going to put any time limit to it, or are we going to take another 20 years until they can get a government in power which they would support in order to throw this Ordinance out? How long are we going to wait for the Bar Committee? How long are we going to accept its obstruction or alleged obstruction to the application of a measure necessary for the welfare of the people? Just how long, Sir? 12.17 p.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I have all along consistently supported the Member for Cairnhill in his demand for free legal aid, and I still do so. However, I do not today agree with his approach to this matter. I think that, for this free legal aid scheme to succeed, we will have to depend a great deal on the legal profession. I have been given assurances by some members of the profession that they will support the scheme and I do not think there is any point in antagonising them now. It is true that they have not shown much interest in past years, but this is not to say that they will not do so now. Practice at the Bar has been very lucrative, and I am quite sure that some members of the Bar who have already come to the age of retirement will give their best effort to make this free legal aid scheme work. 12.18 p.m.

Sir, I want to clear certain further doubts that have been raised by the Member for Cairnhill in his tirade against the Bar. I was a grasshopper in 1939 and I did not then know who were the people who so resolutely prevented the previous Chief Minister from carrying out his ambitions with regard to free legal aid. I would remind him, however, that the character of the whole profession is rapidly going through a great change. Whilst in 1939 it was an exclusive white man's preserve, it is now very rapidly, parallel with political developments in the country as a whole, undergoing a change. The Bar is going to be - and we should make it - a local man's Bar. There is therefore no point in going around shaking one's fist, or rattling one's sabre, or brandishing a pen-knife and antagonising 120 members of the profession (and perhaps another 20 more who are awaiting entry) with whom we want to co-operate. We need their assistance to make the machinery work. We must not go around making what I know are unfair accusations. The Bar Committee have not said they will not co-operate with the Government. All they have said is that there are certain aspects of the Ordinance which they do not like, and the Government have said they will listen to the Bar Committee's representations. If in the end, however, the Government wish to push the scheme through, the best the Bar can do is just to let it be. The Bar cannot oppose the Government and they know that. In such a case, however, the Bar could sit back and say: "You work it." That would be another matter and the scheme would then depend on the men you can get into this public legal aid and advice bureau and also the attitude of the Bar. If the general opinion of the Bar is that the bureau is staffed by feeble lawyers who cannot make a living at the Bar, then the whole scheme is stymied from the beginning. There is no point working up all this feeling just because I happened to ask why the post was graded F. I was genuinely curious to know why some Civil Service expert had down-graded this job. I am not usually prone to making pleas for moderation, but we must not be unreasonable if we want to make this legal aid scheme work, as I believe the Member for Cairnhill does want to make it work. I do not have to be convinced as to his sincerity. In fact, he will remember that on one occasion, I think it was in 1952 or 1953, when he was struggling with the then Bar Committee which was governed by expatriates, they appointed him a one-man committee and thereby shelved the problem. But I would remind him that, at the moment, the Bar Committee consist of six local men and one expatriate, who got in only on a re-count. It is a local man's Bar. Every year there are 20 or 30 students returning, and there is no point rattling the sabre at them. Let us make sure, first, that they are really a nasty and selfish lot of people before one rattles the sabre. Let us first try to make them understand that it is in their interests to make the scheme work, that it is in their interests to make the whole legal machinery work efficiently, so that the democratic system can be preserved and they can continue to be lawyers and not garbage collectors. 12.22 p.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, it is a surprise to me to see the Member for Tanjong Pagar suddenly becoming an unofficial representative of the Bar Committee in this House. My sympathies and feelings go out in support of the statement by the Member for Cairnhill. It is time for Government to set up free legal aid offices all over Singapore. We see the P.A.P. has established Party branches all over the island, promising their supporters free legal aid and advice. Why then cannot we support the suggestion of the Member for Cairnhill? It is time the Government pay serious attention to the Legal Aid Department. We need not only one Grade F man to run the Department - we want many more lawyers to help the people solve their difficulties. Sir, to quote one example of such difficulties. After the trouble in October last year, many people were arrested and detained. The family of one of them, who had been ordered to be banished, approached me for help. I brought them to a respectable lawyer, one whom I thought was interested in politics and in helping the people. He demanded $2,000 to appeal on behalf of the detainee. I think it was a shame. I told him the man was very poor but he was firm - "No money, no services." Then, Sir, there was the poor hawker arrested sometime ago for a minor offence who also approached me for help. The lawyer I saw demanded $150, so the hawker told me, "It is better to plead guilty because then the fine will be only $50." Sir, these are some of the difficulties and hardships facing the lower income group and the poor classes, and I think it is high time that Government seriously, and with determination, implement the free legal aid scheme and appoint more lawyers to help the poor.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $49,155 for Head 50 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 46- The sum of $80,500 for Head D 46 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 61- The sum of $37,000 for Head D 61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule.

Turning to the motion, the Question is, "That the sum of $1,549,428 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule stand part of the motion."

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $1,549,428 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the motion.

Sir, I move, That the motion and Schedule be reported to the Assembly.

Question put, and agreed to. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1,549,428 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 10 of 1957, put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1,549,428 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 10 of 1957.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I move that, At its rising today, the Assembly do stand adjourned to 24th April, 1957.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, at its rising today, do stand adjourned to 24th April, 1957.

12.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's consent to move, and do move, That this Assembly approves under the provisions of section 6 of the Singapore Industrial Promotion Board Ordinance, 1957, the allocation of advances to the Singapore Industrial Promotion Board up to but not exceeding the sum of one million dollars for the purpose of enabling the Board to defray expenditure properly chargeable to capital account, including defraying initial expenses, and for the provision of working capital. Members will recall that the Singapore Industrial Promotion Board Ordinance which I moved at last month's sitting came into operation on 25th January, and that the Ordinance was enacted for the purpose of establishing a Board to facilitate the industrial and economic development of the Colony, and to finance by loans industries which need such finances. As stated by me at last month's sitting of the Assembly, the Government intends that the Industrial Promotion Board should have at its disposal a revolving fund to enable loans to be granted to local industrialists to assist them in their schemes to promote or expand local industries. The sum of $1,000,000 should be adequate for the immediate needs of the Board but if further advances should be warranted by the scope of the Board's activities, I shall bring up further requests to Members in the House. Sir, doubts have been expressed as to how the Board is going to judge applications for loans. As mentioned by me last month, section 4 (2) of the Ordinance lays down a general guide for the members of the Board. I shall read section 4 (2) , Sir. It says, "Subject to the provisions of section 7 of this Ordinance, in carrying out the objects provided for in subsection (I) of this section the Board shall have due regard to the economic and commercial merits of any undertaking it promotes, assists, finances or manages and shall also take into consideration in considering such economic and commercial merits, the economic merits of any other undertaking in which it has an interest and the economic requirements of the Colony as a whole." Section 5 (2) , Sir, is also relevant, and it reads, "Whenever the Board shall lend money to or assist financially any undertaking, it shall so far as possible ensure that its loan or financial assistance is not unduly in excess of any loan or capital investment by any other person interested in such undertaking." Beyond this guidance which is laid down in the Ordinance, the members of the Board will have to exercise their own judgment. I am sure they should be good judges because section 9 (1) lays down that besides the Financial Secretary's and my representatives on the Board, the Chairman and two other members should be persons appearing to me to have had experience of, and having shown capacity in, matters relating to banking, finance, industry or trade administration. They will, therefore, be persons of mature experience capable of exercising good judgment in such matters. Consideration, Sir, is now being given to membership of the Board and it is hoped to make the appointments shortly. The Board will then select its own Manager, who will arrange for the formal commencement of its activities. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it. Question proposed. 12.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we approved this: in fact we passed the Ordinance creating the Industrial Promotion Board. But I would like to touch upon a matter on which the Minister has shed some light, namely, the appointment of the Chairman. Mr Speaker, Sir, we did not say anything against the Public Service Commission, nor did we withhold our felicitations to them because certain persons whom it was rumoured were going to be appointed for distinguished services to sport and other activities, were not appointed. I would like to tell the Minister for Commerce and Industry that it is rumoured that a certain industrialist, who has retired from active industrial practice and is now making a practice of going on commissions in administrative and advisory capacities, is being considered for this job. He has not got the confidence of my Party, and he has not got the confidence of a lot of other people, who -

On a point of order, Sir. Is it proper for the Member for Tanjong Pagar, on this particular motion, to indulge in personalities which are not sufficiently veiled for the person not to be known, and to suggest, first, that there is such an appointment in mind, and, second, that he is unsuitable? Sir, the question of appointment is not being raised here; the motion is entirely for the supply of the money.

On the point of whether or not it is proper for Members to make derogatory references to members of the public outside this Assembly, I have already commented on another occasion - it is not, in fact, a point of order. On the other point, as to whether the remarks are relevant, I find that, under the Ordinance, the members of the Board are to be paid fees, and I take it that these fees would be coming out of this $1,000,000, so that perhaps, indirectly, the Member is correct in touching on the appointment but not on how the appointment should be made.

The point I would make and I will continue to make it - despite the protestations of the Member for Cairnhill - is this: that if they appoint somebody in whom we have no confidence, and in whom a lot of other people have no confidence - I am not saying anything derogatory, I am just stating that we have no confidence - the appointment will be the subject of constant attack and criticism. It would mean, in effect, the gradual loss of public confidence in this Industrial Promotion Board. Sir, I ask the Minister to bear that in mind when the appointment is being made. It is important, if we are not to start something on the Indonesian pattern, that the person who is appointed to this job is a man of integrity, someone who has never had public criticism levied at him before, particularly from the public service itself. He must be someone who can command that confidence, so as to leave no doubt in anybody's mind that public funds are not being fiddled with. 12.39 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have supported this Industrial Promotion Board in the hope that more industries will be saved and encouraged. On the motion asking for money, we would like the Minister for Commerce and Industry to bear in mind that members who are appointed to this Board should be impartial ones, because I have a fear that if the people who sit on the Board should come from one type of business that fears competition, they will definitely not want to encourage other types of business that will compete with theirs. It will be best therefore that people who are appointed to this Board should be impartial people, who have no financial interest in the matter of manufacture. 12.40 p.m. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

In reply, Mr Minister?

Sir, I think the Member for Tanjong Pagar has misunderstood the contents of the Ordinance. The Chairman is not going to be a full-time Chairman, like that of the Public Service Commission. The Chairman and members will just come to meetings and conduct the business of the Board at meetings. It is not the intention to have a full-time Chairman. As to fees, it depends on how much time they have to devote to the work of the Board before I consider whether Government will be willing to pay them any fee or not. I take it that members of the Board will be persons who are well-to-do because they must be connected, according to the Ordinance, with either industry, banking or trade administration, and therefore I am sure that if they are public-spirited they will give their services and experience free to the Board. Probably what the Member is referring to is the appointment of the Manager, who will be a full-time man, and who will carry out investigations into the applicants' business, industry, and so on, and then give the results of these investigations to the meeting of the Board for them to make a decision. I do not know which person he has in mind, but I can assure him and the Member for Serangoon that all appointments to the Board will be made from persons who, after a great deal of thought, I consider to be impartial. Of course, I am restricted by the section in the Ordinance which says that for these appointments I shall have to take into account that the person selected should be someone who has had experience in industry, finance or trade administration. This stipulation was purposely put in because this type of board should be run by persons who are experienced in the businesses concerned. If you put anybody on the Board - a doctor or a lawyer, say - you may find that they will not be able to understand the problems of the industries concerned which are applying for loans. There is one other point I wish to make, and that is that the members will be appointed by me with the prior approval of the Governor in Council. Therefore, if there should be any misjudgment by one member of the Council of Ministers, that is by the Minister for Commerce and Industry, there will be other Members of the Council of Ministers who will have to approve that misjudgment before the appointment can be made. This is another safety device provided for in the Ordinance.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly approves under the provisions of section 6 of the Singapore Industrial Promotion Board Ordinance, 1957, the allocation of advances to the Singapore Industrial Promotion Board up to but not exceeding the sum of one million dollars for the purpose of enabling the Board to defray expenditure properly chargeable to capital account, including defraying initial expenses, and for the provision of working capital.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That this Assembly do now adjourn.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at forty-four minutes past Twelve noon p.m.

Wednesday, 13th February, 1957

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare-

The request of the Chinese Y.M.C.A. for a capital grant is under consideration. (b) No request for funds has been received by the Government from the Young Men's Muslim Association. Monthly grants in aid are made to a number of youth organisations. (c) Per capita grants to voluntary institutions for children are included in the Estimates for 1957 under Head 26 subhead 29 to the amount of $350,000. The Ramakrishna Mission has been, continues to be and is expected to continue to be eligible for grants under this head. In 1956 $8,750 was paid to the Ramakrishna Mission from this vote.

asked the Financial Secretary-

Provision is made under Head 26: Contributions and Charitable Allowances: subhead 2: Ecclesiastical Grants, in the Estimates for 1957 for the purpose of a grant to the authorities of St. Andrew's Cathedral. This grant is of long standing. From the earliest days of the Settlement, a Colonial Chaplain was held on the establishment of Government and provision for his stipend and other expenses was made under a Head in the Colonial Estimates. In addition, a contribution was made to the Bishopric Endowment Fund. Latterly, the duties of the Colonial Chaplain were discharged by the Archdeacon of Singapore. In 1930, it was decided to abolish the post of Colonial Chaplain and to pay an annual grant of $12,700 to the Cathedral authorities. This grant has remained the same since that date. $3,400 is devoted to the Bishopric Endowment Fund and the remainder towards the stipend of the Archdeacon. (b) It is not the practice to make grants to the priests of other religions. Government has, however, made a contribution towards the capital cost of the Muslim College at Klang and supports five scholars at the College. In addition, per capita grants are made from Head 26: Contributions and Charitable Allowances, subhead 29: Voluntary Institutions for Children, to a number of institutions run by religious organisations. Road Safety Measures:

asked the Minister for Communications and Works what steps have been taken to ensure the safety of pupils of the Yeong Cheng Chinese School in Club Street, which is a two-way thoroughfare and frequently used by learner-drivers.

The Yeong Cheng Chinese School in Club Street is one of the additional schools for which it is proposed to institute a School Crossing Patrol in 1957. The recruitment of suitable persons as Patrols is now being made and their training will commence shortly.