Hansard, 1957-07-17

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (3) (i) of section 47 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from meetings of the Assembly: Mr A. R. Lazarous - one month from 2nd July, 1957.

Mr Ernest Pattison Shanks, Attorney-General, took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance. Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Member for Tanjong Pagar), took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance. Mr Soh Ghee Soon (Member for Cairnhill), took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance.

I have received three messages from His Excellency the Governor. The first message dated the 25th June, 1957, states that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 62 (2) of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, His Excellency had that day assented to the following Bills : -

Honourable Members will recollect that at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster on the 15th day of December, 1955, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Right Honourable Alan Lennox-Boyd, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, handed to our then Chief Minister, Mr David Marshall, a piece of stone salvaged from the damage inflicted on the Victoria Tower in the Palace of Westminster by air raids during the last war. The Chief Minister accepted the gift on behalf of the Government of Singapore and I duly received it from the Chief Minister on behalf of Members of this Assembly for its incorporation in the fabric of this building. That has now been done. The Stone lies embedded in the wall behind the entrance to the Strangers Gallery with the inscription : - "FROM THE FABRIC OF THE VICTORIA TOWER OF THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER PRESENTED BY HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT TO THE SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT 15TH DECEMBER, 1955." In reporting the gift to this Assembly, the Chief Minister referred to it as a "symbolic gesture of friendship and unity between the two Assemblies of Westminster and Singapore in the traditions of the democratic process". I would say further that I would like to think of the Stone itself as a constant reminder of that tradition of free and orderly debate "garnered" over the centuries in Westminster, the pattern of which we have adopted and are in the process of adapting for our purposes here in our Assembly.

asked the Chief Minister why the report of Dr F. C. Benham, the Economic Adviser to the Chief Minister, of a survey conducted by him of the economic position of Singapore during 1956 which was reviewed in the local press on 28th June, 1957, was not in the first instance presented to the Legislative Assembly. The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, the report referred to was made to the Chief Minister by his Economic Adviser. It attempts to estimate progress made in economic fields since 1954. It does not in any way contain any statement of policy. There is nothing in the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly requiring that such report should be presented to the Legislative Assembly before it can be made public. The report has since been printed and copies have been furnished to Members of the Legislative Assembly as a matter of courtesy.

asked the Chief Minister which of the Ministers and Assistant Ministers are provided with bodyguards; why are bodyguards necessary for them; the dates from which bodyguards were supplied to each Minister or Assistant Minister concerned; and the cost of these bodyguards to the public funds of the Colony.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Commissioner of Police is responsible for ensuring the personal safety of Ministers and it would not be in the public interest to disclose the measures taken by the Commissioner in his discretion to carry out this duty. No additional cost is involved.

Apart from bodyguards, can the Chief Minister tell us whether there are police constables attached to or guarding houses of Ministers?

It would appear, Sir, that the hon. Member finds difficulty in understanding my answer.

asked the Chief Minister when the Government intends to Malayanise the post of Attorney-General.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the post of Attorney-General together with the posts of Chief Secretary and Financial Secretary will disappear under the new constitution when it is introduced next year. If, in the meantime, the post should fall vacant, as happened recently, then it will be filled in accordance with the ordinary service principles of qualifications, experience and merit. This is in accordance with the Government's policy on Malayanisation as set out in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 65 of 1956 on page 9 of which it was stated that Malayanisation of the post of Attorney-General was dependent on future constitutional changes.

Is the Chief Minister aware that under the new constitutional proposals, the Attorney-General becomes the Advocate-General? Can we not just say the Permanent Secretary to the Minister for Law?

I said, Sir, that the post of Attorney-General will be abolished under the new constitution.

If the Chief Minister does not refute what I said, is he not aware that by promoting an expatriate to that post for the temporary period between now and the next general elections, he is in fact enhancing the amount of compensation to be paid to this expatriate officer who will be abolished under the new constitution?

Sir, it has been explained that the filling of the vacancy created by the retirement of the previous Attorney-General was filled in accordance with the Malayanisation policy as set out in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 65 of 1956.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare-

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare what benefit will Singapore derive from his participation in the recent I.L.O. conference.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the I.L.O. is the first specialised agency associated with the United Nations and deals with international labour and social problems; the main aim being to provide a world labour-management government forum in which problems of social policy of concern to all countries are discussed. There are about 80 countries represented. This year is the third occasion that Singapore has been invited and I took the opportunity to attend this conference in order to explain our views. At this conference and indeed at all such conferences, Ministers for Labour from many countries attended. This afforded me opportunities of contacts with them for personal discussions on policies and problems relating to labour.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware of the feeling of dissatisfaction among members of the Special Constabulary with their terms and conditions of service; and whether the Government is taking or will take steps to improve them.

Yes, Sir. I am aware that some members of the Special Constabulary are not entirely satisfied with their terms of service. Those terms of service are being reviewed and I am hopeful that it will be possible to make an announcement on the matter pretty soon.

asked the Chief Secretary-

The answer to (a) is yes, Sir. The answer to (b) is: the main responsibility of a Land Bailiff is the supervision of Crown land in the fields.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does a clerk do the work that has just been described?

It is a matter for argument.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether he has taken or will take steps to implement the recommendations in paragraph 6 of the Second Report from the Public Accounts Committee (Sessional Paper No. L.A. 8 of 1957) in respect of the state of imbalance in the Land Office control accounts; and whether, in particular, the investigation team recommended in paragraph 6 (a) of the Report has been set up and is now at work.

The answer is yes, Sir.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing if he will make a statement on the details of the system for the allocation of Singapore Improvement Trust accommodation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am informed by the Singapore Improvement Trust that it has been decided to publish in the near future a pamphlet explaining the points system and the method of allocation of Trust accommodation for the information of the general public. In the circumstances, I do not propose to anticipate the Trust pamphlet by a statement in this Assembly.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing if he is aware that the register of applications for Singapore Improvement Trust accommodation is not open for inspection by the public, and whether he will explain why.

I am aware, Sir, that the register of applications for Singapore Improvement Trust accommodation is not open for public inspection. I am informed by the Board that the reason for this is that each application contains information of a private and personal nature which was given by the applicants on the understanding that it would be kept confidential and it would therefore be highly undesirable to make this information available for public inspection. I am further informed that the general practice among housing authorities is not to make their registers available for public inspection although each applicant is at liberty to enquire about his prospects of success. This of course applies in the case of the Trust also.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister tell us why is it that the register cannot be open for inspection? It is not a question of asking details of the register; it is a question of the number of applicants and the points awarded to each applicant.

Mr Speaker, Sir, apart from the undesirability of disclosing information given confidentially by applicants, the register contains other confidential information including reports of investigations by Trust officers and the final points awarded to the applicants as a result of such reports. The register comprises approximately 11,500 files and the administrative arrangements needed to create a register suitable for inspection by the public would considerably hamper the work of the department concerned and would increase management costs.

Can the Minister tell us whether the Trust can prepare a separate register apart from the number of files that are in the office so that applicants could ask for the opening of that register rather than the files concerned?

I think I have answered that, Sir.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing with reference to the Telok Ayer Electoral Division-

Sir, I am informed by the Singapore Improvement Trust with regard to these questions: (a) two blocks of flats are presently being built at Upper Pickering Street; (b) There are schemes for slum clearance in accordance with the programme outlined on the Master Plan; (c) The answer to (c) is 'No'. The answers to (d), (e) and (f) do not arise because the answer to (c) is 'No'.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether Government will set up an all-party committee for delineation of the City Council electoral divisions.

The reply, Sir, is 'No'. In view of the Government's decision to hold the City Council elections in December this year, it was a matter of urgency that the boundaries of electoral divisions for the City Council elections should be delimited in order that the electoral rolls can be prepared and that all the other statutory requirements can be fulfilled before the elections in December. For example, it is necessary for claims and objections on revision of the register to be proceeded with in August. The local government boundaries were delimited by an official committee taking into account such factors as population, voters' strength as well as community interest. Government has accepted the recommendations of these boundaries in toto. The boundaries have, in fact, already been referred to the All-Party Committee to give it an opportunity of discussing them in relation to the Legislative Assembly electoral divisions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when was the scheme referred to the All-Party Committee?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot give the exact date. I can only assume that it was within the last one month.

Probably, a few days ago.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the answer is 'No' how can the Minister expect candidates to prepare for the City Council elections?

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether he is aware that the people in rural areas have been and are suffering hardships from lack of water; and whether he will take steps to alleviate their hardships.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware of the need for increasing the supply of water to people in the rural areas and my Ministry has taken and will continue to take steps to increase such supplies. Before the Coalition Government took office in April, 1955, there were all in all only 213 standpipes in the rural areas of Singapore. Today, the rural areas of Singapore have 347 standpipes - 134 more than when this Government took office. In addition, 39 more which have been approved by the Rural Board are in the process of being installed. In money terms in 1954 for example, less than $450,000 were allocated by the Rural Board for water supply. In 1956, the allocation is slightly more than $1 million - an increase of approximately 222 per cent over the 1954 figure. This year, the Rural Board intends to step up its expenditure in this direction to approximately $1,170,000. Both in money terms and in terms of the number of standpipes built, it can be seen that my Ministry acting through the Rural Board has greatly increased its efforts to meet the demand for water supply in the rural areas. In addition to what I have just said, the Rural Board also operates a scheme to supply water by wagons during dry periods to outlying villages where standpipes are not available. In 1956, the expenditure in this connection was approximately $58,000.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing who are the members of the Nature Reserve Board.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the following are the present Trustees of the Nature Reserve Board: Mr H. M. Burkill. Mr A. L. B. Swaine. Mr E. Galistan. Dr D. S. Johnson. Mrs Amy Ede. Inche Yusof Bin Ishak. There is one vacancy, Sir, caused by the retirement of Mr M. W. F. Tweedie which we expect to fill within the next few days.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the hon. Minister tell us who of the persons he has named represent the City Council?

There is only one representative from the City Council, Sir, and that is Mrs Amy Ede.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works with reference to paragraph 10 of the White Paper (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 48 of 1956), what progress has been made in the implementation of the various stages of the Government's policy of unifying the passenger transport system; what stages remain to be carried out; and on what dates will they be completed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member will recall that in paragraph 8 of the White Paper, Government agreed with the principal conclusions of the Hawkins Commission which were summarised in Chapter 27 of the report. The first matter for decision was therefore whether preparations should be made for the direct establishment of public ownership by means of a specially constituted public authority or whether as an intermediate step the formation of a statutory limited liability company should be aimed at. On this, the following progress has been made. Enquiries have been made as to whether the necessary capital for the formation of a statutory limited liability company was likely to be forthcoming from an overseas company with experience of transport administration as was suggested in paragraph 234 of the report. It soon, however, became apparent that a satisfactory solution was unlikely from such a source. Mr Hawkins himself then held a series of personal and informal discussions with members of the Chinese Bus Owners' Association. These members at one time showed considerable interest in the idea of amalgamation into a single company but the present indications are that the Chinese bus owners are not yet prepared to amalgamate into a single company. They have, however, undertaken to prepare and submit to me a memorandum containing alternative proposals for amalgamation. I understand that this memorandum can be expected at any time. The proposals will be carefully examined and the Government will then decide whether the alternative of a statutory limited liability company must be abandoned and, if so, the pace at which unification through a public authority should be pursued. This decision will be taken in the very near future and it would be made in the light of the demands made by other important development projects on the funds likely to be available in the next few years. The stages which remain to be carried out will, of course, depend on the decision to which I have just referred. They will vary according to the choice made. I do not think at this stage I can give any very useful information about them but I can, however, say that in the event of the decision being taken to establish a public authority, the first step will be the acquisition of the Singapore Traction company and we have commissioned accountants, with the concurrence of the company, to examine the records of the company and to submit a report which will form the basis of any subsequent negotiations for acquisition. The accountants have been pressed to complete this report as soon as possible. I am waiting to hear from them when the report may be expected. We have also anticipated the event by making a first draft of the legislation which will be required for the purposes of establishing a public authority. In the meantime, the statement in paragraph 10 of the White Paper (that the assumption by a unified undertaking of responsibility for operating any bus services in Singapore will not be possible before the middle of 1958) still stands.

Mr Speaker, does that long answer mean that the Government have abandoned their policy of nationalisation of public transport?

The answer means what it says.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works how many men in the Airport P.W.D. Plant Section are being retrenched; and whether alternative employment could be made available.

I am not perfectly certain what the Member for Tanjong Pagar means by the Airport P.W.D. Plant Section. There are two plant units of the Airport: one is the Workshop unit which maintains and repairs the plant; the other really has no defined name but it is sometimes referred to as the field unit and comprises the men who actually drive or operate the various forms of plant. I have got figures for both units and I will give them now. Workshop unit: Notice of termination of service has been given to 25 men. Alternative employment has been found for five of them and it is possible that two others will also be offered employment. It has not been possible to offer employment to the remaining 18. Field unit: Notice has been given to 21 men. Alternative employment has been found for two of these men. It is possible that two others will also be offered employment. It is not possible to offer alternative employment to the remaining 17.

In respect of those who are not being offered alternative employment, will not the Minister consider some form of gratuity or compensation while they look for alternative employment?

I am afraid that the matter has to be referred to the Establishments Branch. It is not a matter for which I could take responsibility.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether he has taken or will take steps to protect the growing pig and poultry production in Singapore by taking health measures to prevent the breeding of mosquitoes and flies in farming areas; and whether research is being undertaken to find suitable insecticides non-injurious to such farming.

The answer is in the affirmative, Sir.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether permits will be issued to fishermen to do night fishing in the Straits of Johore.

Sir, Government has already made arrangements to permit night fishing in the Straits of Johore. This arrangement is however tied up with the supervision of these areas. The Federation Government are providing additional boats for this purpose. It is expected that it will take the Federation Government about three months to purchase these boats and engage and train personnel in their use. As soon as this is done, licences will be issued to Singapore fishermen residing along the north coast of Singapore to fish on alternate nights in specified areas under certain conditions.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry-

Mr Speaker, Sir, no progress has been made in my effort to obtain 1,373 acres of the Ulu Pandan Nature Reserve for prawn cultivation. An application was made by my Ministry to the Nature Reserve Board on the 13th of February, 1957, but the Chairman replied on the 6th of June that the Board would not recommend nor agree to the excision of the Ulu Pandan Reserve for this purpose. On this the Trustees were unanimous. No progress has therefore been made in expanding prawn cultivation in the Ulu Pandan area because of this unanimous opposition from the members of the Board. The answer to (b) is that the view of the Nature Reserve Board on my efforts to seek the release of 1,373 acres of the Ulu Pandan Nature Reserve for prawn cultivation is that nature conservation is more important to the community than the use of this swamp for the proposed prawn cultivation: Singapore's flora and fauna must be preserved and therefore the Board is unanimous in its opposition to my proposal.

As a matter of further information, Sir, has the Board expressed any opinion about the preservation of Singapore's human species?

I confess, Sir, that that struck me also but I could not find any reference to the human species in the letter addressed to me.

It appears to me that prawns and human beings do not go together.

May I know why we should preserve those trees?

I would like to know that too, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that that Ulu Pandan Nature Reserve is in fact protected by law?

I am aware of that, Sir, and that is why I said that I could not make any progress. It is protected by the Nature Reserve Ordinance.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.32 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, hon. Members will recollect that in June of last year, they gave their unanimous approval to the scale of fees which was fixed by the Board of Architects and brought to them for approval and that in dealing with that scale of fees I referred also to an Architects (Amendment) Ordinance which we at that time proposed but which was withdrawn as the life of the Assembly was then extremely uncertain. In referring to these fees, I pointed out that the changes in the scale of fees were only one stage in a general reassessment. Since then, certain aspects arising from the operation of the scale of fees have called for study and have received study and I now move an Architects (Amendment) Bill which is significantly different from what we proposed in 1956. In clause 2 we seek to remove from the Board of Architects the power to fix a scale of fees and I think I had better explain the background to that a little because Members may not be fully in the picture. The argument which has been used to justify a scale of fees fixed under statutory powers is that the architects in Singapore are required to give a degree of supervision to building works which is not required in many other countries. If hon. Members have in their hands the 1956 scale of fees, they will note that it was then laid down that one-fifth of the total fees would be payable on the completion of the sketch plans; the balance up to two-thirds when the contracts have been let; and the remaining one-third would be paid by instalments as the architect from time to time certified progress to his client for payment to the contractors. This implies of course that two-thirds (or 5 per cent) of the fee is appropriate for designing a structure and that 2½ per cent is the appropriate fee for supervision. We are here concerned with the supervision aspect; that is the aspect on which the argument for statutory power to fix a scale is based. Supervision is defined in section 1 of the 1956 scale and was previously defined in the 1932 scale and it is linked with the local authority by-laws: No. 20 in the Rural Board, I think it is No. 41 in the Municipal by-laws and deriving from a section of the Municipal Ordinance. Briefly, the effect of this is that the person who is responsible as the architect must certify that the contractors have observed the by-laws during the building works. The by-laws are now under revision and I am told that the revision will strengthen that requirement that the certification is given by the architect to the local authority that the local authority's requirements have been complied with. Now, we all agree, Mr Speaker, that it is very important that buildings should be good and made of good materials. We must avoid the sort of defects which caused the Opposition to rise in some irritation to try and stop me when I enumerated a lengthy list of defects during the Budget debate last year. Such defects are obviously undesirable and they do arise if insufficient supervision is given. If we have unsatisfactory buildings going up in Singapore, it is a very bad thing for the final occupiers, who are saddled with a house which involves a lot of repairs and expense and worry and which may have a much shorter life than they had hoped when they put their money into it. Of course, it is also a serious liability to the country if we have unsatisfactory buildings going up. We have probably a considerable shortage of skilled manpower to do building, some shortage of materials sometimes and shortage of money for spending on capital development; and if private development is of a low or an unsatisfactory standard, then to that degree, scarce resources are being wastefully used. That would be a very regrettable thing. If there were collusion between the contractor and the architect, there would be a grave danger to the public interest. An unholy alliance between architect and contractor, in which the architect cuts his fees to the client but takes a rake-off from the contractor in return for closing his eyes to nefarious omissions by the contractor, is a thing which should not be tolerated. The question is whether by removing this scale of fees we shall in fact open the way to collusion and improper practices and thus weaken the position with regard to maintenance of proper building standards. I do not think that we shall open the way to collusion. I do not think that removal will have any significant effect in that direction; and I will now give my reasons. First, under the Architects Ordinance, there are and always have been engineers who were registered as architects under the Ordinance and who were able to function as architects, to sign plans and to certify buildings to the local authorities; but the engineers were not bound by this scale of fees which is applicable only to architects. There is an obvious anomaly in this position. The Board of Architects has recognised it but they have been guided by expert legal advice and they have not seen their way to alter it; and I think that probably it is the case that the general code of conduct laid down by the Board under the Ordinance appears not to apply to engineers who register under the Ordinance. Now, the result of this, Mr Speaker, is that in private practice in Singapore, there are something like 72 architects and 38 engineers registered under the Ordinance; and I am informed that in the period of one year from June 1955 to June 1956, there were 261 building plans submitted to the City Council by architects and 123 by engineers - a proportion of about two-thirds by architects and one-third by engineers. In a major job such as a block of flats, the proportion will be a good deal higher in the hands of the architects. Now, that is the actual extent to which the anomaly exists. There are two ways of dealing with it. The first is to bring the engineers within the scale and within the code of conduct and to bring them completely in parity with the architects in so far as they are registered as architects. That was indeed my first thought: the alternative is to take the architect out from the scale and I have chosen that because if the scale were an essential protection in the public interest and if the scale were really necessary to prevent collusion and cut-throat competition and to ensure that proper standards are maintained, then we simply have to recognise that in fact the scale has not been operating for a third of the profession. The engineering qualification has enabled a very large section of the people who are actually functioning as architects to function outside the scale. If it was going to produce collusion or cut-throat operations, it would already have produced those ill-effects but the Institute of Architects of Malaya have shown no signs of being aware that they are threatened or being under-cut by the operations of registered engineers. The Board of Architects has not drawn attention to it and said, "This is producing disastrous results. We must remove this anomaly." The engineers - the Joint Overseas Group - have not been worried about it and I am bound to presume from this that the architects have not felt themselves threatened nor have the leaders of the profession felt their standards threatened by the fact that that scale was largely ineffective. There appears to have been no fear in the past that the absence of the scale with regard to one-third of those working as architects had produced, was producing or would produce any serious ill-effects, any tendency for the architects or the engineers to yield to temptations to collusive or dishonest practices. It is that which leads me to think it is a very fair presumption. I am also not wholly satisfied that in all cases the scale is adhered to by those to whom it applies - the registered architects. We should not have to go very far to find cases where a firm of architects undertake a charitable job - a home for one sort or another of charitable organisation - and in one way or another does not in fact charge the full fee. That is very laudable and admirable generosity on their part but it defeats the intention of the Ordinance. It is a kick-back to the charitable organisation because they have a respect for the charitable organisation but it is obviously a means of defeating the operation of the scale fixed by statutory power. I am also told - I cannot produce evidence needed to convince a court of law - that it does occur sometimes that for an ordinary commercial building job, a client makes a deal with his architect for a lump sum payment of fee and this is not in any way related to the scale of fees but it is just fixed to suit both parties. In the nature of things, nobody can easily tell whether that is happening or not and I do not know of any effective machinery at present existing by which one could detect whether it is happening or not. If you cannot detect breaches of the scale, then you cannot take action to punish breaches of the scale and the scale is in fact a decoration which appears to provide a protection to the public but does not provide it, The protection lies in the professional pride, competence and standards which are maintained by members of a highly respected profession. The scale appears to put them under penalty if they fall below their proper standards but it does not appear to me that the scale would be enforceable if it was necessary nor does it appear to me to be necessary. I think very strongly that unnecessary or unenforceable control should never be imposed. If they have been imposed, then they should be removed as quickly as possible and that is what I am seeking to do. The effects of the removal require a word. Professional organisations will now have squarely in their own hands the responsibility for maintaining proper professional standards of conduct amongst their members. I have had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the Institute of Architects, Malaya, and with the Joint Overseas Group of Engineers and we also had a certain amount of correspondence extending over a year or so. I am aware of their views and they have said that they will consider whether they ought to initiate any further action in order to ensure that codes of conduct and standards of building are maintained at a professional level. I look forward with interest to hearing from the leaders of the profession what they think is necessary. Now, Mr Speaker, although I do not think it is necessary or useful or desirable to retain this scale of fees, I do not want to suggest that the maintenance of proper building standards needs no further attention. I think it does need further attention. We are having very rapid development - both private and public development - in Singapore today. The economic survey reports show somewhere around $100 million worth of investment in construction a year; population is rising; the need for houses is increasing all the time; and, in short, the building industry is being subjected to new strains and stresses which did not exist in the much more spacious and less overcrowded days when most of the legislation and by-laws and machinery of control were designed. The Government view is that the whole situation with regard to private building standards needs to be examined and the Government is therefore going to appoint a very competent officer, whose appointment is terminating under Malayanisation, to make a full study and to report. This will involve paying him a professional fee and I shall be seeking approval for this payment from the House on another occasion. I do not wish to prejudge in any way the findings which may appear in his report, which I hope will be available in about two months - possibly a little longer, not more than three months. We shall be quite wrong to prejudge what may appear in the report but the intention is that the report will give a general gathering together of information of all types on which it will be possible to judge better how far proper building standards are being maintained and whether any action is desirable to ensure that they are maintained in the future. It is possible that in the general context of the report, this scale of fees which we are now seeking to remove may need to be considered again. If it was made clear that the scale of fees was a useful weapon and that it could effectively be used, that machinery could be set up which would make it possible to detect breaches of the scale; then it should certainly be considered again and, if necessary, the weapon should be sharpened up and brought into use. So much, Mr Speaker, for clause 2 (Scale of Fees). We pass on to clause 3. In clause 3 (a), there is a slight liberalisation of the means of recognition for a young man who is qualified as an architect; for instead of having to get his qualification against a prescribed list, he can bring his qualification along and say, "Will you approve this qualification?" I do not know if the changes are profoundly significant but it does liberalise the situation. There are minor punctuation changes and then at (d), we preserve to a single mechanical engineer who registered during the last year his position as a registered person under the Ordinance. The amendment (of which Members have had notice that I propose to move, on the Order Paper) which will change "July, 1956" to read "July, 1957" in order to preserve to this gentleman a status which he has acquired and which should not be removed from him. Clause 4 provides for higher registration fees and renewal fees from those who register. Those fees were made in the past at a time when the dollar was worth a great deal more than it is now, and it is appropriate that they should be brought up in line with the income which an architect can expect to earn and with the costs which the Board may have to incur, for example, in payment of legal expenses. Clause 5 removes certain classes of engineering qualifications. I do not want to go into them in detail but I can do so if the House desires. But I must briefly point out that this is only in relation to those who wish to practise in effect as architects. The removal of the qualifications does not mean that a man cannot practise as a municipal engineer or an electrical engineer or a surveyor, it only means that he cannot sign plans, and so on, in relation to the Ordinance and the local authority requirements. I think in the past it was probably a sound thing that wherever anybody could be held to be qualified, he should have had a chance to come in and help in building work because there was a shortage of qualified men; but I do not think that that shortage exists now. It certainly, I think, will not exist in the future with the large number of students of architecture and civil engineering who are at present overseas and who will be returning here in due course. There is no reason to fear a shortage and I do not think that our young men or women when they come back from a taxing, difficult and expensive course overseas should be exposed to possible competition from, say, a surveyor who has abandoned his proper work of surveying and, having registered as an architect, wishes in fact to practise as an architect for which he has not really been trained. There is one point in connection with this, it sometimes happens to an electrical or mechanical engineer that in designing a factory layout, he finds it necessary to suggest that some additional building - say a pump-house or an engine-house - should be added to the building; or he needs to design a concrete floor on which an engine has to stand; and it is a very convenient and sensible thing that he should be able, in those circumstances, to put his plans to the local authority to get them approved and not to have to run around and waste his time and everyone else's getting an architect to put his chop on them. I should not wish to stop the mechanical or electrical engineer from doing that as long as that was all he was doing. I have put the point to the Joint Overseas Group and they are studying it. I hope they will suggest a reasonable solution but a reasonable solution must, to my mind, be in the terms that the mechanical or electrical engineer is not able to abandon his proper work of mechanical or electrical engineering and take up signing plans for building estates. If we can get a workable solution suggested, we can have a look at it and see if we should make some further amendment. The second part of clause 5 opens the door to a very valued class of students - those who are at present in Australia taking various engineering qualifications which are sufficiently indicated in the Explanatory Note. Hitherto, on qualifying, they have of course been able to come back and practise as engineers but they have not been able to register under the Ordinance. This will now enable them to register. To put it in very simple language, we heartily welcome our young men and women taking professional qualifications and we are delighted to have them come back again to lend a hand in Singapore's much needed development. Mr Speaker, those are very briefly the main points which I think I have dealt with in regard to this Bill. There are of course a great many other points which are more or less remotely connected and if any Member wishes to have them dealt with, I will be delighted to do the best I can with them; but I do not think that we need take up the time of the House any further until we know what hon. Members have in their minds. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill for slightly different reasons from those that have been expounded to us by the Minister for Communications and Works. The chief reason, in a short analysis, he has given to us for his wanting to withdraw support for the scale of fees is roughly that this scale has been more honoured by its breach than by its observance, because firstly, one-third of the number of practising architects are not bound to observe the scale and secondly, he has heard of cases where the members who are bound by the scale do not observe it. To my knowledge, Sir, I also agree with the second observation that in cases of very large contracts, by some way or other this rule has not been observed by the architects themselves and therefore for this House to support a rule that is not fully observed is wrong and to my mind unworkable. But I come into this picture for a very different reason. This scale of fees was fixed about 30 years ago. No doubt, at that time, the scale was 7½ per cent minimum and you could go up sky-high. The only concession that we had been able to obtain through last year's negotiations with the Institute of Architects was the waiving of any fee above 7½ per cent. It may appear generous to the architects but, in practice, there is no generosity at all because since the scale of fees has been fixed, the cost of building has gone up at least four times. Therefore the scale if applied pre-war would be operating round about 30 per cent. Another point is this. When this scale was fixed, no one visualised building projects of building estates, public buildings and even private buildings running into millions of dollars and when you come to apply the minimum scale of 7½ per cent to a project which runs into from $5 million to $10 million, then we get a shock as I am sure we all did when I queried during the Budget sittings last year the allocation of half a million dollars for the Polytechnic. When applied to this project of $5 million, not only have we to provide 7½ per cent minimum fee but there is also another 2 per cent for quantity survey and another 33 1/3 per cent on the value of reinforced concrete work which all added together makes ten per cent. So ten per cent of $5 million is half a million dollars and I for one feel that the public cannot be asked to pay such sums which in several cases have led to professional men being able to retire after three or four years' practice. We do welcome people being well remunerated for their work but I do not think that the public of Singapore will support any scale which will enable anyone to retire at public expense, and I say so because I can visualise in the future that we in Singapore and in Malaya will have to depend more and more on private architects than on our own public servants as the amount of work that has to be done is really tremendous. We simply cannot recruit enough men to be able to carry out that work. As it is, we can see the slowing down of the Singapore Improvement Trust. Last year, we built 1,000 units instead of 4,000 units. This year, I think the same thing will follow and even our Public Works Department has not been able to catch up with all the projects it has in hand. The only thing we have to do now is to go out to the private architect and ask him to do the work for us. When we do that, what happens to us? Yes, the scale is 7½ per cent minimum. Whereas private persons have been able to make the architects depart from this scale, the Government will have to pay that scale because this Assembly last June approved it. I must say that I was away at that time on leave. Are we going to support this rule? No. Another point is this: what I am very much against the scale is the minimum five per cent withdrawal fee. I will just cite one instance; I know of several where a grave injustice was caused. A friend of mine bought a house and he wanted it to be renovated. So he went to an architect and asked him to produce plans to enlarge the house. When the plans were submitted to him, he found that they were very poor plans and he did not like them. The estimated cost of renovation ran into $80,000. Then he said, "No, no. Let us just forget about it." He forgot about it but he received a bill for $4,000 and that was a bill based on a scale on which he had to pay. If he went to court, he would have lost the case. There are other instances but they will take too long a time. Therefore I and my Party do support the amendment to section 2 by withdrawing our support altogether. Now I come to clause 5 of the Bill. The Explanatory Note says that certain qualifications obtained in Australia are now going to be recognised here to enable Malayans who hold these degrees to practise. That, Sir, I think, is a very good move, it has been very long overdue but it does not go far enough. I am now speaking for those of our Malayans who are holding qualifications obtained in foreign institutions, qualifications which in New York, Shanghai and Hong Kong have been responsible for the building of huge skyscrapers, ten times what we have in Singapore, and yet not one of them has been allowed to be registered as an architect. I have seriously considered moving an amendment to the Bill but on going through the Architects Ordinance, I find that under section 6, there is provision for the Board of Architects to register any person who shall satisfy the Board that he is fully qualified for having received a proper and recognised training in the profession of architecture. To us who are not members of this profession, we wonder why it is that not one of these people is good enough. I refer to the ones I have mentioned as being able to put up skyscrapers, a hundred storeys high. Particularly more so when I know that at least the applications of ten people who have been qualified either in the United States of America or Hong Kong have applied for registration (some of them applied as long as two years ago) are still being considered. Sir, I would urge the Institute of Architects to consider very rapidly the question of admitting these people to practise, otherwise, rightly or wrongly, the public will form the impression that this honoured body of professional men is unwilling to move or change with the times as has happened over this question of minimum fee. To conclude, Sir, I agree with the hon. Minister when he said that we have to be careful to see that our buildings are not shoddily built and I for one am prepared to support any realistic scale with a reducing minimum after the first $100,000 or $200,000 when it is presented to us, because I do feel that an honourable profession like an architect's profession should not be subject to cut-throat rates; but let us have a realistic scale and not one under which a man can retire in three years' time. 11.10 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I am the only architect in this House, I feel I have to say something on this Bill or at least to express my personal opinion on it. I do not think there is such a law in any part of the world as regards the question of minimum fees, that is, clause 4 of the Bill. I have made enquiries from the Federation, Hongkong and other parts of the world. I have found no evidence that they have such a law in those countries. In fact, a Minister in the Federation told me that the Board of Architects in the Federation have tried to introduce that clause for the last five years and that every time it went to the Executive Council, it was thrown out. Although such a law is not in existence in the Federation or in Hongkong, I believe that they have less badly constructed or tilted buildings than we have in Singapore. The Ordinance, I believe, was introduced in 1926 by a number of people, mostly qualified from abroad. They must have come together and said, "Since we are only a few here, why do we not try to extort as much as possible from the public?" That was their view then and I think that is the view that is being adopted now. When this matter was discussed in the Institute of Architects, Malaya, one of its members said, "Why should we go home empty-handed? Why cannot we make hay while the sun shines?" That is the attitude they are adopting. Those so-called big firms which have been advocating that they should retain the minimum charge knowing very well that the big projects of Government will go to them because the advisers are their friends. The fee of $800,000 for the Polytechnic is equal to 20 years' salary of the Chief Minister. Is that not a shame that this kind of robbery is allowed to go on?

Hear, hear. Down with the white man!

I do not say that. That is the way they are doing it. With Malayanisation around the corner, I think there will be a lot of jobs which Government has to give to the private architects, and if this minimum scale of fees is not removed, every firm will come to the Government and say, "Even if I wish to charge less, I will not be allowed to do that. You do not want me to commit an offence, do you?" Another question is - as has been pointed out by the Member for Paya Lebar - that, as the present law stands, whether a building costs $20,000 or $20 million, the minimum fee is the same- 7½ per cent. Whether it is a warehouse or a cinema, the fee is the same although the former takes about less than half of the work required for the latter. Is this fair? Since there is no such protection in any other profession, why should architects want it? They want such protection because they know very well that without it they will not have a chance to rob the public as much as they would like. If a man wants to charge less for his work why should Government forbid him from doing so? Suppose the only way an architect can earn a living is to charge less, do you think it is right that Government should prevent him from doing so to earn a living? I think it is rubbish to say that ending the power to fix fees will result in bad buildings being erected. I do not see any reason for an architect to say that the removal of this clause will result in a lot of corruption: that depends on the man himself. If that is the line of argument, I think we should raise the salaries of all Government officers by three or four times to prevent corruption, but I do not think that is the way to prevent it. As to the second part, that is section 5, on the qualifications acceptable for registration, I think in the past we have placed too much confidence on people having British qualifications and that it has been the practice not to register anyone with qualifications obtained from somewhere else. I can understand the attitude adopted then. Nothing could be done but with self-government around the corner I think we should reconsider the whole case. What is wrong with registering architects from China, Indonesia or Japan, or even from Communist Russia? If they are good and can render a service to this country, why should we not admit them? Why should we limit qualifications to those obtained in England alone? Does it mean only the architect qualified in England can design buildings? As the Member for Paya Lebar said, architects in the United States design even skyscrapers and all sorts of other types of buildings, so why should not men trained there be allowed to practise here? If we are to continue to be dictated to by the Institute of Architects of Malaya, I think the public will be fleeced to the utmost. So I suggest that if the Minister is going to institute an enquiry into qualifications acceptable under the Architects Ordinance, I suggest the members of the committee should be those who have the interest of this country at heart, not those who intend to go away at the first opportunity because then such an enquiry will serve no purpose at all. 11.19 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that the racket of giving big business big opportunities to make big money is coming to a close.

Thanks to the Labour Front!

The Labour Front has just realised it. The Labour Front has given the big $5,000,000 Polytechnic building project to an expatriate firm - thanks to the Labour Front! The amount of architects' fees involved in that contract is only half a million dollars! We have to thank the Labour Front for this! But let us come back to this question. I am glad the racket is off. Whenever firms want to erect buildings for the Government, they send in tenders, and everybody will try to put up the lowest. And of course the officers deciding on the tenders with the provision of the minimum of 7½ per cent, will have no choice but to say, "We will have to fall back on these expatriate companies because they are big firms." With the removal of a minimum fee, I think the profession will become more competitive. It will enable the people of Singapore to save a great deal more because firms which are not very big will be content with a reasonable profit and therefore tender at lower figures. This is good for Singapore. I think, Sir, whatever this Assembly wants to do, it has always one motive in mind, and that is: What good will it do to the ordinary people of Singapore? I am thinking, Sir, not of big buildings constructed by big business or millionaires, but of houses for the small man who earns a few hundred dollars a month and who wants to build his own house. I know in many countries, for example, New Zealand, Australia and England, where the Government has drawn up a great variety of housing plans any person can obtain such plans at only a very small fee. In Singapore we do not have these. The best the Government can offer are a few plans for attap houses, many of them not popular with the people here. The Government has no plans for concrete houses. It is high time it helps the people construct such houses by drawing standard plans and make these available at small cost. The small man who wants to construct his own house can buy and use such a standard plan and will need only a little supervision from an architect. This will be a very good way of helping the people save money and making full use of our few architects. If such plans are drawn up and anybody can go and select one and build his own house, the architects will also then be asked to work on new models, not old models changed here and there. That will mean architects do not do repetitive work, and can concentrate their efforts to put up new designs for houses. On clause 5, Sir, I agree fully with my colleague when he asked that degrees and qualifications from countries other than the United Kingdom which are appropriate and good should be recognised. We have come to a stage where we must make use of every available and qualified Singaporean to help contribute to the progress of the country. If Malayans spend many years in a foreign land like the United States and come back with a qualification which is not recognised by us but which is accepted in many other countries, we will be denying ourselves of a source of valuable talent. These people can make a contribution to the progress of this land. Sir, I fully support my colleague on that clause. 11.25 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the House should take note that on such an uncontroversial Bill so many skeletons have suddenly popped out of the cupboard. These are the inherent contradictions in this colonial society. The Member for Paya Lebar has a keen interest in housing because he is interested in housing estates. At the moment I understand he is engaged in a thousand-unit estate at Sembawang Hill; for this no doubt a very large sum will come out of his profits to go to the architects and therefore it is with unusual vehemence that he has denounced the profiteering by people with whom he is associated. Mr Lim Koon Teck rose -

Is it a point of order?

Yes, Sir. Is that not an implication on the character of a Member of the House?

I was just about to intervene when the Member for Paya Lebar did intervene. That statement seems to imply an improper motive. The hon. Member for Paya Lebar was talking as a Member and I think the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar was implying improper motives. If that is so he must withdraw his remark.

Sir, I impute to the Member for Paya Lebar the highest of motives, namely, to see that all those embarked on building housing estates should have the cheapest of architects. This is both to his interest and to that of the public because no doubt he will pass on the benefit of lower fees to the unfortunate consumer who has to buy from him on the hire-purchase plan. We have heard the Member for Pasir Panjang who decided, presumably after having suffered for years at the hands of expatriates who controlled the Malayan Board of Architects, to let off some steam against them. We in this House welcome these disclosures, welcome the revelation that there are people in Malaya who have no interest in this country and who, when it comes to a question of the public benefit, have been known to exclaim that they should not be expected to go home empty-handed! Finally, I think it must also go on record that the only person who spoke on this Bill who has no direct interest in the architects profession is the Member for Serangoon. Of course not being conversant with these matters, the Member's contribution cannot be said to have been very concrete but nevertheless we did enjoy a discussion on the general principles of good building and building designs. But all said and done, the House had better remember this: that all these little bits of reform for which the Labour Front wishes to claim credit, are well and good, but reforms alone are not enough. It is not enough just to let in a few more architects who have been trained in Australia, Canada, India, Hongkong or Indonesia. The rate at which housing development should take place if we are to cope with our population, both the existing slum population and the growth in total number, is such that the Minister had better give serious consideration to starting an architectural school producing hundreds and even thousands of architects. We need architects who can not only design enormous skyscrapers for the benefit of the capitalists, or enormous housing estates for those who are members of limited companies and who own large tracts of land, but who can devote their time to building cheap, economical, low-cost houses. I remember a discussion I had with the Member for Pasir Panjang in which he told me of a business-cum-pleasure fact-finding survey of Brazil, Mexico and other parts of the world, where enormous equipment could produce low-cost houses at such terrific speed and such low cost that it could revolutionize the whole concept of low-cost housing in Malaya.

Order. I was just wondering whether this speech on low-cost housing has anything to do with the Bill before us, which relates to architects' fees.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just winding up my speech with a peroration in tribute to the Member for Pasir Panjang who deserves high praise today for his revealing disclosures of what is going on in the architects' profession.

Order, it seems to me that both the hon. Member's exordium and his peroration were irrelevant.

To go back to the relevant then, Sir; we support this Bill because obviously whatever our conflicting interests we are all united in seeing: one, that European architects do not exploit local businessmen; two, that local architects do not exploit local businessmen; and three, that there is no exploitation at all by anyone. 11.31 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to speak in the debate on this Bill. I had considered that the hon. Minister and the Member for Pasir Panjang had said enough on it but I cannot let one statement made by the Member for Serangoon go unchallenged as it will be misguiding Members of this House. Let me assure the hon. Member that he has nothing to thank the Labour Front for except for bringing up this Bill which seeks to remove the provision about fees. As to the contract: that was given by the Board of the Polytechnic to whoever it was given, and I would say that that Board was appointed in 1954 before the Labour Front Government took office. Therefore we cannot claim any thanks for it; except for the action of the Minister in bringing up this amending Bill here. 11.32 a.m.

I was overwhelmed, Mr Speaker, by the uproarious enthusiasm with which my humble Bill has been greeted from all sides. There are just one or two little points I would like to deal with in reply. One hon. Member of the Opposition referred to the cost to Government in paying private architects according to this scale. This was mentioned in the debate on the budget last year and of course I took note of it; but I must emphatically say that this has not been the guiding factor which has led the Government to move this particular amending clause. The factor which has been and is in my mind is the one which the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar referred to, firstly, the need for an expansion of building capacity - very many more buildings - and secondly, very much better buildings at lower cost. That of course means the building industry must be fully efficient and economic. That is the basis on which my mind has been working, and is the broad problem. A particular job will need to be done to that end - a survey of the standards of private building as they are at present. That is what I propose - I mentioned it in my speech. And when the officer has been appointed and has finished his work we shall be able to see some of the problems involved in creating a fully efficient and economic building industry which will really serve the needs of the people. This little clause on the scale of fees is put in just to do a little tidying up, to put straight what obviously is wrong and must be put right. We have had several references to the desirability of liberalising our attitude towards the recognition of qualifications. This is a matter which very easily engenders a great deal more heat than light. We will find that anybody who has a qualification, however low it may be, will desire it to be given the fullest recognition; but as soon as that is done he says. "Now I am registered, recognised", and he will be able to get his hands well into the money-making aspect of his work. The statement that all people who have qualified in any way and who then come to Singapore do so solely to serve the country with no thought of self at all is, I am afraid, not one which is likely to be borne out by practical experience. Indeed the hon. Member for Pasir Panjang indicated that some people who have the qualifications were in his opinion making a very good thing out of them; so to get people without suitable qualifications and give them a chance of making a good thing out of the building industry would probably be disastrous.

Point of order, Sir. I did not indicate in my speech that a man of no qualification should be registered. I merely said that we should not limit registration to British qualifications only.

It is a point for explanation, not a point of order.

I was talking without notes and I think I expressed myself wrongly. I did not intend to imply that the hon. Member wished to give people registration who have no qualification, but that there is a tendency to lower qualifications. On that point I have two important points to make both connected with our own local young men and women who are qualifying themselves. The first is that we have every prospect of a sufficient intake of qualified people in the architectural and civil engineering professions in the next few years. I have asked for, though I have not yet got, the latest figures; but in general a year or two ago we had a total of 48 Government and 53 private engineering and technical students in the United Kingdom alone, in Australia 23 Government and 45 private students and in the United States 13 private students, which gives you a total of 182 - a fairly handsome intake if they come in during the next three or four years. We shall then have an ample supply of young people who are qualified. They will not have the experience to do the big jobs but they will have the qualifications. So if we start to recognise many other degrees, the prospects for these young men and women will be markedly decreased. They may find themselves in a flooded market. They do need a reasonable measure of protection to get themselves established and get into industry. If things are too hard for them they may get a most unfortunate impression. I am thinking in terms of a profession as a function of industry. The other aspect of course is that we are developing technical education here. In the nature of things you cannot set up a complete system of technical education by waving hands in the air. You have to acquire the staff and the buildings, and then the students have to go through a long course of work. But when we do have our own local qualifications we shall no doubt hope that they will be acceptable, recognisable, in other territories, as our medical qualifications have in fact been so long recognised. If we accord recognition to all comers now, we shall have no bargaining power when in future we seek reciprocal recognition for our own qualifications. An aspect of this question is that I personally hope that this territory will become a centre for education not only for Singapore and the Federation, but also for other territories around us. It may very well be that in future we shall have the capacity to train a large number of students from Vietnam, Thailand. Indonesia or elsewhere who will welcome the opportunity to come here rather than go to Australia or the United Kingdom. And there will be an added attraction if they know that the qualifications they get here are widely recognisable. The United States has been mentioned. I do not know if I should place the U.S. high on the scale of strictness in recognition but I am informed that there, a man who may build a beautiful skyscraper in New York may be unable to build one in San Francisco because even between the States there is no mutual recognition of each other's qualifications. So I feel that until we have gone a bit further into that it will be unwise to say that any American qualification can be accepted. No doubt they may be very valuable ones but they must be scrutinised in relation to syllabus, the actual work done, the period taken and the quality of subsequent training. The Board of Architects has already referred this matter to the Institute of Architects of Malaya which is not a wholly expatriate body but has highly competent and experienced local men on it. We shall no doubt go forward gradually in this but it is not a matter on which we should rush ourselves. I do not foresee any immediate shortage of newly qualified men for Singapore. The shortage will be of men with ten, twelve or fifteen years' experience who are competent to direct the work of the newly qualified men, and that shortage will not be affected significantly by the proposal which has been made. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill [Mr Francis Thomas]. Bill considered in Committee:

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

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 11, to leave out "June, 1956" and insert "July, 1957". I have already given an explanation of the purpose of this amendment in my speech but the effect of it is to permit a registration made between the date when we first proposed the amendment and the present date to remain valid. It seems proper that the single mechanical engineer should be allowed to retain his registration made between these dates, and that the bar should be imposed only on registrations after the present date and not made retrospective and so deprive him of what he has already achieved. Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 11.45 a.m. Bill reported with an Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

11.46 a.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $302,992 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. 24 of 1957. Sir, this is a very short Schedule. It contains only six items, the largest being a revote of $260,000 to the Tan Tock Seng Hospital for medical equipment. The other items are explained in the Schedule. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it. Motion accordingly committed to Committee of Supply. Motion and Schedule considered in Committee of Supply.

11.47 a.m. Schedule

We will deal with the Schedule. The summary is at page 4. Head 2- The sum of $132 for Head 2 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 8- Question proposed. "That the sum of $14,770 for Head 8 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, Sir, there is a cypher at the bottom of the explanatory note which says "Full savings are available." Can we have that translated to us so that we know what it means?

Perhaps if the Member for Tanjong Pagar will read a little further he will see at the end of the Schedule at page 4 the statement, "The following deletion has been made..." which means that savings are available from Subhead 18 appearing at page 53 of the Estimates for 1957. The sum of $14,770 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 31- The sum of $40,000 for Head 31 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 33- The sum of $2,340 for Head 33 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 49- The sum of $260,000 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 56- The sum of $520 for Head 56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sum of $302,992 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the motion. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question. "That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $302,992 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. 24 of 1957.", put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $302,992 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. 24 of 1957.

11.51 a.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's consent to move, That this Assembly resolves that the balances as at 1st January, 1957, of the following loans which have been hitherto shown as assets in the Colony Statement of Assets and Liabilities:- $ c. City Council, Singapore ... ... 2,250,000 00 Singapore Harbour Board ... ... 13,101,764 05 Penang Harbour Board ... ... 273,211 88 Singapore Chinese Girls' School ... ... ... ... ... 6,161 14 Singapore Improvement Trust Loan Programme No. 1 ... ... 4,160,000 00 Singapore Improvement Trust Loan Programme No. 2 ... ... 4,320,000 00 Singapore Improvement Trust Loan Programme No. 3 ... ... 11,433,000 00 Singapore Improvement Trust Loan Programme No. 4 ... ... 15,718,739 54 Singapore Improvement Trust Loan Programme No. 5 ... ... 20,822,729 23 Singapore Improvement Trust Loan Programme No. 6 ... ... 7,000,000 00 Singapore Improvement Trust Loan Programme No. 7 ... ... 5,000,000 00 Government of the Federation of Malaya ... ... ... ... 30,000,000 00 Singapore Government Officers' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. - Loan No. 1 ... ... ... ... ... 176,000 00 Singapore Government Officers' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. - Loan No. 2 ... ... ... ... ... 499,200 00 Singapore Government Officers' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. - Loan No. 3 ... ... ... ... ... 898,172 00 City Council, Singapore - Kallang Area Traffic Scheme ... ... ... ... ... 3,000,000 00 Total ... ... 118,658,977 84 be charged against the General Revenue Balance. Sir, in moving the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, 1957, in November last year, I said: "Arising also out of a consideration of the Statement of Assets and Liabilities, is a proposal that existing long-term loans to the Singapore Improvement Trust and other bodies should be charged to expenditure and not shown as assets in the Statement. This proposal is made at the suggestion of the Director of Audit on the grounds that it is established financial practice that all transactions, including loans, which diminish the colony's free surplus of revenue should be recorded as expenditure at the time payment is made. In Singapore, the practice of showing as assets long-term loans, which in the case of the Singapore Improvement Trust are repaid over periods of up to 60 years, has sprung up since the war. The position has now been reached where these assets, which are in no sense of the term liquid, total about $126 million and, by being shown as assets in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities, paint an entirely erroneous picture of the strength and liquidity of the colony's finances. It has therefore been decided to agree to the Director of Audit's suggestion and to charge these long-term loans to expenditure. This will be done by resolution of the Assembly as soon as the accounts for 1956 have been closed and the exact totals involved are known. It will be appreciated, of course, that this is purely a matter of book-keeping. No additional expenditure is involved. The result will be that the Statement of Assets and Liabilities will give a much more accurate idea of the strength and liquidity of the colony's financial position. A Statement of Assets and Liabilities drawn up on this basis is, as I have said, shown on page 8 of the Estimates." [Vol. 2, No. 9, Col. 600-1.] Sir, this proposal met with the approval of hon. Members. The only comment came from an hon. Member who suggested that a footnote should be added to the Statement of Assets and Liabilities appearing in page 8 of the Annual Estimates to the effect that these long-term loans, previously shown as assets, were now detailed in an appendix to the Estimates. Hon. Members will see that this has since been done. I do not think, Sir, that I need give any further explanation to that which I gave in November last and which I have now repeated. There is only one point which I should mention. When the draft Estimates were drawn up in August 1956, it was thought that these long-term loans would amount to about $126,000,000 by the end of the year, and I mentioned this when I spoke in the Assembly. In point of fact, the Singapore Improvement Trust drew about $7,000,00() less under Loan Programme No. 6 during the remainder of the year; and the City Council drew only $3,000,000 instead of $4,000,000 in connection with the loan for the Kallang Bridge roadway. The total to be charged to expenditure on 31st December, 1956, was therefore only $118,658,977.84 as shown in the motion. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it. Question proposed. 11.56 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to have some explanation from the Hon. the Financial Secretary. Money has been loaned. Is not that money an asset? If it is, why should it be written off or debited to the General Revenue Balance? As the loans will eventually be returned why should not the amounts remain to be shown as assets?

Sir, I am afraid I can give no further explanation to that which I gave in the memorandum which accompanied the Estimates last year, to the explanation which I gave in presenting the Estimates, and which I have repeated now. There is really nothing which I can add. The questions which the hon. Member for Telok Ayer has raised have been answered in the memorandum and in the statements which I have made in the Assembly.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the balances as at 1st January, 1957, of the following loans which have been hitherto shown as assets in the Colony Statement o Assets and Liabilities:- $ c. City Council, Singapore ... ... ... 2,250,000 00 Singapore Harbour Board ... ... ... 13,101,764 05 Penang Harbour Board ... ... ... 273,211 88 Singapore Chinese Girls' School ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 6,161 14 Singapore Improvement Trust Loan Programme No. 1 ... ... ... 4,160,000 00 Singapore Improvement Trust Loan Programme No. 2 ... ... ... 4,320,000 00 Singapore Improvement Trust Loan Programme No. 3 ... ... ... 11,433,000 00 Singapore Improvement Trust Loan Programme No. 4 ... ... ... 15,718,739 54 Singapore Improvement Trust Loan Programme No. 5 ... ... ... 20,822,729 23 Singapore Improvement Trust Loan Programme No. 6 ... ... ... 7,000,000 00 Singapore Improvement Trust Loan Programme No. 7 ... ... ... 5,000,000 00 Government of the Federation of Malaya ... ... ... ... ... ... 30,000,000 00 Singapore Government Officers' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. - Loan No. 1 ... ... ... ... ... 176,000 00 $ c. Singapore Government Officers' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. - Loan No. 2 ... ... ... ... ... 499,200 00 Singapore Government Officers' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. - Loan No. 3 ... ... ... ... ... 898,172 00 City Council, Singapore - Kallang Area Traffic Scheme ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 3,000,000 00 --------------- Total ... 118,658,977 84 --------------- be charged against the General Revenue Balance. 11.57 a.m.

Perhaps it will be convenient to hon. Members if we suspend? The next item deals with Local Government. Hon. Members indicated assent.

The Assembly is suspended till 2.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 11.58 a.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name, That the Report from the Select Committee on the Local Government Elections Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L. A. 1 of 1957, be adopted, subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of clauses 1, 2, 11, 22, 27 and 34 to a Committee of the whole Assembly. As hon. Members of this Assembly are aware, the Local Government Elections Bill and the Local Government Bill are complementary, and that with the enactment of these two Bills it will then be possible under the new local government organisation to proceed with these elections at the earliest opportunity which, in the case of the City Council, will be in December this year and in the case of the District Councils sometime about March 1958. Members will have observed from the Report that only a few written representations were submitted and that no oral representations were made. Members will wish me to draw attention to the main amendments to the Bill in Select Committee and this I will proceed to do. Concerning clause 5, a new paragraph (c) has been included to enable citizens of the United Kingdom or Colonies, or persons born in the Federation of Malaya, Sarawak, North Borneo or Brunei to vote after one year's residence. The reason for this is that while the Bill has extended the right to vote to alien nationals with five years' residence, adult persons who are citizens of the United Kingdom or who were born in Malaya, etc., were barred from voting because they have less than five years' residence in Singapore. Nevertheless those same persons with only one year's residence can vote in the Legislative Assembly elections. By this amendment they can now also vote in the local government elections after one year's residence. With regard to the machinery for elections, amendments have been made to clause 9 to meet representations which have been made advocating improvements to polling arrangements. Sub-clauses (3), (4) and (5) give discretionary powers to the Returning Officer regarding the number and kind of polling stations, and for guidance in the exercise of his discretion the provision of one polling station for every 2,000 voters has been recommended. The main amendment to clause 10 is a little technical. Briefly, the purpose of the new sub-clause (1), being a telescoped version of old sub-clauses (1), (2), (3) and (4), is to enable arrangements to be made for preparing the Local Government Electoral Rolls corrected up to 1st April, 1957, instead of 1st April, 1956. In anticipation of the City Council elections in December, electoral rolls corrected up to 1st April, 1957, are now under preparation. Claims and objections will of course follow the procedure given in clause 11. Turning now, Sir, to clause 66, the purpose of the provision which has been added to paragraph (a) of sub-clause (1) is to make it clear that either payment for or contract to pay for any petroleum used for vehicles which may be lawfully used for the conveyance of electors to and from the polling booths is not constituted as a legal practice. It expressly provides that such payments shall be regarded as expenses within the meaning of clause 65 which limits the total expenses which may be incurred by candidates. Apart from the amendments which I have already described, Members are aware that I have a number of further amendments to make as given in the Notice of Amendments. These are all minor amendments except those to clauses 22 and 34. The purpose of the amendment to clause 22 is to rectify an omission by making express provision for filling a casual vacancy within two months. Concerning the amendment to clause 34 this simply is designed to ensure that the date on which the poll is taken is not less than 16 days from the date of the notice of election. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I rise to second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later stage. Question proposed. 2.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move an amendment to the motion, In line 3, after "2," to insert "8.". Amendment handed in.

The amendment is in order. Please proceed.

Sir, clause 8 at present reads: "The Minister may, from time to time, by notification published in the Gazette specify the names and boundaries of the electoral divisions of any local government area for purposes of elections under this Ordinance." Sir, this means that any alterations to the boundaries in the electoral divisions or any demarcation of the boundaries of electoral divisions in any local government area can be done by the Minister without reference to this House or without notification through the Government Gazette or through newspapers, or without reference to representations and objections by members of the public. Now Sir, this morning in answer to a question by the Member for Serangoon [Mr Lim Choon Mong] as to whether an All-Party Committee was going to be set up to consider the all-important question of these electoral divisions in the local government areas, we heard the answer was in the negative except possibly that these electoral divisions which have already been worked out will be referred or have been referred in the last few days to an All-Party Committee for its observations and for some reconciliation of the proposed boundaries with the limits of the general election constituencies. Sir, we object to this in principle. You will find if you refer to clauses 5 and 15 of the Local Government Bill with which we shall be dealing later, that it is provided there that no alteration shall be made to the limits of the City or the Districts unless and until such alterations have been notified in four successive Gazettes and in the newspapers of four different languages with an invitation to persons to make objections. We intend when we come to the Local Government Bill to move amendments to add a proviso that these alterations should be notified in respect of the new limits to the City and the Districts which are of course the most important ones of all and of very considerable proportions. It is our view, therefore, that if this is to be found in the Local Government Bill with regard to the City limits, the same principles should be applied to the electoral divisions, to the Bill now in question. As I said, Sir, an All-Party Committee is not going to be set up to consider these boundaries despite a request that this be done, and the result is that Government does lay itself open to the charge of manipulation of the electoral boundaries to suit party interests if the boundaries are imposed on people and are not open to such representations. Any government, I am sure, will not wish to make themselves a party to that suspicion. It is therefore in our view essential that this matter should be considered in the Committee stage. I do not propose, Sir, to speak further on it at this stage. 2.42 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the amendment. I believe that under clause 8 of this Local Government Elections Bill the Minister is given considerable powers, and that this clause should be read in conjunction with the intention of Government trying to force through what seems to me to be something in the interests of the governing Party. I will put a few instances before you, Sir. I have just received information that Government has already set up a Committee to consider the divisions of the City Council and that it has already made up its mind as to what it should be. I understand the recommendations have already been accepted by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat) as well as by the Council of Ministers. I take it, Sir, that in the matter of elections, not just the interests of one Party are involved, nor even the interests of the governing Party; the interests of all political Parties are concerned. I have glanced through a little part of the Report and I am alarmed, Sir, at the way the Government has fixed the divisions. At best, it can be said to be political manoeuvring. There is the case of Tanjong Pagar being given three representatives in local council elections, but Cairnhill is to be given only a little more than one, say one-and-a-half to two, and Tanglin also one-and-a-half. I have noted the reasons given. The Report says that this is based on the estimated electoral strength but I cannot understand, from what I have seen, why in one area with about 30,000 people the voting strength is calculated at 18,000 while for another area with about the same number of people the voting strength is put at 12,000. How were these figures established? Did Government have statistics to support its calculations of estimates of future votes? Is it that one area consists mainly of children, or in another that there are more aliens? The disparity in the figure is too great to make them true. The Committee has also stated that one line it followed is community interest but I fail to see this being followed, especially in the Cairnhill area where one section of predominantly local-born people, in Emerald Hill Road, is carved out and included with other divisions. Where is the similarity of community interest in this grouping of different peoples? The statement is just not convincing. We can quote more examples of how things are being manipulated. In the case of Whampoa, we find that the area is going to sprawl over to Serangoon Road and to embrace Kallang right up to Kallang Road, instead of going East into Potong Pasir or west into Rangoon Road. Such are the inconsistencies suggested by the Committee set up by the Government. The Government may say it is a Committee consisting only of Government officials and that no Party is involved and not one single Party is represented on it. Let me say, however, that Government servants have to carry out the policy of the Government; they are the servants of the Government and the Government in power is that of the Labour Front Coalition. Sir, the elections provided for in this Bill should be carried out in the most fair manner, fair to all Parties concerned, and an All-Party Committee should be set up to give its views on the matter. As matters stand, the Government is using a very unfair way of getting a favourable position. The Liberal-Socialist Party wants the elections to be fair and nothing else. It feels that Government should be a responsible one, that it should not try to force other Parties to accept what it feels will be good only to itself. If the Government thinks that in the elections it needs a handicap, it should ask for it - probably it would get it. If the Government feels that it can fight the elections only after tying up its opponent's hands, it should declare its intentions. But it will really be a shameful matter if it seeks an advantage by hiding behind a so-called non-Party Committee. I certainly feel, Sir, that clause 8 should be included for reconsideration in Committee, in which we will explain fully our stand. Sir, I beg to second the amendment.

it has been moved as an amendment to the original Question, after "2," to insert "8,". The Question is, "That the figure proposed to be inserted, be there inserted." 2.50 p.m.

Sir, I notice with some interest that this "very serious" matter now brought forward by the Member for Tanglin [Mr John Ede] and his colleague the Member for Serangoon [Mr Lim Choon Mong] was apparently not in their minds at all when this clause was considered in the Select Committee on this Bill. For according to the Report this clause was agreed to with no particular discussion and there was only one fairly minor technical arrangement. That is not altogether surprising on second thoughts, because it does seem to me that there is a very big difference between the boundaries of District Councils and the City Council, and the boundaries of divisions. When the Select Committee on the Local Government Bill was considering the boundaries between the City Council and the District Councils, there was, as the hon. Member for Tanglin said, a great discussion, and that is a matter on which I have no doubt there will be further debate. Now a decision whether or not to put a certain area within the boundaries of the City Council or within the boundaries of a District Council is a matter which must affect very directly every person living within that area, because in the one case his affairs and rates and taxes will be in the hands of the City Council, and in the other case those affairs will be in the hands of a District Council. But I see no parallel at all, Sir, between this and the division of an area into constituencies for the purpose of polling. I would hazard the opinion, Sir, that the ordinary voter in Singapore has very little personal interest whether he goes to a polling station in a constituency called Cairnhill or one called Tanglin, whatever name you would like to suggest. The first concern of the voter surely is merely that he should be able to exercise his vote with the minimum inconvenience, that is to say that the polling station should be reasonably near his place of residence. The persons who are concerned with the division of the City Council into electoral constituencies are, of course, the political Parties, and that, I think, is the rub of this issue, and the real case for recommitting clause 8 is the case that was put by the hon. Member for Serangoon. I regret that he should feel that he must regard the boundaries which have been drawn up as having been manipulated. He said he could not believe that these boundaries had been drawn up in an objective way without Party bias and without a policy directive from the Government. Sir, I cannot of course deny him his beliefs or his views, but I can say that this task of dividing the new City area into 32 constituencies was a task tackled by a Committee of officials with no policy directive from Ministers other than the basic directive to draw up 32 areas on the basis of the franchise as laid down in the Bill. And it was very much a technical problem. In fact I think if members of any political Party were to try to divide the City area into 32 constituencies in order to rig the elections they would have very great difficulty in doing so without arriving at an answer which would, on the face of it, be absurd. It is not an easy task to divide a City area into constituencies. There are a number of considerations which are decisive, The first is to try to get boundaries which do have some natural, self-evident justification, such as the line of a stream or the line of a water channel or some other natural boundary: and the second consideration is to try as far as possible to get approximately the same number of voters in each division. That latter task cannot of course at the moment be based on definite figures. The hon. Member for Serangoon indicated that he thought the figures on which the Committee worked were not reliable ones, implying that they had not been properly estimated. Now it is impossible to prove how many voters we shall find in any given area. All we can do is to take the total number of people living in an area, which we can get, and having regard to the number of present voters in the area, look as intelligently as we can at the make-up of that area and then estimate what effect the introduction of aliens who have lived there for five years will have on the rolls. It was because an allowance was made for an uneven incidence of voters coming on to the rolls that you find that in some existing constituencies, the subdivision is greater than in others. There is no attempt whatsoever to make the Tanjong Pagar division into three divisions because we think the three new divisions will be won by any one political Party; it has been done entirely on objective considerations of trying to get approximately the same number of persons in each division, following as far as possible natural boundaries. However, there have been several cases where the natural boundary, and in particular an existing boundary which is known, gave us a result which did not seem to be acceptable. One case was that of the Cairnhill constituency. We had too many people in the proposed Cairnhill division and not enough in the neighbouring division to the West. The solution adopted was to remove a certain number of persons who now live in the Cairnhill area and switch them to the neighbouring area (I forget the exact name of it). The reason this particular area was chosen was that it seemed to be the area most closely related to the other division. I am sorry that hon. Members opposite should adopt the view that the Committee worked to a political directive and was not being objective. I can only assure you that that was not so and I would add one last word, Sir, which is that if hon. Members contemplate any considerable revision of the boundaries of divisions at this stage, then it will not be possible to have City Council elections in December. I am not for a moment denying this House the opportunity, if it so wishes, to revise the electoral division boundaries. If it wishes to do that, let it be done. But what I would say is if that is done to anything more than a very, very minor extent, City Council elections cannot be held in December. 2.59 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what has just been said is new to me. In the last few minutes I have been told that Government has finalised the demarcation of divisions within the City Council and that a Report has been circulated to all Parties concerned. This is another case of the Independents being snubbed. I cannot see why that Report should not be circulated to Independent Members as well. The Hon. the Chief Secretary has said that it is not the duty or responsibility of voters to be concerned in the fixing of boundaries. I think he is entirely wrong and I do not agree with him. Voters in each division, whether attached to a political Party or not, are greatly concerned in the demarcation of boundaries as they may wish to put up their own candidates who may not belong to any Party. They have a right if they want to, to nominate their own candidates as Independents and it is therefore their concern that they should know where their electoral boundaries are. I am very glad that the Chief Secretary (or is it the Member for Serangoon?) has said that it is not a demarcation by the Government Party. It is a few Government officials who have been directed by the Government Party to demarcate such divisions. There is all the more reason why the Report should have been brought to this Assembly rather than circulated to all Parties concerned. In this Assembly we have the Government Party which is an alliance government of three political Parties, and on the Opposition benches we have the Liberal-Socialists and the P.A.P. I am quite sure that in Singapore we have more political Parties than what we have here. There is the Party Ra'ayat and why should not this Party be consulted then? I think the Government may not consider that the Party Ra'ayat is a political Party, and if that be so, why then register that Party as a political Party? The Independents are always snubbed for one reason or another. This concerns the elections and it affects not only the Members of this Assembly but also the whole public as well. I would therefore like to record my protest at the way in which the Independents are treated in this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleague the Chief Secretary has explained the working of this official Committee that has been set up by the Government. It answers the allegation made by the hon. mover and seconder of the amendment that there has been manipulation by the Party in power.

It does not answer that.

Sir, I would like to refute that allegation, and the only thing I would like to say at this stage is that such an allegation could only come from the mind of somebody who, if he had been in the position where we are today, might have thought it possible and practicable. We on this side of the House, Sir, did not even think of it. An official body was appointed comprising the Chief Statistician, the Deputy Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing, the Planning Adviser to the S.I.T., and a representative of the Survey Department. Sir, the Government accepts the amendment by the Members of the Liberal-Socialist Party to recommit clause 8 of the Bill, and as this clause will be fully debated during the Committee stage, I feel that it will serve no useful purpose for us to have a lengthy debate on this now and thereby prolong the debate on the motion before the House. In regard to the points raised by the Member for Queenstown, Sir, I have had occasion this morning to say that the hon. Member had difficulty in understanding the English language. I find. Sir, -

It is not my language.

I find that the same position still obtains in the remarks that he has levelled at the speech of the Chief Secretary. He says the voter is of course interested in the electoral division in which he is to be placed. The Chief Secretary has not said so. What the Chief Secretary has said is this: that the voter is interested to see that he has a vote and he is not interested whether it is to be this part of Cairnhill or that part of Cairnhill. He can still exercise his vote. Then the hon. Member, referring to the Report of this official Committee on demarcation, stated that it had been given to all members of the All-Party Committee. Sir, it is an All-Party Committee set up by the Government to consider the demarcation of Singapore into 51 divisions, and it is to enable them to make a proper study of the facts and figures as gathered by this official Committee that the Report is handed to them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Government has decided to accept this amendment to the motion by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, there is very little that remains to be said except this. On principle it is advisable to have the work of this Committee placed before all political Parties. If there has been no gerrymandering it would be obvious to everybody, and everybody would then be quite happy. But whether or not there has been an unconscious bias in the work of any official so as to justify the allegations made by the Member for Serangoon, one can only judge from the vehemence of his allegations and the corresponding vehemence of the denials of the Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary. Nothing would be lost if the reasons for the delineations are placed before an All-Party Committee. If the Committee is fully aware of the fact that any radical alteration to the boundary lines may well lead to a postponement of the elections, that is a responsibility which will be shouldered by every political Party. Amendment agreed to. Question, as amended, put, and agreed Resolved, "That the Report from the Select Committee on the Local Government Elections Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L. A. 1 of 1957, be adopted, subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of clauses 1, 2, 8, 11, 22, 27 and 34 to a Committee of the whole Assembly." Committee on Thursday, 25th July, 1957.

3.08 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name, namely, That the Report from the Select Committee on the Local Government Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 10 of 1957, be adopted, subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of clauses 21, 67, 68, 81, 102, 108, 152, 154, 169, 256 and 285 to a Committee of the whole Assembly. As hon. Members will have observed, the Report from the Select Committee is very voluminous. In acknowledgement of the importance of this Bill, a great deal of time and effort has been given to it. Many meetings of the Select Committee were held, in the course of which written and oral representations from the City Council, the Singapore Ratepayers Association, the Chambers of Commerce and others were considered and several hundred amendments were studied. A great number of amendments have been made to the Bill as a result of these representations. Conversely, Government found that it was not in agreement with a number of the proposals put forward and was therefore unable to vary the clauses in question. Hon. Members will expect me to apprise them of the main amendments which have been made and also to refer to the proposed amendments which Government was unable to accept. I hope you will bear with me as this will be a lengthy business. In respect of the definition "City" in clause 3, also alterations to boundaries referred to in clauses 5 and 15, and the description of the City boundary in the First Schedule, objections opposed the exclusion of part of Katong from the City on the one hand, and the expansion of the western boundary on the other. Various arguments were applied. In the case of Katong, it was said that the Merdeka Bridge and Nicoll Highway brought Katong closer to the City; that residents in Katong now paid City rates and would lose the benefits of City services and such amenities; and that residents of Katong would be mulct by the District Council in favour of the less developed areas of the District. Then there was a further argument that the present division of Katong into two parts - along a small canal - only achieved a splitting of an otherwise homogeneous community. In the case of the western boundary, Sir, it was said that a purely rural area was wrongly being brought into the City and that its interests were dissimilar from those of the City, and also that there was a danger of increased rating and so forth. Government disagrees with these views. Government has taken into account much wider and more substantial considerations. The division of Singapore Island into City and District local authorities takes into account not only the desirability of having three (and later four) equally balanced Districts, but in doing so takes into account future proposals as envisaged in the Master Plan by which new towns will be developed, one at Jurong, one at Bukit Panjang, and one at Serangoon, each with fairly evenly balanced populations. At Katong there is no proposal for a new town. Instead, the urban population will form the centre of the new District. It is thought that-

Point of clarification, Sir.

If the Minister will give way. Inche Abdul Hamid resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister is referring actually to Changi and not Katong.

It is quite evident, Sir, that for the purpose of further clarification to Members of this Assembly that I am referring to it in my speech as Katong. As I was saying, Sir, it is thought that Katong will develop sooner and reach full status before the other Districts, and thereby provide a model for them. As regards services, the suggestion that these would be less beneficial consequential on the change is not accepted by Government. Also if hon. Members will turn to the transitional provisions of clause 323, they will appreciate that these can be applied in the early stages of the changeover, which may probably only last, say, six to eight months. Nor is it thought likely that residents of Katong will be mulct by their own District Council and on which they will presumably be properly represented. As regards community interest at Katong, it is agreed that the more densely populated urban population which will form the nucleus of the Katong District is homogeneous, but it is doubtful if the urban part has an over-riding community interest with the residential area of Katong which is to remain in the City. The boundary - the canal - is an old City boundary and may be regarded as an extension of the line of the Green Belt. As regards the western boundary, again this is the line of the Green Belt beyond which City, urban and industrial development is restricted to stop indefinite sprawl. Again it forms part of an overall plan. These new areas are not strictly rural - they are not agricultural - they are, in fact, urban or suburban and include industrial development along the West Coast Road, the large areas occupied by the Armed Forces and housing estates of Queenstown and the residential areas of Holland Road as well as further similar future developments. This area should not, for example, be compared with the rural areas of Ulu Pandan which lie outside the City boundary. Government considers that these wider and planned measures considerably outweigh questions of rates and fears about services. Concerning the constitution of the City and District Councils in clauses 6 and 16, representations were made to increase the number of Councillors from 32 to 48 in the case of the City, and from 12 to 18 in the case of the District Councils. Further, suggestions were also made that there should be Aldermen appointed to the City Council. Government was not able to accept these proposals as it was not convinced that these increases were either desirable or necessary. It considers that a great improvement on the "City and Island Council", as envisaged in the Rendel Constitution with only 32 members, has been made since there will under the new constitution be a total of 68 elected Councillors, plus three Chairmen and nine nominated Councillors, plus a fourth Council later on. With the adoption of these further proposals, there would be the danger of over-representation, since it should be borne in mind that the people of Singapore are also to be represented under the new constitution by 51 Assemblymen. In a small island like Singapore there is bound to be an overlap of interests between local government and State business and there is therefore a real danger of creating a multiplicity of authorities and of over-organisation, particularly as the electoral boundaries for local government and the Assembly in the City may be coterminous. It was also represented that increases would enable the City Council to conduct its business more expeditiously and efficiently by enabling it to appoint larger Standing Committees and to delegate authority to them. Government is not aware of inefficiency in the present City Council on account of inadequate numbers and in any case the numbers are to be increased from 27 to 32. It would perhaps be of assistance if the City Council made use of the provisions of the new clause 47 (old clause 49) which gives powers to delegate authority to a Committee and also to delegate authority to its employees. As the new Councillors become more experienced, they may wish to consider these provisions, since it appears from what the Member for Tanglin had to say in Select Committee that about 80 per cent of the decisions in the City Council require confirmation by the full Council, and that authority is not delegated. Concerning Aldermen, Government takes the view that this system, under which the persons nominated probably share the political views of the Party which nominates them, is less attractive than an all-elected representation. With regard to the qualifications of candidates for election in clause 21, I said at the Second Reading of the Bill, Sir, that Government intended to follow the policy which is laid down in the White Paper to the effect that in the City Council the ability to speak "Mandarin or Malay or Tamil or English" would be the qualification required, whereas in the Districts the ability to speak "any Chinese dialect or Malay or Tamil or English" would be the qualification required. Government has not agreed that in the City area "any Chinese dialect" should take the place of Mandarin. In this, however, Sir, Government is following the Legislative Assembly language qualification, taking the view that in an urbanised and sophisticated local government area such as the City, beset as it is with modern and technical problems, an unlimited range of dialects could seriously impede business. In the Districts, however, where the tempo of business will be much slower in comparison, and where insistence on Mandarin would seriously hamper adequate representation, this was considered to outweigh expediency. Members will have noticed, Sir, with regard to paragraph (d) that the restriction on candidates in Districts having to stand for the division in which they reside has been removed. Under the amendment, a candidate can stand for any division within the local authority in which he resides. Government did not agree to a proposal to debar a candidate from standing for election on account of blindness. Government was in agreement with the Member for Tanglin concerning the original clauses 31 and 35, both of which have been taken out of the Bill. It was considered that clause 31, which gave provision to the local authority to grant gratuities in special cases, was open to abuse. Concerning clause 35, by implication it would appear that employees of the local authority can run businesses in addition to their employment with the local authority. This clause was thought to be highly undesirable and accordingly has been taken out of the Bill. On the question of rates, Government was not able to agree with the proposed amendment to sub-clause (3) of clause 108 by the Member for Tanglin by which the 30 per centum ceiling for rates in the City should also be applied to Districts. Government took the view that the original wording, slightly modified, would be more appropriate, and that in so far as Districts were concerned, the rates shall not exceed fifteen per centum without the sanction of the Minister in writing. Government held the view that clause 109 was necessary and should be retained in order to meet the need for differential rating in the new areas affected by the changes to boundaries. By amendments to paragraphs (a) and (b) , the provisions of this clause will not only apply to the new areas but also to any part thereof. In other words, in the case of Katong District, for example, it need not follow that the whole new area which is transferred to the District will be required to continue to pay City rates - a part thereof could pay less, depending on the services provided and other such factors. Government did not agree that clause 109 (b) could be dispensed with as was suggested simply because of the amendment to clause 108 (3). Clause 109 specifically concerns the change-over. The proviso to clause 108 (3) has general effect and is not concerned with those areas specifically covered under clause 109 (b). With regard to the provisions relating to the building of streets, an important amendment has been made to sub-clause (15) of clause 142 the effect of which is that unless the local authority does not approve plans within two months of their receipt or resubmission, they shall be deemed to be approved. This amendment meets criticisms of delays and should ensure that business is done more expeditiously. A similar amendment has been made in respect of the approval of plans for buildings in clause 169, by which a similar time limit of two months is imposed under sub-clause (18). The reasons are the same - to expedite business. Clause 170 is completely new. It supplements the powers already given under sub-clauses (11) and (13) of clause 169 and also clause 172 and is designed expressly to enable the local authorities to take action through the Courts to bring about the speedy demolition or removal of unauthorised buildings which are in the process of being built. The procedure is speedier since it does not have to await a conviction as in the case of clauses 169 and 172. Such measures are deemed necessary to enable the local authority to put a stop to the unauthorised buildings which are springing up everywhere regardless of planning or building approval. Clause 188 is also new. It makes much fuller provisions than the clause which was disagreed, for taking immediate action, subject to the Court's direction, to prohibit persons remaining in ruinous or dangerous buildings. In extreme cases the building may be demolished. In respect of clause 202, representations both for and against the City Council having the power to sell various kinds of electrical, gas and water apparatus and appliances were considered. On balance, Government decided in favour of the City Council having the power to sell. This is not the first step in nationalisation, Sir, as has been suggested. The real reasons are not at all sinister. In so far as electricity is concerned, the object is to reduce the cost of electricity to the consumer by increasing consumption - especially in the non-peak periods in the day time and late at night. When prices are artificially high, the public is not inclined to buy. When equipment is sold by the City Council at reasonable prices, more such equipment is bought and more electricity is consumed. The object is to offer the consumer reasonable terms for consumer appliances and good service. The City Council's object is not to trade in non-consumer appliances such as electric bulbs and electrical wiring. As a matter of interest it may soon cease to sell electrical cookers and fans because, so far as these are concerned, the trade prices are reasonable. It may also be of interest, Sir, to note that the British Electricity Authority in the United Kingdom, which is a public body, has the power not only to sell consumer appliances but also to manufacture them. It is also believed that in the Federation the Central Electricity Board have the power to sell. As regards gas appliances on the other hand, it appears that the City Council is the sole trader and it is therefore in the public interest that the City Council should continue to hire its equipment and also, as it does in some cases, to sell such equipment. The Member for Tanglin sought to add a number of new clauses with which Government was not in agreement.

Order. I have been a bit concerned at the Minister's expressions, "Government did not agree" and "Government agreed." I take it that what is really meant is that Government, since receiving the Report of the Select Committee, has agreed or disagreed with the views of the Select Committee. I would hate to think that Government, as a Government, does or should endeavour to influence the proceedings of a Select Committee.

Yes, Sir, thank you. The first new clause which was suggested by the Member for Tanglin in the Select Committee sought to give the District Councils power to appoint a Secretary, Treasurer, Health Officer, Assessor, Engineer, Architect and other such appointments. The second new clause is similar to the first in that it provided for the Chairmen of District Councils to submit to their Councils each year a list of posts which are necessary. The third new clause provided for the District Council Fund and properties vested in it to come under the direction and control of the District. Also that all payments to and out of the Fund should be made by the Treasurer (appointed under the first new clause). Since receiving the Report of the Select Committee, Sir, Government feels that it does not disagree with the principles envisaged in these proposed amendments and, in fact, endorses them since it is intended that District Councils should eventually be independent. At the Second Reading of the Bill, I drew attention to the Explanatory Note which reads: "Provision is also made for District Councils to be run, during an interim period after their constitution, on lines similar to those of the Rural Board, particularly with regard to finance, staffing, vesting of properties, acquisition and disposal of land and other immovable property. When these Councils have been set on their feet and have become financially viable, amending legislation will be introduced to enable them to function independently like the City Council." Hon. Members will appreciate, Sir, that it is not possible to create independent and 100 per cent self-sufficient District Councils overnight. Membership of a local authority is a job to be learnt. The weight of responsibility we are proposing to place upon these Councils is, as the McNeice Report points out, very considerable, and experience in the management of weighty affairs is not immediately evident in these areas. It is for such reasons, as well as financial considerations, that a measure of guidance of these Councils in their early years is necessary for a strictly limited period. Nevertheless it is agreed that District Councils should be as independent as practicable of control by Government. The Committee on Local Government sought for a system of financial assistance by Government which would preserve local authorities' independence, and it was thought that a system of equalisation grants would offer the best solution. This matter is also referred to in paragraph 6 of the White Paper. All these matters concerning the duties and responsibility of District Councils, the feasibility of a system of equalisation grants, staffing, and all such considerations regarding the machinery to establish District Councils are being studied by a Working Party, the establishment of which was referred to at paragraphs 210 and 211 of the McNeice Report. In due course, amending legislation on the lines envisaged by the Member for Tanglin will be introduced, but Government's view is that at present it is premature to do so. Two minor amendments have been made to the description of District boundaries in the Second Schedule which have also been illustrated on two maps, Map A and Map B, attached to the Report. The first minor amendment which appears on Map A was simply to draw the boundary to bring in the Royal Malayan Navy together with the Naval Base, rather than to have them artificially separated. The second amendment, in Map B, was to include Nee Soon Village in the Serangoon District Council instead of in the Bukit Panjang District. Nee Soon is comparatively remote from Bukit Panjang Village, and the lives of the residents of Nee Soon are more closely linked with those of the residents living along Sembawang Road and Thomson Road. As regards the whole of these boundaries described in the First and Second Schedules, it has been represented that they should be subjected to the procedure laid down in clauses 5 and 15. Government's view is that this procedure should be applied to all subsequent amendments, but in so far as these major changes are concerned, forming as they do part of a new Bill, the proper place for consideration of them and debate on them is in the Assembly alongside with all the other proposals of the Bill. The Report of the Committee on Local Government, showing in "map form" the first boundary proposals has been available since early in 1956. The White Paper, Cmd. 30 of 1956, with firm boundary proposals, was published together with a map a few months later, and the same boundaries have been described in the Bill. The proposed boundaries have, therefore, been given a thorough airing and it is not agreed that any further airing under clauses 5 and 15 is necessary. As I said earlier, Sir, many hundreds of amendments to this Bill have been considered and made. Many of them are minor improvements and corrections. Others take into account the representations which have been made. I have already mentioned the more important representations and amendments. The final results are, of course, incorporated in the Bill attached to the Report. There are a few more amendments which I shall move. Members will have observed from the notice of amendments that all these additional amendments which I propose to move are minor ones and that those which are to be made to the more controversial clauses 21 and 108 are of little importance and have little or no bearing on the main issues. Sir, hon. Members of the Assembly are conscious of the importance of this Bill, particularly its special provisions for the establishment of several more democratic institutions in Singapore Island. The early enactment of the Bill is chiefly dictated by the urgent and widespread desire to hold elections to the local government Councils as soon as possible and, more particularly, to hold City Council elections in December. Nevertheless Members of the Assembly may well feel that a little more time should be given to consideration of the Bill. For this reason, therefore, Sir, I shall shortly propose that the Committee stage should be deferred until Thursday, 25th July, for which purpose a special sitting of the Assembly will be proposed. Before I conclude, I should like to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir; but for your guidance and assistance the Members of the Select Committee would not have completed their job within the time which we had been able to do so. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later stage. Question proposed 3.38 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move an amendment to the motion, After "285", to insert "and clauses 3, 5, 6, 15, 16, 20, 22, 25, 26, 29, 31, 39, 40, 41, 45, 60, 109, 143, 159, 168, 216, 245, 284, 287, 293, 323, two new clauses immediately after clause 17, and one new clause after clause 101, the First Schedule, the Second Schedule, the Third Schedule, and the Sixth Schedule". Amendment handed in.

Before the Member for Tanglin proceeds, perhaps the Chief Minister would like to inform the House whether he agrees in this case to the adoption of the practice which will, I hope, be evolved whereby, if a Member wishes a clause to be discussed, the Bill would, as a matter of course, be recommitted to a Committee of the whole Assembly to enable a discussion on that clause to be gone into in greater detail?

Yes Sir, the Government welcomes a debate on any points which the Opposition may care to raise in Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to answer my friend the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing in full on all the points on which he has touched this afternoon. I am sure the House does not want to hear me make a comprehensive answer which would only be a repetition of what can be said at the Committee stage. Sir, there are only one or two points that I wish to make. This is, as the Minister said, an immensely complex Bill of 324 clauses and six schedules which affects the man in the street considerably, because the local government is the man in the street's government to a very large extent. It has already been said that many amendments were moved and accepted in Select Committee and many more were negatived. Many points have come to light in the Select Committee as to the Government's intentions which were not, I think, appreciated by this House before and certainly not appreciated by me; and there are other points in which the Government's intentions are still obscure, if not to themselves, at least to others. I only want to give one single example of this kind of obscurity as I see it. It is with regard to the position of the area of Katong, Siglap and that part of Ulu Bedok and Geylang Serai which it is proposed to put into a District Council. I do not propose to argue the advantages or disadvantages or that move this afternoon; but there is one point - and it refers to clause 323 - which is extremely confusing. If you will refer, Sir, to the Explanatory Note at page 199 of the original Bill in the fourth paragraph, it says: "Transitional provisions (see under clause 323 below) have been included to enable the Rural Board to continue to perform its present functions in the Rural Board area and, pending the constitution of the District Councils, to administer those parts of the present City area which are to be merged into the new District Council areas." The Rural Board should administer those areas going out of the City into the District Councils. That is the explanatory note in the Bill which is what one understood before it went to Select Committee. In the Select Committee during the gathering of evidence from the representations, one got the impression that if in the Katong area the services supplied by the Rural Board eventually deteriorated or they were not able to carry them out, the City Council would be asked to step in and assist. But when we got through the Bill clause by clause we discovered that that was not the case, but that the City Council would look after the district of Katong until such time as the Changi District Council was able to provide the services that that area should have. That is to be found in column 343 of the Official Report where the Minister stated: "The provisions of clause 324, I should like to stress to the Committee, are transitional and discretionary. Read in relation to sub-clause (4) , it clearly indicates that this is purely transitional legislation. It is very clear, Sir, that the Government feels that at least during the first term of the district council, there should be this sort of arrangement. It also thinks that the transitional period will not last the full term of office of the new district council, that it is not going to last for all time." Sir, in one sentence the Minister said "at least during the first term of the district council" this will be in operation and then he corrected it to say that it "will not last the full term of office", and I believe I understood him to say a few minutes ago that it is now to be six or eight months. So what the real period will be is anybody's guess, but I think I should read to the House that particular sub-clause to which I am referring - clause 323 (2) - to justify my argument: "Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Ordinance or the repeal of the Municipal Ordinance the Minister may, in his discretion, by order published in the Gazette and subject to such directions as the Minister may from time to time give to the City Council, authorise, empower and direct the City Council or any of its employees to continue to have, exercise and perform such functions duties, powers (including the powers to levy rates and to charge fees), discretions and authorities or any of them had exercised or performed by the City Council or any of its employees under the provisions of the Municipal Ordinance and may likewise authorise, empower and direct the City Council or any of its employees to refrain from exercising such functions, duties, powers, discretions and authorities...". But one was given to understand that, in point of fact, the City Council would administer this area going out of the District Council for a period of three or four years. Now, Sir, the position is this: that this new area will be in the District Council. It will have electoral divisions in the Changi District Council. It will elect representatives from this area to sit on the District Council, but the City Council will perform the administration. So you will have the position of your representatives of Katong, Siglap, part of Ulu Bedok and Geylang Serai sitting on one Council and the administration of that area being carried out by another Council. Sir, as I have stated, there are very fundamental issues involved in this Local Government Bill and we are not satisfied that they are all being tackled in the right way - I have only given you one example. But the other problems to which the Minister has referred are very big problems - the limits to the City and District boundaries, the powers and functions of District Councils, the size of the Councils and their languages. differential rating, the status of the Mayor and so on. These all need proper ventilation in open meeting, so that both the Members of this House, the electorate and the ratepayer can understand what is involved.

Sir, I second the amendment. 3.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment and to add a further amendment to the amendment, namely, At the end, to add "and clauses 214 and 255". Amendment to the amendment handed in. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 214 deals with the licensing and the controlling of hawkers. One big problem in the City area is the problem of hawkers. A great deal of oppression by minor City Council officials and sometimes by Government officials is constantly going on, not with the connivance of the Government or the City Council, but simply because of the lack of ability to control the lower officials of the local government authority. I will at the Committee stage propose certain amendments as to what is to be done when the property of hawkers is being detained by the police, or by City Council officials. The present procedure in the detention of the property of hawkers pending the trial is unsatisfactory and it would be beneficial to clean administration and to the hawkers if a system is devised whereby when property is seized a receipt is given. At present no receipt is given, and although part of the goods may subsequently find their way to the Social Welfare Department to be distributed to the poor when they are ordered to be confiscated by the Police Magistrate, it is not altogether certain that all the articles seized are eventually put through the proper channels. An abuse of this nature can be prevented if it is specified beforehand that when goods and property are sized, a receipt should be given. As to clause 255 I should like at the Committee stage to propose that the Government should not extend the powers of the Rural Board to require a permit to be obtained before a well is dug. One could envisage circumstances where a well having already been dug is considered unhygienic or a danger to either health or person, and it may be necessary to order its closure. But to demand that a farmer or a squatter should go through all the elaborate process of getting a permit before digging a well is, in my opinion and I think in the opinion of a great number of rural dwellers, an unnecessary bit of bureaucracy. Therefore at the Committee stage I propose to move that this innovation of requiring a licence before digging a well should not be accepted and included in the Bill.

Sir, I rise to second the amendment to the amendment moved by the Member for Tanjong Pagar and reserve my right to speak at a later stage. Amendment to the amendment agreed to. Original Amendment as amended, agreed to. Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved. "That the Report from the Select Committee on the Local Government Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 10 of 1957, be adopted, subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of clauses 21, 67, 68, 81, 102, 108, 152, 154, 159, 256 and 285 and clauses 3, 5, 6, 15, 16, 20, 22, 25, 26, 29, 31, 39, 40, 41, 45, 60, 109, 143, 159, 168, 216, 245, 284, 287, 293, 323, two new clauses immediately after clause 17, and one new clause after clause 101, the First Schedule, the Second Schedule, the Third Schedule, and the Sixth Schedule and clauses 214 and 255 to a Committee of the whole Assembly." Committee on Thursday, 25th July, 1957.

3.58 p.m. The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion in my name, namely, That this Assembly, pursuant to section 174 of the Labour Ordinance, 1955 (No. 40 of 1955), resolves that the Labour (Procedure - Reciprocal Provisions) Regulations, 1957, published as Notification No. S 166 in the Gazette Supplement No. 48 of 28th June, 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 13 of 1957, be approved. The Regulations, the subject of my motion, have been made by the Governor in Council under section 172 of the Labour Ordinance. This section gives the Governor in Council the power to make regulations to prescribe the procedure for sending summonses, warrants and orders to the Federation of Malaya for service, and to make similar provisions for the service, execution and enforcement in Singapore of summonses, warrants and orders made in the Federation. There is a similar provision in the Federation's Employment Ordinance and the Federation Government has made similar regulations to those contained in Sessional Paper S.L. 13. If my motion is adopted, Sir, it is proposed to bring both regulations into force on 1st August. Let me turn now to the regulations themselves. Regulations 3 and 4 provide for the service of the Singapore Commissioner for Labour's summonses in the Federation and of the Federation Commissioner for Labour's summonses in Singapore. It sometimes happens that employees residing in the Federation employ workmen residing in Singapore and these regulations will enable the Commissioner for Labour to summon the employer to the Labour Court in Singapore should the workmen employed by him lay a complaint there and vice versa. Regulations 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 enable orders made by the Commissioner for Labour to be registered in either territory for enforcement by the appropriate sessions or civil district courts and lay down the procedure for the payment of monies due under the order. Regulations 10 and 11 ensure that employers who abscond from one territory to the other to avoid payment of workmen's wages may be apprehended and returned to the territory in which the complaint against them has been made. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

The Question is, "That this Assembly, pursuant to section 174 of the Labour Ordinance, 1955- 4.00 p.m. Moment of interruption. Further consideration, what day?

Tomorrow, Sir. Remaining items on the Order Paper read, and set down for tomorrow.

4.01 p.m.

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

I second it. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, in the past two weeks there has been one strike by a group of Government servants, namely men in the Customs Branch, and a threatened strike by another group of Government servants, namely the English school-teachers. In both these instances the Government issued strong warnings in the Press and in letters to the Unions that it intended to exercise its powers under General Orders 207 and 208. General Order 207 reads: "Any officer who, without leave or reasonable cause, is absent from duty for any period of more than 7 days may be held to have vacated his office." And General Order 208 says: "(a) Absence from duty for any period whether more or less than 7 days, without leave or subsequent sanction, constitutes a break in service and no officer may be paid salary for any period during which he is so absent. (b) The Head of Department is responsible for ensuring that the proper deduction from salary is made." In view of the uncertainty which this step has created and was designed to create in the minds of Government servants who were either on strike or intended to strike, I think we should clarify, first the legal position, and second, the trade union position. We are not suggesting, as the former Member for Cairnhill did at one stage, that a strike should be legalised in the form that it is a lawful breach of a contract. The position in English law is that any strike constitutes a breach of the contract which an employee enters into either orally or in writing with the employer. But the Trade Union Ordinance says that no union can be held responsible either for conspiracy or for any other tort in bringing about the breach of this contract as a result of collective action by the Union. Therefore, in any strike by any group of employees there are two aspects to consider, first, that of the union, and second, that of the individual members. As far as a union is concerned, there is no offence either in law, criminal or civil. But as far as a striking union member is concerned, in any strike he goes over from the province of law into that of politics; he is fighting it out with his employer. It then becomes a tussle of strength, of bargaining power, between the employer and the employees collectively. If the strike fails, as sometimes strikes are known to have failed, then the employees are sacked. In law he can be sued individually for breach of the contract of service for not having given the required notice of termination of service which may either be implied or expressed in his contract. If the strike succeeds, then the union bargains collectively with the employer not only that its members should go back without incurring any penalty for breach of the individual contract, but also that they should go back on better terms. And so it is with the Government, and for Government to introduce General Orders 207 and 208 into a trade dispute is, in my opinion, a deliberate attempt to queer the pitch of Government workers. Every Government servant who goes on strike, acting collectively through a union, runs the risk of having breached his personal contract of service with his employer, and that breach may not only bring about the forfeiture of pensions, but also the right of the employer to sue for payment in lieu of notice, implied or expressed, in his contract of service. Therefore there is in fact no difference in a strike by a group of workers be they in the Government service or in private employment. But once you have accepted that, the Government, which should conduct itself as a model good employer, should not go out of its way to try to brow-beat its employees by threatening them that their pensions will be lost, or that they will be assumed to have vacated their posts, just in order to prevent collective action by a group of its employees. If the Government takes this stand, the bluff will sooner or later be called because one group of Government servants will go on strike, win that strike and compel the Government not only to take them back with no break of service and with pensions secured, but also with better conditions of service and enhanced remuneration. I should imagine, therefore, that it would be a good policy on the part of the Government not to try to introduce a red herring into a trade dispute. Government knows what the legal position is. So do some, but not all, of the employees. What the Government is seeking to do is to make us of this ignorance of some of its servants to try to intimidate them into giving up their right of collective action. I did not consider this matter vital enough to be the subject of a motion. I was approached by both the Unions involved to raise this matter in the Assembly, and I think it should receive proper ventilation in this House. If the Government is going to act in this high-handed and authoritarian manner, it will be setting a bad example to all other employers. I therefore ask the Government to consider seriously whether it is wise, first, to make a threat, and second, having made it to provoke its employees at a later date to call its bluff. 4.09 p.m.

Sir, I welcome this opportunity to explain the position of Government servants who go on strike and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar for his courtesy in giving me ample time to say something in this matter. I think the position is fully understood by the Staff Side of the Civil Service Joint Council and I think it is also fully understood by the leaders of the big Staff Associations, but I do agree in part with the hon. Member there are other sections of the public service, particularly those led by persons who are not themselves Government servants, who do not yet understand this. But before explaining the position, I should like to deplore the continued emphasis in the terms of the notice given by the hon. Member, on rights rather than duties, on the right to strike. If we would all apply ourselves wholly to our duties to others and to the community, I think our so-called rights would look after themselves and that Singapore would be a better place. Public servants are the servants of the public. They have a duty to serve the public and we should never forget that. In principle, a Government officer holds office at the pleasure of the Crown and can be dismissed at any time. That is the principle, the theory. In practice, his employment is safeguarded by rules and regulations designed to give him security of tenure of office, subject only to good behaviour. Government servants cannot be sacked arbitrarily by a senior officer, as employees in industry and commerce can be and are. And as the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar indicated, trade unions have developed because of the exploitation of labour by bad employers. It was because the individual worker had no remedy against the boss that workers banded themselves together into trade unions and through trade union organisations were able to bargain collectively with their employers from a position of strength. It was because of this that they adopted the final weapon of the strike. As the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar rightly pointed out, a strike is the withdrawal of labour by employees designed to compel the employer to make concessions, and it amounts to a termination of a contract of service. It is a cruel weapon for the striker because he deliberately terminates his contract of service with his employer and depends on successful negotiations, on victory in the strike, to get his job back again. Now Government servants have never been in the same position as other workers. They have always been protected by a code of service regulations from victimisation and unfair treatment. They have always had security of office, a fundamental characteristic of responsible employment by a government and indeed one which is often criticised by members of the public. The greater the responsibility which a Government officer has, the more protection does he get from arbitrary dismissal or unfair treatment. Officers on the pensionable establishment can only be dismissed in accordance with a complicated semi-judicial procedure. I have emphasised these privileges and the particular position of Government servants because these privileges and safeguards in the public service must carry with them a corresponding obligation of loyal and conscientious public service, a duty to serve the public and to put the public interest first. The public rightly expects this loyal service. Now to strike is clearly inconsistent with loyal service to the public. A strike puts the interests of those on strike before the interests of the public. You may ask what about genuine grievances? How are they to be put right if Government servants are not to strike? And again I say, Sir, that public servants are in a specially favoured position. First of all, they are employed not by an individual boss but by the Government, and the Government is answerable and responsible to this Assembly and to public opinion. Secondly, every officer has the right of appeal from his immediate superior right up to the Governor if necessary. Thirdly, we have strong Staff Associations able to talk with authority and influence. Fourthly, we have the Civil Service Joint Council which is able to discuss staff problems and grievances at the highest level; any Staff Association which gets the full backing of the Staff Side of the Civil Service Joint Council is certain of the utmost consideration for its claims. And finally - and most important of all in this context of striking - the constituent members of the Staff Side of the Civil Service Joint Council have the right to take the Government to arbitration, the right to compel the Government to submit a dispute to impartial arbitration, a right which several Staff Associations and Unions have exercised and are today exercising. So I say, Sir, that a strike should be the last resort of any association of public servants, remembering both their primary duty to serve the public and the very special means at their disposal for settling their grievances without resorting to strikes. But in the last resort if Government servants insist on taking strike action, they are of course at liberty to do so. I accept the proposition of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar that a Staff Association or a Union which calls a strike of Government officers does not, providing it observes certain limitations, lay itself open to any charge of having committed a criminal or civil offence. The Government stated in this House on 22nd May that it recognises the fundamental right of a trade union to strike. But when a Government servant goes on strike, like any other person going on strike he terminates his contract and employment. He breaks faith with his duty of service to the public who pays him and safeguards him from arbitrary treatment. He also faces certain peculiar consequences which flow from his position as a public servant whose terms and conditions of service are governed by statutory rules and regulations. It is important that all Government servants, before they resort to strike action, should be fully aware of these consequences which flow from their special position. A Government servant who is absent from duty on strike breaks his service, just as any other person on strike breaks his service. And it follows that if a Government servant breaks his service, he forfeits his pensions and his other service benefits will be seriously prejudiced. Government pensions are governed by law and the law quite rightly says that to count for pension, service must be continuous. Therefore a break in service caused by striking will automatically forfeit all previous service for pension purposes. This is a very serious consequence indeed. It follows from the provisions of the Pensions Ordinance and from General Orders. And it is to make sure that Government servants do not go on strike forgetting that they stand to forfeit their previous service that recently we have always tried to issue specific warnings. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar interprets them as threats and intimidation. I say we issue specific warnings to remind them that if they do carry out their intention to strike, there will be a break in their service, they will be deemed to have vacated their offices and they will therefore forfeit their pensions. We want to make sure that they realise that their position is not the same as that of employees of bus companies or rubber factories. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar stated that there is no difference between an employee of a private concern and a Government servant going on strike. That, Sir, I submit with all respect, is a most dangerous misconception. There is a fundamental difference between them and the difference is this, that a public servant and his conditions of service are governed by the law. In the case of public servants, it is not a matter simply of direct bargaining between a number of employees and an employer. Their conditions of service are governed by the law. So I do not feel any remorse, Sir, over the fact that warnings were issued. I have the notices in front of me here. What we did was to tell these officers in the Customs and Education Departments - let me read the one which was issued to the Customs Department: "You are reminded that if you strike, you lay yourselves open to dismissal under General Orders." And what do the General Orders say? They say that if you are absent from duty for any period of more than seven days, you may be held to have vacated your office, and that absence from duty will be a break in service for which no pay can be given. The important thing is to bring home to public servants that if they go on strike they do stand to lose a great deal more than an ordinary employee. And it is not easy or necessarily possible for the employer, the Government, to remedy any consequences which may follow from a strike. I am told, for example, that some years ago in Nigeria it was necessary to enact special legislation in the Legislature to enable a period during which railway workers had been on strike to count for pension purposes. I mention this to show that very serious difficulties will stem from strike action by Government servants who are pensionable. I myself think that it is fitting. When a man is a pensionable public servant, the strike should be his very last resort, and he should remember that if he does adopt it he does so at his peril. 4.24 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in spite of all the explanation given by the Hon. the Chief Secretary, I think he has not even answered the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. One simple illustration I can point to is that of the postmen who went on strike sometime ago; they were taken back into service and did not lose anything. The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Sir, for the information of the hon. Member the postmen were not pensionable.

They were; most of them were. [Interruption] I need no clarification, because I was negotiating with the then Chief Secretary, the Colonial Secretary, and the present Chief Secretary is probably unaware of the facts and circumstances.

The point at issue, Sir, was whether they should be made pensionable.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved. That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Four o'clock p.m. to 18th July, 1957.

Wednesday, 17th July, 1957

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing if he will supply a list of the names of successful applicants for S.I.T. houses during the period January to June, 1957, showing, by names of streets and house numbers, the accommondation allotted, and the number of points awarded to each of the successful applicants.

I am informed by the Singapore Improvement Trust that the Trust has let no new premises during the period January/June, 1957, and that any lettings during this period have been to fill casual vacancies or in connection with transfers only. The Trust considers it highly undesirable to divulge information as to the names of applicants who have been successful in obtaining accommodation in vacated premises or the names of tenants who have been transferred to other premises.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing if he will give complete figures pertaining to the Singapore Improvement Trust flats in Albert/Prinsep/Short Streets showing how the amount of Government subsidy in respect thereof is calculated.

The method of subsidy by Government on S.I.T. housing is outlined in the Government White Paper, No. Cmd. 6 of 1957. The subsidy is not related to any particular scheme but is in fact the amount required to make up the annual deficit in the Trust's Housing Account. It is not possible therefore to give any exact calculation of the subsidy in respect of the Albert Street/Prinsep Street/Short Street scheme for which there can be in any case no complete figures until the buildings are completed. The approximate figure of $30 to $40 given in oral answer to a question by Mr Lim Choon Mong at the last meeting of the Legislative Assembly as the subsidy for the $35/30 p.m. two-room flat is the best estimate which can be given.