Hansard, 1957-07-26

Order for Recommittal read.

Clause 15- Ord. of Amendment proposed - [25th July, 1957] - 1957. In page 80, line 27, after "him", to insert ", provided that the provisions of this section shall also apply in respect of the alterations in the limits of the City and Districts described in the First and Second Schedules to this Ordinance respectively from those existing under the Municipal Ordinance and from those described in the Local Government Ordinance, 1957." - [Mr John Ede]. Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted."

The Government agreed with alacrity apparently to make the change proposed by the Rural Board in putting Nee Soon Village into the district of Serangoon instead of Bukit Panjang, and the Rural Board is a wholly nominated body, not one of whom therefore is an elected representative of Nee Soon Village, and the Government refused changes advocated by elected City Councillors and elected Members of this House. Nevertheless, this shows that the Government can make changes if it wants to, but only apparently if it wants to, without being prepared to listen to public representations. The point, Sir, whether the changes are minor or major is, nevertheless, not the main point. The main point is the question of principle. The Government has time in which to accept this principle, and therefore this amendment, if it has the inclination, because elections will only be held in March 1958.

Mr Chairman, Sir, in connection with the Member for Tanglin's remarks about the Rural Board, the Rural Board has seven members nominated by the rural district committees and these seven members are quite outspoken in their views, as the Member for Serangoon himself will know, having himself been a member of the Rural District Committee, Serangoon. If I may reminisce for a moment, Sir, when I was Chairman of the Rural Board, I always had a little bit of trepidation going to the Rural District Committee, Serangoon, knowing the outspokenness of all the members, and I think their views were always heard. I think it is incorrect to say that the Government did not consider the views of the City Council. It did, but it could not accept the arguments put forward. There has been no prejudice in favour of the Rural Board, Sir, because you will see from the Report of the Select Committee proceedings that the Government also did not accept the arguments of the Rural Board in regard to Pasir Panjang.

Mr Chairman, I think the question is simply this - whether or not the Government is prepared to accept the principle now that fresh changes have been made in Select Committee of advertising them in four languages and gazetting them. The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Chairman, Sir, the changes were made when the Bill was committed to a Select Committee. The First and Second Schedules had been made known before the Bill was presented to the Assembly for First Reading in August 1956. Since then it had been open to the public to make representations in regard to this particular clause 15, so that the Select Committee could consider whether or not the First and Second Schedules should be amended. The Select Committee has taken a very long time to consider the Bill and has made a recommendation that, in regard to the Second Schedule, there should be some alterations as a result of representations made by the Rural Board. But surely it should not be suggested that, as a result, it should again be open to the public to make further objections, and if further objections are received and reconsidered, and still further alterations made, then, using the same line of argument, we should, every time we amend something as a result of representations made by the public, again make it open to objections by the public.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I just want to draw the attention of this House to the fact that when representation is made to a Select Committee, it will be made on any clause in the Bill - any clause in the Bill, Sir, it is not any particular clause. Whereas when the Government propose to have their ideas embodied in clause 15, it is for a particular purpose, and that is about boundaries. The two issues therefore should not be confused. One is representation on the whole Bill. The other is representation on a particular clause which concerns changes of districts and boundaries. The Chief Minister has, in order to score just one point, found it good enough to lump the two together. This I think is most unsatisfactory. Yesterday, Sir, I was talking about the Government's views on amendments being thrown out. I will be very mild today, and will pass them over. However, I would like the Government to note that every Member in this Assembly represents the voice of his constituency. The Labour Front has seven elected Members today. It has come down from ten to seven. The Liberal-Socialists have gone up from six to seven elected Members, and whatever it is - seven members on one side, seven on the other - the views are as important on one side as on the other. I will just leave it at that, Sir. Amendment negatived. Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 16-

Mr Chairman, I beg to move, In page 80, line 30, to leave out "twelve" and insert "eighteen". This clause 16 deals with the constitution of District Councils and the number of elected councillors to be provided. It is our view that an elected body of 12 district councillors is insufficient and that there should be 18. Our reasons are based largely on the arguments we have already submitted with regard to the City Council, and it is not our desire to pursue the same arguments again today, except in so far as they are strictly relevant. But we do consider very seriously, Sir, that 12 is an insufficient number to do the work of a District Council on the basis of standing committees, which is the foundation of the running of local government. It seems to us that there should be at least six standing committees to make a District Council operate efficiently - Establishment, Health, Building, Finance and General Purposes, Public Works, and Assessment. There are nine standing committees in the City Council. We do not think that it is necessary to have quite so many in the District Councils, but the minimum should be six. If you assume that each member should sit on two committees - it is the normal practice in the City Council and it might well be followed in the District Councils - you will find that you will only have five members on each committee with a quorum of three at the most. And 18 members would give you a slightly larger committee of six, with presumably the District Council chairmen as permanent chairmen, at least to begin with, of all these committees, making a more reasonable total of seven. The Government was considerably surprised in the Select Committee when I advocated these what I considered to be perfectly normal, reasonable points, but the hon. Member for Seletar stated at col. 68 of the Report: ". . .we have not considered whether or not a District Council should have all these committees or whether it would be desirable to delegate authority to certain heads of departments, and so on." Well, I hope that by this time the Government has given the matter more consideration. It seemed to be a startling thought to the hon. Member that there should be standing committees to operate the work of the District Councils, although you will find, Mr Chairman, on page 9 of the White Paper issued by the Government these fulsome words: "In accepting the basic principles of the Report of the Committee on Local Government, the Government is convinced that a more democratic framework is being set up in which greater opportunities will be afforded to a larger number of the community to take part in local government administration...". Now, if you express this warm-hearted view and then later on in Select Committee said that you were not certain whether all the work should not be delegated to heads of departments who would be responsible to Government, and apparently not to the District Councils, then you are knocking your own principles on the head. 10.15 a.m. Another point is, of course, that a greater number on these District Councils - 18 instead of 12 - will give more experience to more people in the shortest possible time, and that is after all precisely what has been expressed on page 9 of the White Paper - "greater opportunities will be afforded to a larger number of the community to take part in local government administration". Then, Sir, I would refer to - it is not so important but nevertheless it is relevant - the fact that the quorum for the District Councils has been fixed at eight, which is over 50 per cent of the total number envisaged by the Government; whereas in the City Council the quorum is 11, or roughly 33 per cent. Now, of course, the normal quorum for any council or committee is in the neighbourhood of one-third and not one-half, but you have to fix the quorum at eight, otherwise the number at District Council meetings could be extremely small, which does, I think, argue that a slightly larger number would be opportune.

Sir, although the hon. Member has misunderstood me in the Select Committee, I did correct him by saying that I did not mean that District Councils should not appoint any committees. I would like to read from col. 69 of the same Report where I said: "I would like to correct the hon. Member's misunderstanding regarding committees. I did not say that the District Councils should not appoint committees but what I said was that we have not fixed the exact number." Sir, at this stage, I do not think it is possible for anybody to say how many committees the District Councils should have. As I understand it, Sir, a working party is in the course of considering the various aspects of the District Councils, and I was not in a position to agree with the hon. Member then as to how many committees the District Councils would have.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the present Rural Board has a membership of 18 nominated members, including the chairman. The proposed membership for each District Council, including the Chairman, is 16. If the Rural Board, which is looking after an area which is to be divided up into three District Council areas initially and four eventually, has a membership of 18, then I think 16 members for each District Council is quite sufficient. As the Member for Tanjong Pagar said yesterday on this question of membership in connection with the City Council - "Let us start at 32 and see how it works," - the same should also apply to the District Councils. As to what standing committees there should be and the quorum required at committee meetings, it is not for the Government to say. It will be left to the District Councils eventually. For those reasons, Sir, I think that 16 members, including the chairman, is a sufficient number for the membership of the District Council, and I oppose the amendment of the Member for Tanglin.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the proposal to amend the number from 12 to 18 is also hinged upon the next amendment, that is, to do away with nominated councillors, and if the Government thinks that nominated councillors are still very important here, then the number need not be changed. We will be arguing on the merits or demerits of the nominated councillors when we come to the next amendment. But bearing in mind that if it is agreed that the days of nominated members are over, if the people have now shown that they are tired of having nominated members, then we should act in accordance with the wishes of the people and do away with nominated members. And if we do away with nominated members, then that number as contained in clause 16 (1) should be increased. On the question of the work of the Rural Board, I would like to point out to the House here that the Rural Board is assisted by many rural district committees. Part of the work is being done by the rural district committees. They submit their recommendations to the Rural Board and if the Rural Board thinks that their recommendations are suitable and in conformity with the policy, the recommendations are accepted. If they are not, then they are rejected, because these committees are purely advisory. It is advisory to such an extent that sometimes members of district committees were not happy and became quite frustrated, and tempers might fly on occasions when important personalities went along and visited them. Now the Rural Board, as I say, is assisted by many committees, but when you divide the Rural Board and make it into three rural District Council areas, and if the Rural Board is to have one Health Committee, then that Health Committee must be repeated in three places. If it is going to have a Public Utilities Committee, that committee will have to be repeated in every one of these three. There will be no lessening of committees. Perhaps it may be argued that the Rural Board attends to the needs of the whole of Singapore outside the City Council, and therefore it must have a great deal more work. But I would like to ask the Government side what is the purpose of having District Councils. The purpose of a District Council is to attend to the needs of the people more closely and more efficiently, and if we are going to attend to them more efficiently and more closely, making the councillors understand the needs of the people, then we will say that the work should not decrease even if you divide the Rural Board into three District Council areas; but, on the other hand, it should increase, because an increase in work shows that these District Councils are really working hard for the people and work is done more intimately. I feel that the number should be increased to 18.

It did not appear to me, from the hon. mover's remarks, that his amendment which we are discussing now is connected with the next amendment, which is to leave out the proviso providing for three nominated councillors for the first four years. I understood from the Member for Serangoon, who spoke just now, that there was some connection between the two amendments. Perhaps the hon. mover would like to clarify?

Yes, Mr Chairman, with pleasure. There is obviously some connection between the two. We advocate the increase of membership of the District Councils from 12 elected councillors to 18, and subsequently to do away with the proposal for three nominated councillors. The fact that we wish to reduce the number from 15 to 12, I think makes it evident from our feelings that there are not enough members on the District Councils, and we must, under clause 16 (1), propose an increase. There is, in other words, some connection between the two amendments.

If that is so, I suggest that it would be convenient to the Committee if, in the debate on the first amendment, the debate should also range over the next amendment. If the mover of the first amendment wishes to continue on those lines, he may do so.

Yes, Mr Chairman, if you would like us to take into consideration the next amendment to the proviso, I shall of course be very glad to do so. Our point regarding this proviso, "Provided that for the first four years from the date of the first ordinary elections...there shall in addition be three nominated councillors", is that we feel that it is essential to do away with the principle of nominated members. But the Government apparently wishes to hang on to the idea of nominated members, presumably because through them they have hung on to power. Yesterday, on the amendment to clause 8 of the Local Government Elections Bill, there was a division which showed 11 elected votes on each side. The Government has a majority of six, thanks to three nominated Members and three ex-officio Members. It is quite obvious, therefore, that they are interested in seeing that there are nominated members on the District Councils. There are various devices whereby the Government are able to maintain themselves where they are. Even when the Hon. the Chief Secretary goes on leave, the Government can resort to the device of keeping up their numbers by the Deputy Chief Secretary being able to step into his place. It is, of course, purely a matter of coincidence that the Deputy Chief Secretary is an authority on local government and an ex-chairman of the Rural Board, but that fact is undoubtedly of value and use to the Government. One presumes that with this proviso one of the last acts of the present Government will be to elect nominated men to the District Councils who will last for four years, and I think I am right in saying that there is no proviso - that is an interesting point - giving the Minister powers to revoke their nomination. Now we have had some debate on this particular question - I think it was the Seamen's Registry Board Ordinance on which we raised this point, that revocation was an essential matter to be left in the hands of the Minister. The Minister for Commerce and Industry shakes his head. Perhaps my memory is at fault - it was a different Bill?

May I correct the hon. Member, Sir? It was the Education Bill.

Mr Chairman, undoubtedly it is already in the Education Bill, but I was referring to the debate in this House on a particular Bill. It was moved by my hon. Friend opposite - I may be wrong about the title of the Bill in which we moved an amendment on this very point. Now it is not clear to me why, in the case of nominated members on District Councils, the Minister's powers of revocation should be omitted. It seems to me that what is convenient at one time for the Government is not necessarily convenient at another There is a further point. One would have thought that one of the justifications for shifting Katong into a District Council - whether one agrees with it or not - and we do not - might have been because one could argue that, by putting a part of the City Council into the District Council, you were providing opportunities for men already experienced in local government to sit on the District Councils and that very fact would enable you to do away with nominated members. We are strongly opposed to this principle of nominated members being included in the District Councils, and that is one of the reasons why we advocate in the amendment before us that there should be 18 elected councillors instead of 12. 10.30 a.m.

Sir, it is rather curious to find one of the closest allies and leading members of the Party which tailored the Rendel Constitution and which recommended four nominated seats on this present Assembly, now criticising the principle of nominated members. Evidently, Sir, at that time they thought they would be returned to power and they could use the four nominated members to their advantage. The tables have been turned on them. But let me assure them that at no time have the Government used or persuaded any of the two nominated members on the opposite side to vote with them. What they do is on their own conscience and according to their own liking. But evidently, Sir, the logic of the Members of the Liberal-Socialist Party is one that they themselves only can understand. The Government thought it necessary that in the initial stage of these new District Councils, there should be nominated members to give of their experience, because, as you will notice in the Bill, anyone can now stand for election in the District Council. There are no language qualifications to bar people who have had no experience. In the past, those people who have had experience of local government and other similar bodies have been mostly English-speaking. Now there is no such bar. And therefore you will get a great number of people - and we want to encourage a great number of people who are non-English-speaking, to come out and take their share of local government. But in order to give them the advantage of having the experience of those who have gone through the mill in the past, it is necessary that there should be a few nominated members in the initial stage. It is not proposed to have these nominated members forever and ever. It is only for the initial stage.

You may extend it.

Sir, I had not intended to speak on the warning given by my friend the Member for Serangoon in the debate on the amendment which came up before this amendment - that the Labour Front have seven elected Members now and the Liberal-Socialists have seven, and therefore we should take care. I would have let it pass, but the hon. Member for Tanglin has grazed past that point. He has not come to it directly but he has grazed past it, and I think it is appropriate that they should be told that they are wrong. Sir, when the electorate elected us to sit in this Assembly, they elected ten Labour Fronters and only four Progressive Party men and two Democratic Party men. Since then, if elected Members manoeuvre to their own advantage, that is their own wish. The electorate have had no chance to pass judgment on them. Therefore you cannot say that the electorate have lost confidence because three Members on this side have crossed the floor to the Opposition side. You might say, of course, that in Cairnhill the electorate have shown that they have more confidence in the Liberal-Socialist Party. I will make no bones about that. Perhaps it is due to a splitting of Labour votes.

Is all this relevant?

It is, Sir, because the Member for Serangoon did raise the point and the Member for Tanglin did emphasise again on this point, and I think it should not go unchallenged. It would be misleading the public.

Order. It is, of course, perfectly in order for the hon. Member, in passing, to refute any allegations made; but I must remind hon. Members again that the personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose. If an hon. Member moves from one side of the House to the other, that is personal conduct and cannot be referred to.

I am sorry, Sir. I did not intend to refer to their personal conduct. I was just mentioning it in passing in answer to the point made by the Member for Serangoon earlier this morning. Of course, the people of Singapore have also seen the merging of two political parties who were sent to this House in the proportion of four to twenty-five -

Order. I think the hon. Member is going a bit too far. It is more than in passing.

Sir, the last speaker has several times said in his speech that other people have no logic at all and that they themselves can only understand what they are talking about. I must say that he has just now given us a perfect exhibition of talking about things which nobody can understand. Sir, I do not want to waste as much time as he has done in accusing this Party or that Party, but one thing is certain, Sir. We have seen and we have learnt a lesson, that the government should not be run when the elected Members on each side of the House are nearly in proportionate numbers. The fate of the Government should not hang on nominated Members.

Order. I thought I made it quite clear that that subject is not relevant to the debate. It should not be mentioned again.

That was a reply in passing, Sir, to the hon. Member. Sir, I think one of the chief reasons for breaking up local government into City and District Councils and the appointment of elected councillors, was that the District Councils and the City Council should be the training ground for Members of this House the membership of which, in the near future, is going to be increased to 51. If that is one of the chief principles why this Bill is now before the House, then I cannot see any reason for the Government to object to the increase of 12 district councillors to 18 district councillors, particularly when we are saying - and I think in their own hearts they must agree with us - that there is no more room for nominated councillors on any council. The main objection of the Hon. the Chief Secretary and his Assistant Minister to this is that it is not proved yet how many district councillors are required, because the number of committees has not yet been decided upon. Surely that argument is rather in our favour because if you are not certain yet how many committees you want and how to work them, is it not better to have more than less and not wreck the beginnings of the City and District Councils? So far, Sir, I cannot see any argument at all against our proposal to have 18 instead of 12 elected members.

As a nominated Member, I find it difficult to agree to the amendment to delete the proviso for the appointment of three nominated members in the District Council. I have so far found, Sir, that my nominated colleagues and I are the four most important persons in this Assembly - four persons who cannot be charged for malpractices in any election! But there is this difference - now the nominated Members will be appointed, I presume, by the Council of Ministers, our own people; our own elected Members are the majority in the Council of Ministers. There is that difference. Now, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to answer the Member for Serangoon. He said that there are district committees helping the Rural Board. Has he any reason to suppose that when the District councils were formed, there would be no district committees helping the District Councils? Perhaps he has an answer to that. Perhaps he would be going all out, Sir, to dissolve all district committees when the District Councils were formed. It does seem, Sir, that the Liberal-Socialists, in their attempt to increase the number of Members both in the City Council and in the District Councils, have displayed their financial strength - that superior element over all the other political Parties. They might be able to put up more candidates because they have more finances, but we feel that is quite irrelevant, and we believe that 32 members for the City Council and 12 for the District Council are sufficient.

Sir, this Bill is very important since we are changing the whole Ordinance by taking away some powers and giving some powers, and yet it is being rushed through in this Assembly; for it was only yesterday that we received the report which, after it had been in our hands for only a few minutes, was debated. Sir, this is an important debate, and I cannot understand why some Members should bring political Parties into it. Possibly they are afraid of one strong political Party, but it will not help them to side-track the issue. Sir, here is the question: whether we want to have nominated Members or not. Now this very Assembly, which is supposed to be democratic, has been made a farce with the help of the nominated Members and ex-officio Members, because the elected Members' majority voice is just silenced by those votes. The nominated Members are quite intelligent people; they are my friends, but this nominated membership in democracy is out of date. There were some remarks made about the Rendel Constitution yesterday and also today, as to who framed it and so on. Sir, I am the most senior Member in the post-war Legislature. I was on the B.M.A. Council, the Advisory Council, and the Legislative Council from 1948. I have two good friends here, the Hon. the Chief Minister and the Hon. the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs or something. Sir, my experience is that as political progress is made, political changes must come about. Some people attack the Progressive Party for the Rendel Constitution and the nominated seats. 10.45 a.m. Now, Sir, those who have followed the political trends in the post-war period in this city will have realised that from a purely nominated Legislature, you came to one that had an elected majority with a few nominated Members. Time passed and other countries surrounding us progressed. Then the Rendel Commission sat and I might tell you, Sir, that I was not a member of the Progressive Party. I crossed swords with them in the Legislature many a time on different subjects. Now the Rendel Commission saw at that time that there was a need for a few nominated Members; but as time went on, from a totally nominated Legislature we began to have more and more elected Members and, in the new constitution we are going to have a fully elected Assembly. Now instead of acknowledging the services of those people who progress and who have been the means of bringing us into this Chamber, some Members are making political capital out of it. I think they are very short-sighted or maybe they are trying to side-track us. Now in this present political set-up nominated Members are out of place altogether as the voices of the elected Members are silenced. Today, Sir, I read in the Straits Times that an amendment moved yesterday was passed by 17 votes to 11. Whose were those 17 votes? Eleven elected Government votes against 11 in the Opposition. Six were not elected Members. Rightly the Government fell on that issue. Now here is a political Party, Sir, to which somebody made a reference regarding elected Members. Members on the Government side bring this up time and again, and I am rather sorry that I should also bring it up now regarding elected Members.

Order. I think I have made it quite clear that the subject is now irrelevant to this debate, and I think the hon. Member should not touch on it any further.

Sir, I am still on the nominated membership and how these nominated Members frustrate us - the elected Members - and how the Government have continued with the help of the nominated Members. That is what I am touching upon, Sir.

In passing?

Well, I will agree to say that I am touching on it in passing. It does not matter, but it is so. The fact stands that these nominated Members are out-dated and there should not be anywhere in the world at present nominated membership. If those who feel like wanting to be in this Assembly, let them stand for election. Now, Sir, I was a little bit annoyed when a Member on the Government side said, "Oh, I am rather sick of the debate." But he forgot that he is paid for his time sitting in this Assembly. He should have patience. At least such people should show patience because, after all, some elected Members on this side are voicing the opinions of the electorate. Sir, I support the amendment moved by my colleague the Member for Tanglin.

I am sure, Mr Chairman, that we all recognise that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, and this House owes a great debt to the only Member of the Opposition who has effectively opposed - he is the hon. Member for Tanglin - supported occasionally by the Members for Serangoon and Paya Lebar, and last by yet another of his seven Members who has risen to speak on a point on which he has so often spoken before, usually as irrelevantly as he did today. I do not wish to cast scorn on the hon. Member for Tanglin's arguments: but they do seem to me to amount to not much more than this - that the more representatives you have on a council, the more democratic you are; if you can have 18 elected members instead of 12, that is better; and I do not doubt that 180 would be better still, and 1,800 better still, and 18,000 better still. So you go on getting more and more democratic by simply adding to the numbers without any regard to the work these members may have to do. I think that is a fair summary of the points he was making. He does not know what work they are going to do. He has his own ideas but I do not suppose he will be either nominated or elected to a District Council, and therefore surely he will concede that elected members of the District Councils can form their own ideas of the sort of work they want to do and how they want to do it. That brings me to my second point, Mr Chairman, Sir. His other main democratic principle is that the City Council provides a perfect and ideal example of pure, undefiled and efficient democracy. Well, I quoted some points to which no one effectively replied yesterday to illustrate that if the City Council functions efficiently, it is perhaps in spite of its committee system rather than because of it. The committees sit afternoon after afternoon and deal with enormous bundles of files containing a mass of irrelevant detail about holidays in China for fruit sellers and hot drink licences for confectioners' shops and that kind of thing. These are matters which take up an enormous amount of their time. They can never get down to formulating a precise policy. When they do have to formulate a policy, they bog down. How long did they take over the delimitation of taxis? Two years, or some such very long period indeed, before they could finally frame a policy and get it carried out. They also came to complete confusion with the Katong cinema. None of them understand their own procedure and nobody knows what they are trying to do, or who is giving orders to whom; but the general effect on the public is undesirable. I am only mentioning these points in passing, Mr Chairman, because I do feel that we should not set up the City Council as a model for the things that the District Councils will have to do. They will operate on a different scale, doing in many ways a different type of job. They will not be administering very large public utilities, nor will they have a budget of the size that the City Council have. They should be given some freedom to work things out themselves from their own experience and not be too precisely directed beforehand by the ambitions of any particular political Party.

Sir, I have not been able to understand the Hon. the nominated Member, Mr Thomas, the Minister for Communications and Works. Yesterday he read the Hill Report which is useful, but since then things have progressed. Does he want to say that there should be only one member or five members to run the whole city? What is his objection to having an increase from 12 to 18 on the District Council? Will he not give consideration to the electorate - that they should be adequately represented? He said if it were to be increased, why not increase it to 50 or 100 or 500 members? Well, why not have only five then? Or three? Has he given any arguments for it? Sir, these members should be adequately represented and the District Councils should be formed in such a way that all these people could perform their tasks without too much burden on one shoulder, that it should be distributed. He has not given us any idea of that, Sir.

The point I was really making was that the general tendency of the Liberal-Socialists' thinking seems to be to add to the numbers wherever possible, to have more and more representatives, and I carried that, of course, to absurd limits by suggesting that they might aim at 1,800 or 18,000 because that is absurd - too absurd even for the Liberal-Socialists to put forward that number. But you have to arrive at some figure, and they say that 18 is better than 12. We think that 12 is better than 18 - it is no more than that- Our judgment is that 12 is an adequate number to perform the sort of work they have to do. The Liberal-Socialists have worked out that they want to have six standing committees, and no doubt sub-committees and ad hoc committees and so on, on the full City Council model, and they think 18 members will be needed to make that work. Well, we do not necessarily think that the members in the District Councils will want to do what the City Council does, and we think that 12 - plus, of course, three nominated members - is better. I will not touch on further irrelevancies. I could, of course, expound on the democratic principle if I were allowed to. The substantial difference is very small by the time you arrive at the final total. It is simple arithmetic: 12 plus 3 - 12 plus 6 - this is a small difference really.

Sir, I seek only a little clarification. The nominated Member, Mr R. C. H. Lim, mentioned the Liberal-Socialists in this debate, Sir, that because they have money they can put up more representatives. The other nominated Member, the Hon. Mr Thomas, put up the same argument. Their idea is this: the Liberal-Socialists want more people. Why? Adequate representation should be given according to the strength of the voters in particular areas in order that work must be carried on properly. Sir, more than 95 per cent of the members of the Liberal-Socialist Party are workers, and they are poorer than the two Members sitting opposite.

Sir, I feel really amused today to hear our learned Members, Mr Francis Thomas and Mr R. C. H. Lim, speak on the merits of nominated Members and in the jargon I cannot find any substance in their speeches. But the last sentence of the Minister for Communications and Works about his ability to expound the theory of the goodness of nominated members will certainly be very welcome. I would really love to hear his arguments on why there should be nominated members, and then ask him to argue with himself why the Labour Front, of which he is a leading light, is now trying to do away with nominated members. I remember last year when the Rendel Constitution was operating, there was an outcry from the other side that there should be no nominated Members, that it was unconstitutional, that we should do away with all officials and all nominated Members, and that the number should be increased. Today in this Chamber we have the same thing reversed. The Government will appoint an official to the District Council in the person of the chairman. The Government will appoint three nominated members. 11.00 a.m. The Government said, "We will be happy to keep the number down." but at one time it said, "We want to increase the number of the Legislature from 25 to 51." Then they said, "No, we will keep that number where it is." An absolute contradiction. I would like the Government to explain why there should be such contradictions. Words spoken last year are not applicable today. Why is that so? Where are the changes of circumstances? Now, Sir, let me go on with what one of the Members on the Government side said, that they are going to appoint nominated members to the District Councils in the initial stages, in order to lend experience to elected people. I would like to ask the Government why they were setting up rural district committees in Singapore. In a small way, was that not a way to teach the people how to run their own affairs? Have they not been able, from those committees, to learn a little and take part fully in their committee work? I ask the Government again: Are there no people from such rural district committees being represented in the Rural Board, and if they have been representing the various districts in the Rural Board, are not such people well experienced? I ask again, Sir, about councillors who are in the City Council now living in areas demarcated as rural districts. Will not these people also have the experience, and if there has been enough training for them, where is there the necessity to put in other people with experience? Let me take another case, Sir, where the Government contradict themselves. In the City Council they say that there shall be 32 elected members. There shall be no nominated members, no aldermen. "We do not want them. They are lepers. We must have it democratically set up. Experience does not matter. We do not want their experience. We have enough people here." Then in another breath the Government say: "You can rig up your boundaries. You can do whatever you like with the electorate." But nobody could be sure that the same people or people from the same Party would be elected. It would be the same with the District Councils. You might have people who are standing there, as in the case of City Councillors. In the next City Council, there is a chance that not one of the present Members may be elected. There may be a chance that all the 32 members will be new to City Council affairs, and then where will there be experience? Will you need aldermen to guide you? We say no. We say people should elect the representatives democratically. In the case of the City Council, we want to do away with nominated members. In the case of the District Councils, the same case can happen. There may be existing rural district committee members who may be elected. There may be people who are on the Rural Board who may be elected. There may be people who have served in the City Council residing in rural areas who may be elected. But they may or may not be elected, just as in the case of the present City Councillors. But here we stick to one principle - there must be no nominated members either in the City Council or in the District Councils. But if you want to have nominated members, then let us have them in both the City and District Councils. If you do not want them, let us not have them in both. The Government practised this "No nominated members" from the level of the Legislature to the City Council. I would urge the Government to practise it one step further down - to the District Councils. I would like the Government to answer me on this point, and if they give no reason at all, I shall not be satisfied. I shall go away with a feeling that the Government will always be applying what they think will suit them best, and every time, the tune is changed to suit their own purpose. In putting forward this incidentally, I would also like to touch on an answer given by the nominated Member, Mr R. C. H. Lim. He has not learnt his homework on rural district committees. He said that if you appoint more people, then you do away with rural district committees. I do not know whether that is Government's policy.

I did not say this, Sir. I said I challenged the Member for Serangoon to give reasons why district committees that exist today would not exist when the District Councils were formed.

That is nothing more than a challenge. The City Council may or may not have its committees. Rural district committees may or may not be there, but I think if the city is progressing, in all probability District Councils will be more or less miniature City Councils and of course if the hon. Member knows about rural district committees and their advisory functions, we will be very glad to learn from him. It is most amusing to hear from the Minister for Communications and Works about my Party wanting to elect more and more people to the Councils and he quoted astronomical figures - figures that would appear to everybody to be absurd. I feel that he is not clear in his mind as to what he wants to tell us, when we proposed an increase from 12 to 18 only. In fact, if you call in the nominated members, it should be just from 16 to 18, and yet he puts up an argument on numbers that run into many thousands. I cannot understand that. His argument is against his own idea of increasing the Legislature from 50 to 51. It would be interesting to hear him arguing against himself. All in all, I have not heard any argument put forward from the Government side against this amendment. I would very much like them to use their brains and scratch out some reasons for us.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I think we agree in principle that nominated members are out of date, but in the interests of all those people who live in the various districts where District Councils are to be formed, we feel that nominated members for the first four years are required to help them.

What about the City Council?

There is a difference between the City Council and the District Councils. The employees in the City Council have been working there for many years. They know and can help and guide the new City Councillors who might be appointed for the first time; but we are having new staff for the various District Councils and therefore it is desirable that there should be some nominated members for the first four years only. In passing, Sir, I should like to say this: although the Liberal-Socialists claim to have 95 per cent workers, the Labour Front have 100 per cent workers.

Mr Chairman, I just rise to reply to the insinuations in regard to the question of nominated members for the first four years in the District Councils. The Liberal-Socialist Members would have the people of Singapore believe that this is a sinister move on the part of the Government to put in three of their good men in the District Councils. Evil is he who evil thinks. Sir, this particular clause in the Bill was inserted as a result of the unanimous recommendation of the McNeice Committee on Local Government. On that Committee every political Party was represented, including the Liberal-Socialists, and it was the unanimous view of the McNeice Committee, and this view is expressed in paragraphs 158 and 159*. I do not propose to prolong the debate by reading these two paragraphs, but if the hon. Member will just take the trouble to read them, he will find that the question of nominated members for the new District Councils is one which is not being imposed by the Government but one that was unanimously recommended by the McNeice Committee. * Following are paragraphs 158 and 159- 158. The limited local government constitution in the rural areas in the past has led us to approach the constitution of rural district councils with some caution. The weight of responsibility we are proposing to place upon these councils is considerable and experience in the management of weighty affairs is not immediately evident in these areas. Our proposals have therefore provided measures for the guidance of these councils in their early years, but for a strictly limited period. Beyond that period it will be necessary for the district councils to make their own way, with the advice of Government and the model of the City Council before them and, should it turn out that way, to learn by their mistakes. Our recommendations imply a confidence in the ability of the rural peoples to elect capable representatives which we do not consider is misplaced. 159. We recommend that the elected membership of local councils other than the City Council should be supplemented by the addition of members nominated by Government and that the number of nominated members should form as near as possible to, but not exceed one-fifth of, the total number of members after the addition of nominated members. Taken in conjunction with our proposals for terms of office, we recommend that as near as possible to, but not more than half of, the nominated members should retire after a period of two years and the remainder after a period of four years. Thereafter, the rural councils should consist of only elected members. The Member for Serangoon asks why is it that, in the case of the Legislative Assembly, we want to abolish all nominated members, and in the case of the City Council too, it is proposed that all nominated seats shall be abolished. Surely he must understand, Sir, that as time goes on we learn more and more. The City Council started with nine nominated seats in 1948 - nine years, quite long, in fact, much too long. What is recommended for the District Councils is just a term of four years - the first term - to guide and help elected councillors do the work which is going to be difficult, because it is something new to them. In regard to the Legislative Council, we started with nominated Members in 1948 and it is also time that the nominated seats be abolished.

Mr Chairman, I have taken the trouble to read paragraphs 158 and 159 of the Report of the Committee on Local Government, and I would refer the Chief Minister to the penultimate sentence of paragraph 159 which reads: "Taken in conjunction with our proposals for terms of office, we recommend that as near as possible to, but not more than half of, the nominated members should retire after a period of two years and the remainder after a period of four years." Under clause 19 of the Bill before us, we read: "The nominated councillors shall be appointed by the Governor and shall hold office for a term of four years retiring on the first Saturday in December in the fourth year after nomination." There is no provision for retirement after two years. In other words, the Government is going backwards, while we propose to go forwards. 11.15 a.m.

Sir, we are living in a world that is moving forward every day. We are not living in a world that can remain static for one moment. What is good for today may not be good for tomorrow. Nominated members who were good before, may not be good today. People are today clamouring for elections and elected representatives. I would like to comment on what the Chief Minister has said - that we must learn and make use of these things - the things which we thought would have been good. Banana notes were good in 1943. They were still good in 1944. But the day immediately after the Japanese surrendered, they were just worthless. It is the same case with nominated members. They were good in colonial days. They were good when nominated members were able to serve their masters. But now the people have moved towards self-determination, they are as worthless as the banana notes of the Japanese regime. I would also like to ask the Chief Minister, since he has accepted that part of the advice and recommendations of the McNeice Committee on nominated members for the new District Councils, what about accepting other sections of that Report? Has he accepted all of them? Has he accepted aldermen? No, Sir. When a recommendation is accepted, it is put down as the Government being amendable to suggestions. What are the reasons given for not accepting the rest? Well, I should say the most appropriate reason is that it does not fall in with their ideas and therefore is not acceptable. The hon. Mr R. C. H. Lim spoke about rural district councils. He said that they will be run by people with less experience. Let him not say that, Sir, because the Rural Board has been engaged in that kind of work for a long time, and those who are going to do that work will be hand-picked for that purpose. However, if he has his doubts that raw hands will be put into such jobs, I would suggest that he ask his Minister for the reason why he has not made sufficient provision to see to it that the machinery of district councils would be run properly. Amendment negatived.

Mr Chairman, I beg to move, In page 80, to leave out lines 33 to 36. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." The Committee divided: Ayes, 8; Noes, 19; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes. Noes. Ede, John. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Goh Tong Liang. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Jumabhoy, R. Braga, A. J. Lee Choon Eng. Chew Swee Kee. Lim Choon Mong. Goh Chew Chua. Lim Koon Teck. Hart, T. M. Soh Ghee Soon. Jumabhoy, J. M. Tan, William. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim, R. C. H. Abstentions. Lim Yew Hock. Nil. Mak Pak Shee. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Absent. Nair, M. P. D. Lazarous, A. R. Ong Piah Teng. Lee Kuan Yew. Shanks, E. P. Lim Ching Siong. Stewart, S. T. Seah Peng Chuan. Tan Theng Chiang. Sutherland, G. A. P. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam. Amendment accordingly negatived. Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 20-

An amendment standing in the name of the Member for Tanglin, In page 82, line 18, to leave out "A" and insert "B". I take it that I am correct when I say that that has relation to the amendment to be proposed in the Third Schedule?

Yes, Mr Chairman, I did wish to seek your guidance on this - it is, in fact, a consequential amendment - whether we should take this now or later.

It is quite obvious that this amendment is dependent on whether or not the amendment which is proposed to the Third Schedule will be accepted. It is a type of consequential amendment which may be made as a matter of course, and if the amendment proposed to the Third Schedule - in other words, the addition of a new Form A - is accepted, then this amendment and other cognate amendments will be made as a matter of course. Clause 20 ordered to to stand part of the Bill. Clause 21-

Mr Chairman, I beg to move, In page 82, line 37, to leave out from "(b)" to "; and" in line 9 in page 83 and insert:- "if he is able to speak any Chinese dialect or Malay or Tamil or English and, unless incapacitated by blindness or any other physical cause, to read and write any one of those dialects or languages". I think it will be clear from this amendment that we on this side do accept the amendment that the Government proposes to make regarding the reading and writing of any one of those dialects or languages. So the issue does boil down to the question which we consider most strongly - that any Chinese dialect should be spoken by a candidate for election in the City Council as well as in the District Councils. I think we are, by this amendment, now in agreement with the Government on the other parts of the amendment which the Minister will move. This, then, is the question for consideration: that the City Council should include any Chinese dialect in its languages for candidates for election and not just Mandarin. Our feeling is that the City Council should not be compared with the Legislative Assembly on this point, because it seems that the Government feel that there should be a parallel between the languages spoken in this House in future and the City Council. We take the view that there should be a parallel on the local government plane - that the languages spoken in the City Council should be the same as are spoken in the District Councils. The point is, of course, that we are debating and considering local government, and the comparison should be between the City Council and the District Councils. There is no difference in the qualification of the electorate as between the City and the District Councils; therefore we should adopt the parallelism of having no difference in languages between the two types of councils. 11.30 a.m. We are not at all clear why there should be this difference. If I may quote from col. 75 of the Official Report (No. 3) of the Select Committee - the Attorney-General (Mr Butterfield) at that time said: "We do, on the other hand, take the view that so far as the District Councils are concerned, it would be too restrictive to provide that, where the Chinese language is concerned, it should be Mandarin. There are numbers of districts where the persons voting in the local government elections and those who are likely to represent them are persons who commonly speak one of the several dialects of Chinese. The Government takes the view that these people should not be debarred by too restrictive a language qualification and considers that, having regard to the differences in the districts, it would be wise and right in this legislation to provide that the language qualification for the districts should include any Chinese dialect and should not be restricted to Mandarin." Now this argument which was applied to the District Councils applies equally to the City Council in every syllable, because by their very act in bringing rural areas - Pasir Panjang and Ulu Pandan - into the City Council area, the Government make this argument a valid one. You have this rural area, as you have other rural areas, already inside the City Council where there are people who do not speak Mandarin but who commonly speak in one of the several dialects of Chinese. Why should they be debarred by too restrictive a language restriction? Let us have equality at the local government level. You will find, if you turn to col. 79 of the Report, that the Minister was in entire agreement with me at the top of this col. 79: "I quite agree with the Member for Tanglin that if we were to stick to Mandarin, it would mean that only the younger generation would be able to take part in the City Council elections and not the older generation." And why should the older generation be debarred from being candidates for election to the City Council? It is from the older and wiser heads that one looks for representation in the City Council, and it is the older and wiser heads who normally have more time to spare for local government matters. In many parts of the world it is common to see persons who have retired from their businesses, or at least have the younger generation able to play a greater part in their businesses, finding time to take part in local government and lending their wisdom and experience over the years to local government administration. I think that is a very important point, and I am glad that the Minister agrees that if we were to stick to Mandarin in the City Council, it would mean that only the younger generation would be able to take part. The Minister went on to say in the same paragraph: "But, on the other hand, Sir, I must say this: that in the City Council area you will find that there is no dearth of candidates who, though they may be unable to speak in Mandarin, may be able to speak in English." Now the fact that there is no dearth of candidates has nothing to do with the point. The point is that if you speak any Chinese dialect other than Mandarin, you should not be disqualified from being a candidate. And the Minister went on to say: "In the case of the District Council areas, the reason why the Government has suggested that any Chinese dialect could be used in the Council is because we feel that in the District Council areas we would very much like the ordinary farmer and the small shopkeeper to take part in the District Council elections." And why - we would like to know - would the Government not like the ordinary farmer and the small shopkeeper, of whom there are thousands in the City Council area, to take part in City Council elections? As I said, by the very move of the Government to bring essentially rural areas inside the City Council, there are ordinary farmers being apparently denied their right to sit in the City Council simply because they cannot speak Mandarin. Sir, we are opposed to their bar in the City Council area.

It has been proposed, as an amendment, in page 82, line 37, to leave out from "(b)" to "; and" in line 9 in page 83 - that is, the whole of paragraphs (b) and (c) other than "and" - and there to insert: - "if he is able to speak any Chinese dialect or Malay or Tamil or English and, unless incapacitated by blindness or any other physical cause, to read and write any one of those dialects or languages". Hon. Members will have noticed that the amendment seeks, as I have said, to leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and to insert a new paragraph (b). The Minister has given notice of amendments to paragraphs (b) and (c), where he seeks to leave out only part of those words. I must draw the attention of hon. Members to Standing Order 28 (4) (d) which reads: "If the Speaker or Chairman, before putting a question to leave out certain words, is informed that a Member wishes to move an amendment to leave out part only of these words and if he is of opinion that the proposed amendment of which he is so informed is substantially a new amendment, he shall, if possible, put the question to leave out only so much of the original amendment as is unaffected by the second amendment; but if that question is agreed to, the whole of the words proposed in the original amendment to be left out shall be deemed to have been ordered to be left out." I am of the opinion that that paragraph comes into play and I shall therefore propose, and later put, the Question with reference to the Member for Tanglin's amendment- In page 82, line 37 to line 41, to leave out the words from "(b) " to "with" - that is to say, the words: "If in the case of the City Council he is able to speak Mandarin or Malay or Tamil or English, and, unless incapacitated by blindness or other physical cause, to read and write one or other of those languages". I shall put the Question that those words only be left out. If that Question is agreed to, then under the Standing Order the whole of the words proposed in the original amendment to be left out shall be deemed to have been ordered to be left out - that is to say, all the words in paragraphs (b) and (c). If, on the other hand, the Question is not agreed to, then the whole of the amendment proposed by the Member for Tanglin will fall and the Minister may then proceed with his amendments. I trust I have made myself clear. The Question then, after that exordium, is "That the words from '(b)' in line 37, page 82, to the word 'with' in line 41 on the same page proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Chairman, Sir, it seems a bit odd that, of all the Members on the Opposition, it takes the Member for Tanglin to tell us what we should do in the matter of the Chinese language. If it is Mr Sutherland, at least we can understand. He resided in China for a number of years and he speaks the language quite fluently. Nevertheless, I think the Member for Tanglin must have very good intentions at heart and wishes to see every Chinese, whether he comes from Mongolia-

Point of clarification and explanation, Sir. Mr Chairman, it does happen, when speaking of the people who live in the area of Ulu Pandan, that I am speaking on behalf of the constituents whom I represent.

I am not saying that the Member for Tanglin was not speaking on behalf of his constituency. As I said, he may have the best intentions at heart and wishes to see every Chinese - whether he comes from Mongolia, Sinkiang or Tibet - able to stand for election in the City Council. But I wonder if he is aware of the complications of the Chinese language. There are 18 provinces in China, that is, if we exclude three in Manchuria, and every one of these provinces has many dialects. Take, for instance, the Province of Kwangtung from where my forefathers came. It has Khehs, Teochews, Hylams and Cantonese. Take the Cantonese dialect alone. There are so many dialects spoken by the Cantonese. Although I have been to Kwangtung many times - prewar as well as postwar - and other parts of China, I found great difficulty in understanding some of the people who came from entirely different districts when they spoke Cantonese. Just imagine the difficulty in trying to get interpreters for those representatives who speak in all these dialects! I think the task is almost impossible. We have had some examples of interpretation in the Select Committee meetings of the last few weeks. From what I heard, many interpretations were far from correct. You can see from that, that if an interpreter is expected to interpret from languages which he has seldom heard of, there would be a great difference in the interpretation. The Member for Tanglin says that if we limit the language to Mandarin, it is only the younger generation who will be able to do so. I think that is not entirely true. Quite a number of people who are over 40 - I do not know whether the Member for Tanglin calls them young or old - and even 50 speak Mandarin very well. When I say that, I do not mean those in the teaching profession. I mean the merchants, and a lot of workers too. So in this respect, I do not see any difficulty in getting candidates for the City Council elections, bearing in mind that in the City Council area alone, out of a population of one and a quarter million, we have 950,000 and if we cannot get 32 members out of the 950,000 who do not speak English, Malay, Tamil or Mandarin, then I do not know what to say. The Member for Tanglin will say that this argument will also hold good for the District Councils. Yes, to a certain extent we agree, but then you must bear in mind this - that we will have three District Councils of 12 members each - 36 in all - and then we have a population which is slightly over a quarter of a million. 11.45 a.m. It is also the intention, if possible, to get those people who are farmers and those who seldom come to the city to stand for elections to the District Councils. These are the people who, I believe, would do a lot of good for the District Councils. Another point is this: In the rural districts, certain areas are mainly inhabited by certain sections of the people, such as Khehs, Hylams, Hokkiens or Teochews. If these people are not allowed to stand for election, then I believe it will be a great loss to the District Councils. Of course, if you could get a language which is suitable for all, it would be ideal; but at this stage of development, I think we shall allow people in the rural districts who are standing for elections to speak other dialects in addition to Mandarin. Another point to be borne in mind is that the affairs of the District Councils are definitely much more simple than those of the City Council. The elected councillors possibly stay very near to one another, and if one cannot understand the dialect, his friend who sits next to him in the District Council might be able to interpret for him. If that argument is advanced by the Member for Tanglin for the City Council, then he may even advance it for the Assembly. I see that the Member for Tanglin is shaking his head. Sir, I do not think there is any difference between these two places. Sir, I oppose this amendment.

Mr Chairman, Sir, in a country like Singapore, I think it is most important that the business of the City Council should be carried out as expeditiously as possible; and for administrative and technical reasons, I think a limit on multilingualism should be imposed if the activities of the Council are to be carried out in an efficient manner. It is for these reasons that I consider that only one Chinese dialect, which is spoken or understood by a great number of the Chinese population, should be allowed in addition to one Indian language, Malay and English. If pressure is brought to permit the use of all Chinese dialects, which are very many indeed, then I think we cannot properly deny Indians the use of their own languages, such as Hindustani, Urdu, Bengali, Malayalam and several other Indian languages. In cosmopolitan Singapore, Sir, it is important that we should avoid taking any steps which may be regarded as discriminatory by any section of the community. The position in the rural areas is entirely different. The idea of forming rural district councils is to bring home to the rural folks the benefits of an efficient administration. This could only be made possible if the actual residents of the rural areas are given an opportunity to take part in the effective administration of their respective areas. It is difficult to predict also what the position with regard to multilingualism will be in a few years' time. In providing for the use of any Chinese dialects in the rural district councils, we are venturing upon an experiment which may so turn out that the councillors themselves in time to come may ask for a restriction on the number of dialects and languages used if they find this is hampering their work. Sir, in the circumstances, I oppose the amendment.

Mr Chairman, the Member for Pasir Panjang gave me a little lecture across the floor on the difficulties of dialects - there are so many of them - and a slight incursion into Chinese history, but it all boils down to this: why should there be a difference in electoral qualification on one side or the other of Clementi Road, if I may take one example to which I referred? I can only hope that his own constituents, who are largely concerned because they are going to be split into two, will be satisfied with his own explanation. But one of my points is simply this: that the very fact that the Government have decided to extend the city limits to include an essentially rural area, and a largely rural area, within the City Council boundaries does mean that they should follow up their own argument logically and make the languages in both the City Council and the District Councils the same. Whether one should go further and include large numbers of Indian languages other than Tamil is another argument altogether. Of course, the argument against that is that there are not so many persons concerned. There is, of course, a large number of persons inside the City Council area who do not speak Mandarin and who will therefore be barred from standing as candidates. That is the main point, Sir.

The hon. Member asks why farmers on one side of the road have different electoral qualifications from the other side. Well, the answer is that you have to draw a line somewhere, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. You can well ask why the farmer on one side of Johore Strait has Tunku Abdul Rahman as the Chief Minister, and the other side has Mr Lim Yew Hock as the Chief Minister. Things go on like that. You cannot make sure that everybody is exactly equal in every respect. If I could just take up one point - I do not know whether the hon. Member considered this: If you are going to have all the Chinese dialects spoken in the City Council, presumably they are spoken in Committee as well; and with the number of Committees that exist there with all their functions, you will need an enormous staff of interpreters and translators to deal with the work. When you have one man who speaks Hokkien, you may have to have two or three interpreters for him; and the same in every other dialect; and all these have to be provided beforehand and trained and put into operation before the City Council elections. It will be a poor way of doing things if you have them trained after the City Council elections, and the City Councillors assemble and find themselves unable to communicate because they are all talking in different dialects with no common language. To enlarge the task to take in the provision of as many as ten different sets of headphones and different interpreters, all sitting in different boxes and trying to make sure that they can all translate the Budget or a licence to sell hot drinks, or whatever point the City Council takes up at the moment, seems to me to be an impossible one. It would be feasible probably for the District Councils to function in a friendly way on relatively minor matters without too much scrupulous worry about an exact translation of what they are saying. But the City Council is a body on whose vital services, I would remind the hon. Member, the whole island is dependent. These must be maintained efficiently; and operated efficiently; and expanded continuously. To impose on that body the delays and burdens which might be involved in the apparatus of translations which the hon. Member envisages seems to me to be most unwise.

Mr Chairman, Sir, let us ask ourselves one question: Why were we in favour of extending the language permitted to be used in the Assembly from one to four? In other words, why did we pass a resolution agreeing to multilingualism? Now, we did that on quite a number of grounds, but one important ground was that we wanted equality. The second was that we wanted better men to come into the Assembly. We also wanted the people to elect their own representatives who should be their true and natural leaders. If we were agreed on these grounds when we agreed to multilingualism, then we must see that this should be practised in the lower councils. I know that many Members before their election to this House went into the field canvassing, talking to the people and finding out who are the people who really mattered. And if we ask ourselves - each one of us who went into the field - who those people are, we will come to one conclusion. They are the people who speak less of Mandarin and more of some dialects. It is true in the City Council area, and it is true in the rural areas. I know, too, that many of the candidates asked these people to help them in their elections, because they are the influential people; in other words, they are the natural leaders of the people. If Members on the opposite side could quote numerous examples of these leaders who, they say, are leaders and are able to speak Mandarin, I am agreeable to four languages in the City Council, with Mandarin as the Chinese language. But I am convinced that the people who really have an influence on their fellows are not the Mandarin-speaking type. The Mandarin-speaking type are the ones who have just graduated from schools. Hon. Members: No.

If we talk about school teachers, I do not think they have the greatest of influence. Now if the Government side is not convinced of this, let us take a few examples. Let us come to the boards of management for Chinese schools. They control the schools. Why are the people on the board of directors, the board of governors, the board of management? Are they Mandarin-speaking people, or do they speak the local dialects? I would like the Government side to let me have an idea as to which type is the more prevalent. I can point out many schools with boards of governors who are not able to speak Mandarin. 12 noon. Now let us take another instance. Let us take the clans and associations. Again here we find we have some of the people who are natural leaders being elected democratically. Ask them again: Do they speak Mandarin? What percentage of such people speak Mandarin? You will find again that among such people there are very few that can speak Mandarin. Here we have a great number of people democratically elected according to their constitution, and whom the people say are their leaders. Yet we insist on having Mandarin in the City Council in order to deny these people the opportunity of serving Singapore in a larger capacity. The argument that the Government is putting forward is that it will involve a great deal of difficulties. There will be the difficulty of interpretation. What if they all speak in all sorts of languages and dialects? They will not be able to get business done. Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the Government to how business is being conducted in many of these associations and clans. If a person speaks one dialect it does not mean that he knows that one dialect alone. Invariably he knows two or three, even four. He may know four dialects and yet not know Mandarin. And so if one dialect is to be used, he will be able to understand it. He will be able to speak it even. I also ask the Government to find out, Sir, how people conduct business and meetings in their various set-ups. You will find that although none of them speaks Mandarin, yet business is done expeditiously. I find that if we really desire to go forward with equality as our watchword and try to get the best men for all the councils, then we must permit dialects to be used in the City Council.

Mr Chairman, I had not intended to speak when the Member for Tanglin moved his amendment. I can well understand that, not being a Chinese, he does not understand the Chinese dialects well. Or he does not know the number of Chinese dialects. But when the Member for Serangoon comes and gives us a discourse on the number of people who know how to speak Mandarin and challenges the Government to say whether management committee managers know Mandarin or not, I feel that I must tell him that most of the managers of management committees in Chinese schools know how to speak Mandarin. I have come across many of them at my meetings, and in my discussions with them they do speak Mandarin. I left a Chinese school more than 20 years ago but I speak Mandarin and the language of the Chinese people now is Mandarin and not any other Chinese dialect. I think the Member for Serangoon is casting an insult on the Chinese people when he says that they do not speak Mandarin.

Mr Chairman, on a point of clarification, Sir. Does the Member for Serangoon still belong to the Liberal-Socialist Party? I heard a very fervent plea for multilingualism run riot, and I remember those were the very arguments which his Party, the then Progressive Party, zealously refuted in those days when other Parties were pressing for multilingualism. I want to make sure where we stand today.

Electioneering!

Just to clarify the mind of the Member for Serangoon, Sir. I think he must have misunderstood what I was saying. I do not dispute that many people do speak many dialects and languages, but if you are going to have a City Council where anybody can speak any dialect, you have to set up all the machinery which may be required for the one individual who may speak the one dialect which nobody else could speak or understand. It is no use saying that most of the people will be able to understand each other in any dialect. You have to provide for every possible circumstance within what the law permits, and that is going to be an extremely complex task. The arguments which he made are completely irrelevant because you have to provide for every particular case, though the case may not actually arise.

Mr Chairman, Sir, while we are debating languages or dialects, I wonder how many of the hon. Members have read the report of a discussion with Mr Pilley of the Linguists Club-

Order. That report has not been published. It is still in the hands of the Select Committee and no reference to it can be made.

I am sorry, Sir. I wonder whether the Member for Pasir Panjang realised actually what he said when he pointed out that if in the City Council, where we are going to have 32 members, we could not get those 32 members who would confine themselves only to the four languages here, then he would not know how we could run the city. But does he realise that the District Councils are smaller in size - they have only 12 members each. In the District Councils you are going to throw open the question of the Chinese language to the different Chinese dialects, whereas in the City Council you are confining it only to Mandarin. I agree with him that to get interpreters to interpret all these different languages or dialects would be very difficult and the interpretation would be far from correct; but I strongly feel that there should be uniformity of languages as between the two councils. The District Councils come under this Bill, which is the Local Government Bill, as much as the City Council does. Why should we differentiate between the District Councils, where we can throw open the Chinese language to the different Chinese dialects, and the City Council where we have only Mandarin? Sir, whatever it may be, I hold an open view, because I feel that where the Chinese dialects or the Chinese language is concerned, it is a most complicated affair. Even in the Cantonese dialect, as the Member for Pasir Panjang said, you have many other "sub-dialects", as I call it, just as much as the Teochew dialect. Now I cannot speak a few dialects in Teochew, although I am a Teochew myself. I may not be able to understand a certain section of the Teochew people. So if we are going to have all the dialects of the Chinese language for the District Councils, then how do we get interpreters for them? Why cannot we have uniformity then? Is it the feeling of the Government that in the City Council you will get people who are far better educated and who know Mandarin, and in the rural districts you cannot find people who are as good as those in the City Council? I do not think that is right. As the Member for Tanglin asked: How do you draw the boundary? On this side of the road you confine the language only to Mandarin, whereas on the opposite side you open it to all the different Chinese dialects. What difference does it make between this side of the road and that side? The Minister for Communications and Works said that there must be a line drawn. I agree or else you get nowhere. But then a Member sitting on one side may know a number of dialects, whereas the Member sitting on the opposite may not. I think we should have uniformity, be it Mandarin alone or be it the different Chinese dialects. The whole clause should be amended to suit either one or the other. There should not be any differentiation between the languages of the District and City Councils.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I agree with the last speaker that we should have uniformity. If we are going to allow any dialect to be used in the District Councils, we should also allow any dialect to be used in the City Council. But I disagree with the Minister for Education when he says that it is a shame for a Chinese to say that the Chinese cannot understand Mandarin. I am afraid there are quite a number of Chinese who do not speak Mandarin, especially the older Chinese. The younger Chinese who have gone to Chinese schools can, of course, speak Mandarin. But surely we are not going to deprive the older Chinese, who are perhaps public spirited and have made themselves useful in the city and who would like to take part in the administration of the city, of the opportunity to take part in the City Council elections simply because they cannot speak Mandarin? I strongly support the view that we should have uniformity in the District and City Councils.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar has already drawn the attention of his House to the fact that it was the Progressive Party that opposed multilingualism, and it would appear that the Liberal-Socialist Party are now more than anxious for multilingualism. In fact, they are going beyond what has been accepted in the Legislative Assembly. Sir, the fact that we are going to have a multilingual Assembly makes it necessary that we must make the other councils multilingual as well. On that basis, since the Legislative Assembly will have Mandarin as its Chinese language, we feel that in the City Council Mandarin, and Mandarin alone, should also be the only Chinese language. The City Council and the Legislative Assembly, as far as I can gather, now work on the same basis. At the ordinary meetings they have verbatim reports. Therefore it is necessary for the City Council to have interpreters and also to have the same earphone system as in the Legislative Assembly. In regard to the District Councils, we envisage that the business conducted will be more of a friendly and co-operative nature than that of a healthy debate as we are having in the Legislative Assembly and in the City Council. We want the farmers and the little shopkeepers in the rural districts to participate, and to have every facility afforded them so that they can contest the elections and be returned to the District Councils. They can help to bring democracy to the districts. Sir, the District Councils will work for the first term on the same basis as the village committees. The councillors sit around and discuss points of interest and use the dialects in which they are most familiar, and they will have one another to help in the translation. As far as village committees are concerned, I think only minutes and decisions are taken, but no verbatim reports. If verbatim reports are necessary, then translators and the earphone system will also be necessary.

All I would like to say is that if the district councillors are just going to sit around and have little chats while the Government officers get on with the job, then we ourselves are talking entirely different languages. Amendment negatived.

I think this is an appropriate time to suspend?

Yes, Sir. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

The sitting is suspended. I will take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.15 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m. Order read for resumption of consideration of Bill in Committee.

Clause 21-

Mr Chairman, I beg to move. In page 82, line 41, to leave out from "languages" to the end of line 2 in page 83. The words left out are "with a degree of proficiency sufficient to enable him to take an active part in any proceedings of that Council;". It is considered, Sir, that the words to be left out are unnecessary and confusing since they may give an impression that reading and writing are the qualifications which enable a person to take an active part in the proceedings of the Council whereas in actual fact ability to speak is the primary factor. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw the next amendment of which notice was given. [In page 83, line 7, after "those", to insert "dialects or".]

The Minister is not moving the amendment; please proceed with the next one. Further Amendment made: In page 83, line 7, to leave out from "languages" to "; and" in line 9. -[Inche Abdul Hamid]. Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 22-

Mr Chairman, we have given further legal consideration to this point and we now think that probably the point we had in mind is covered by sub-clause (e) of this clause. I therefore beg leave not to move the amendment. Ord. of 1957. [In page 83, after line 33, to insert: - "(d) has been convicted of making a false declaration for the purposes of subsection (3) of section 27 of the Local Government Elections Ordinance, 1957; or".]

The Member is not moving his amendment. Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 25-

The hon. Member can move his second amendment; the first is only consequential- [In page 86, line 1, after "(2)", to insert "(a)".]

Mr Chairman, I beg to move an amendment, In page 86, after line 5, to insert: - "(b) The mayor shall cease to hold office as such, if he shall by writing under his hand addressed to the Chief Administrative Officer resign such office, on the date of the receipt of such resignation by the Chief Administrative Officer." Mr Chairman, I think this is for once a non-controversial amendment. I think it is an omission from the Bill as it stands at the moment. There seems to be no provision for the resignation of a mayor. Sub-clause (2) simply reads: "If the mayor is continuously absent from the City except on account of illness, without obtaining from the City Council leave of absence, for a period exceeding two months he shall at the expiration of that period cease to hold that office." But there can be cases where the mayor, through severe illness or accident, or may be personal domestic reasons, would feel incapable of carrying out his duties as mayor and that he should be in a position to resign without delay and enable another mayor to be elected by the councillors. We have suggested that this resignation should be addressed to the Chief Administrative Officer as the senior executive officer in the City Council because the election of the mayor is a matter solely for the councillors themselves.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I have an amendment to propose to that amendment. Amendment to the amendment handed in.

The amendment is in order.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the amendment that I have proposed does not alter the sense of that proposed by the hon. Member for Tanglin but will bring his amendment into conformity with paragraph (e) of sub-clause (1) of clause 25. With the alteration that I have proposed, there is no objection to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member.

Perhaps the Hon. the Attorney-General would like to read out the amendment?

I beg your pardon, Sir. The amendment which I move is, To leave out "The mayor shall cease to hold office as such, if he shall by writing under his hand addressed to the Chief Administrative Officer resign such office," and insert "If by writing under his hand the mayor resigns such office, that office shall be deemed to have been vacated,". The sentence would continue in the words of the original amendment, "...shall be deemed to have been vacated, on the date of the receipt of such resignation by the Chief Administrative Officer."

Mr Chairman, we shall be happy to accept the amendment. Amendment to the amendment agreed to. Original amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I beg to move, In page 86, line 17, to leave out "councillor" and insert "member of a local authority". Amendment handed in.

The amendment is in order.

Mr Chairman, this is just a matter of drafting, I think, which was overlooked and on which the Hon. the Attorney-General yesterday did agree that there was an inconsistency in having the term "member of a local authority" and "councillor" in the same sub-clause, and as this clause is at fault, I take this opportunity to make this correction.

Mr Chairman, Sir, that can be accepted. Amendment agreed to. Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 26-

Mr Chairman, this point which we had in mind has now been covered by the amendment moved by my hon. Friend yesterday to clause 22 of the Local Government Elections Bill, and I shall not move my amendment. [In page 86, line 39, after "held", to insert "forthwith".]

The Member is not moving the amendment. Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 29-

Mr Chairman, I beg to move an amendment, In page 87, line 18, to leave out "to the major and". And with your permission, Sir, I would like, for the purposes of debate, to take the next amendment with it.

That will be convenient.

The next amendment is, In page 87, after 21, to insert:- "(2) The City Council may pay to the mayor such allowances or expenses as the City Council may from time to time authorise.". 2.45 p.m. Mr Chairman, the point of this amendment is simply this, that whereas we agree that the Governor in Council may or even should decide the expenses of City Councillors, it should be left to the City Councillors themselves to decide on what expenses should be granted to the Mayor. It should be remembered, I think, that the Mayor is elected by the City Councillors themselves and that it is entirely a matter for themselves to elect a Mayor of their own choice, and the Governor in Council does not come into the picture at all. There can be no interference from the Governor in Council with the choice of the Mayor by the elected Councillors. It therefore seems only appropriate that the allowances and expenses which should be allotted to the Mayor should be a matter for the Councillors themselves to decide.

Sir, perhaps the hon. Member has failed to read clauses 67 (1) (g) and (h) in page 101 which empower the City Council to pay for expenses incurred on the occasion of public ceremonies in which presumably the Mayor would take the leading part, and also for receiving and entertaining of distinguished visitors who may be the guests of the Mayor. So there is provision given under the Bill to the City Council to incur such expenditure without going to the Governor in Council for sanction. Clause 29 actually deals with the normal fixed monthly allowances or expenses which the Council may wish to grant to the Councillors and to the Mayor. If there are any extraordinary expenses due to visitors, functions or celebrations, the City Council has power under the other clause to pay them.

Mr Chairman, the point I would like to make in reply to the Hon. Minister for Commerce and Industry is this, that if it was felt by the Government that the clause to which reference has been made and of which I am very well aware - clause 67 (1) (g) and (h) - was sufficient, then surely Government could very well accept the first amendment, namely, to leave out "to the mayor and", but not to accept the second amendment which is to insert a new sub-clause (2) as proposed. But I do not think this point meets the point which we wish to make. The position is this, that the status and dignity of the Mayor is something, I think, which we need to establish from the start of the institution of this office. I think I am right in saying that a Mayor, certainly of a City Council which is incorporated by Royal Charter as is the City of Singapore, is the Queen's representative, and the Mayor's status is an extremely high one. In the land he is the First Gentleman of the City and I think this fact needs to be taken into consideration. I think it would be wrong certainly for the Minister and I think the Council of Ministers to dictate as to what the Mayor should or should not have as his expenses and allowances. The second point, as I have already said, is that as the Councillors elect their own Mayor they should be given the responsibility of deciding what his expenses should be, his normal expenses and not of course those covered by clauses 67 (1) (g) and (h) which refer to the larger functions and forms of entertaining which a mayor must carry out in his position as head of the city. I think in his position as Mayor the normal expenditure of a Mayor would be higher than that of a City Councillor and there would be no doubt that the Governor in Council would grant a rather higher allowance in his case, but I do not think there should be any dispute on this matter. It would be undesirable that if the City Councillors themselves felt that the Mayor should receive, let us say, $750 a month for allowances and expenses for normal entertaining of people passing through and general entertaining within the City to the citizens of Singapore, the Governor in Council were to cut down the figure to $500 or whatever the figure might be. I think that would be an undesirable position. I think the responsibility of deciding on this particular figure can safely and properly be left to the City Councillors themselves who have, in the first instance, elected their Mayor.

Sir, I think there are two types of expenses which the Mayor of our proposed City Council will have. One is the expenses which he will incur in inviting various distinguished persons and entertaining them in the capacity of the Mayor. I think, Sir, clause 29 deals with both these allowances and expenses of that nature and I am sure the Governor in Council will take care of those allowances and expenses. Now the other type of expenditure is that dealt with under clause 67 (1) (h), like receiving and entertaining distinguished visitors and so on on behalf of the City Council. For that purpose, Sir, provision is already made in clause 67 (1) (h). But I do not think for a moment, Sir, that it is right and proper for a City Council to decide on allowances and expenses of their own, because there is a danger in it. It a particular Party gets a majority in the City Council, then it will be in a position to vote any money as it likes to keep the dignity of the Mayor. I think that will be a very undesirable practice. I do hope that it will not be allowed. Amendment negatived.

I take it the hon. Member will not move the next amendment, in page 87, after line 21, to insert a new sub-clause (2)?

No, Sir, I will not. Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 31-

Mr Chairman, I beg to move an amendment, In page 87, line 42, to leave out "office or offices" and insert "post or posts". I think, Sir, that this is probably a drafting omission. It was overlooked during the deliberations of the Select Committee. I think the term "office" is only used for the office of Mayor or the office of Councillors and the intention behind this sub-clause is that there should be disciplinary powers in respect of persons holding a post or posts. If you refer, Sir, to page 77 of the Bill, clauses 11 and 12, you will find, I think, the term "post" is used throughout.

Mr Chairman, this amendment can be accepted by the Government. Amendment agreed to. Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 39-

Mr Chairman, I beg to move an amendment, In page 90, line 22, after "Council", to insert "excluding the Chairman". Mr Chairman, the sub-clause to which we are referring, sub-clause (3), reads: "No business shall be transacted at a meeting of a District Council unless at least eight members of the District Council are present: Now if the Chairman is included as one of those eight you could have this position that in a meeting in which a quorum was present of only eight persons there could be four elected members on the one hand and three nominated members plus the Chairman on the other hand, so that the Chairman, with a casting vote could, with the help of the nominated members, arrive at a decision which the elected members object to. I think that is an undesirable position. I do not want to go into the merits of nominated members - it has already been dealt with - but I think the position that could arise is a wrong one whatever the arguments may be on nominated members. Where you have nominated members there should not arise the position, however honest the decision that may be come to, whereby the elected members can be out-voted by the nominated members and the Chairman. By the simple device of excluding the Chairman as counting towards this quorum you would with the eight have the position of five elected members and three nominated members.

Mr Chairman, Sir, earlier on in the day the hon. Member for Tanglin, in moving an amendment for an increase in the number of elected Councillors for the District Councils touched on this quorum of eight. He did say that this quorum of eight, which is more than half the total number, is much too much. It should have been one-third and in order to achieve that one-third there should have been more members. Now by his amendment he is going to make a quorum more difficult to comply with. He suggested that if we have only eight members, eight is already a majority of a total of 15 and it may happen that only four elected Councillors will be present at a meeting. Four elected Councillors out of a total of 12! Surely it is not suggested that elected Councillors will be less conscious of their duties than nominated Councillors who, by his suggestion, will be present with a 100 per cent strength? Four out of 12! I doubt that could ever happen because surely elected Councillors will feel - and feel quite rightly - that they have a more responsible duty to perform, and at any meeting of the District Councils there will be more than four elected Councillors attending. We oppose the amendment. 3.00 p.m.

Mr Chairman, I concede that there is an apparent contradiction in what I have said just now and what I said earlier about quorums, but that is of the Govermnent's own making. If a larger number had been accepted for the District Councils, this position would not arise. As to the second point of the Hon. the Chief Minister that surely as few as four elected members would never turn up at a meeting, I hope that that will not occur except on very rare occasions, and may be it will never occur at all; but the position could arise. That is the point, and it is desirable that it should not arise and that we should so devise this Bill that it will not happen.

Mr Chairman, if the position does arise then the people of the district deserve what they get. If they can tolerate elected councillors who do not attend meetings then they do deserve what they get. At the next elections which come round in that district they should see that these chaps do not get returned.

Mr Chairman, I do not know whether the opposing Liberal-Socialist Party wishes to amend the Standing Orders of this Assembly but I would point out that the quorum here is eight excluding the Chairman or Speaker, and under the present Constitution of the Assembly the business of Government could be carried on with only one elected Member present.

That is undesirable.

The hon. Member has not moved an amendment, as far as I remember. Amendment negatived. Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 40-

Mr Chairman, I beg to move an amendment, In page 90, line 36, after "thereon", to insert:- ", provided that the mayor shall not be entitled to cast a vote on such questions". Mr Chairman, we consider this a most important amendment, that the Mayor should not be entitled to a vote at meetings of the City Council or at committee meetings. Our feeling is that the Mayor should be above Party once he is elected to that office, that he should be strictly impartial and be seen to be so. I think that to have an impartial non-voting Chairman in the seat of mayor is essential for a newly elected Council with several languages if it is going to operate smoothly. I do not say, of course, and I do not intend to suggest, that it will be impossible for a Mayor to be impartial and to vote, but I think what we do want to see is that the Mayor is entirely impartial and that it would be of assistance if we were to put the Mayor beyond Party pressures and the Party line, so that he can carry out what is best for the city. His importance and influence should be shown outside the chamber in guiding Councillors on important matters, because most decisions in local government are in fact not really political matters at all, where politics should not enter in, and I think the Mayor who is placed in the position of being above Party would be able to wield influence which otherwise would not be so easy. I think, Sir, if I may refer to your great office, that the value of Mr Speaker as a non-Party man has been shown in this Assembly. I think if we follow the principle, and we have accepted that principle and realised its value in this House, that for the first few years at any rate of the life of the City Council, as we found in the first few years of the life of this Assembly, that a Mayor is placed in the position of being above Party, it would be extremely valuable. Perhaps this could be relaxed in time to come just as I think it is intended under the new Constitution that this might be relaxed if the Assembly so wishes, but the traditions and practices of a Mayor as a man elected from the people and elected from the Councillors - these traditions and practices have still to be set up in this city, and during this stage I think, as I have said, this particular amendment would be exceptionally valuable in the counsellings of the City Council.

Sir, this amendment shows the fundamental difference between our side of the House and the Liberal-Socialists. We believe, Sir, that an elected man should exercise his right. He should not under any pretence shirk his right and, whether he is a mayor or not, refuse to vote. Therefore once a man is elected by an electorate, nothing should be done to take away his right of voting and his right of representing the people who have elected him. It is an important principle, Sir, and we are not prepared to concede on this point. We stick by it, that an elected man has his right and nobody should take that away from him. Sir, even the present City Council President does exercise his vote though he is not an elected man but a civil servant. He not only exercises his original vote but he exercises a casting vote when the need arises. The hon. Member did make the plea that we would like to have an impartial Mayor but I suggest, Sir, that he is going against human nature in this. Human nature is such that one cannot always be impartial and even if you have a Mayor from whom the vote is taken away you will still find that he will not be always impartial. Besides, what will happen if in a City Council elections you find two Parties returned with equal strength? Then nobody would want to appoint a Mayor from his Party because if he did so it would lose one vote and it would then become the minority in the City Council.

Sir, apparently the only objection of the Government side to this very constructive suggestion of the Member for Tanglin is because there is a fear that human nature cannot rise above partiality towards Party. I think that is a very sad admission. In this House we have seen how important it is to have a Speaker who is impartial and gives everybody a chance to speak no matter on which side he is. I strongly feel that it is essential in the first few years of the new City Council that we should have an impartial man as a Mayor.

I would just like to point out, Mr Chairman, that there is a fallacy in comparing your position, with all respect, to the position of the Mayor. Under a Party political programme in contesting elections as we have in the City Council the Mayor will presumably be a man who has been elected on a Party political programme and has given his word to the people who have voted for him that he will try to carry that programme out. In the nature of things it is going to be extremely difficult or impossible for him to retain the trust of anybody if he goes back on the word which he has given; if he is pledged to seek to carry out certain objectives and then has to refrain from carrying them out. It may be that the Speaker in the House of Commons is an elected Party man but there you have over six hundred Members to choose from. Of course there is a very long tradition of extremely partisan Speakers long ago but gradually they built up a tradition how the office should be occupied and run and they have always got a spare man to put in. But that sort of thing does not apply here. I understand that the Speaker in the House of Commons in fact once he is chosen, retains his office and nobody can contest against him by agreement; he gets his seat uncontested thereafter.

Mr Chairman, I rise just to express my alarm at the statement that a Party man is not able to be impartial. We know that Party men will be elected not only to the office of Mayor later on, but at present they are holding important offices like ministers. And if they cannot be impartial where will Singapore go? God help us, Sir.

Could I have one more word, Sir? I am afraid the Opposition still misunderstands the situation. A man who has joined a political Party has formed his opinion as to how things should be done. We on this side of the House stand for a Socialist programme; on the other side of the House they stand for a capitalist-socialist programme, whatever that may be. And in this world, having formed your ideas, you then go to the people and say, "I want to be elected", and having done that you act impartially on the basis of the principles which you have accepted; but you cannot then say that although you are a Socialist by principle you will now impartially accept that capitalism is as good as Socialism. That would be to make nonsense of the whole thing. On the basis of Socialism you have to be impartial within your principles but you cannot be expected to abandon your principles and show that you have no mind or no power of decision between two matters on which you have already made your choice.

Mr Chairman, if we accept the view, as we on this side of the House do, that a Mayor or rather an elected Councillor, once he is elected as a Mayor, should be above Party - and I think that should be accepted in the interests of the welfare of the city - then I can only say that one is appalled at the reasons of the Hon. Minister for Communications and Works. The Minister said that the Mayor, or the Councillor when he has been elected as a Mayor, must carry out his Party programme at all costs. Now if that is to be the situation, what confidence is there going to be in a Mayor who is not going to consider the city as a whole above Party, but is going to carry out his Party programme right or wrong? You are going to be in a position of a biased man giving rulings from the chair, and I think that is a most undesirable position for the City Council to be in. And for the Minister for Commerce and Industry to be saying that he cannot expect a man always to be impartial only of course reinforces our point that the Mayor should be placed in a position above Party, as this amendment seeks to do. 3.15 p.m.

Sir, either the hon. Member has misunderstood it or tries to misinterpret my statement and the statement of the Minister for Communications and Works. I do not understand what power the Mayor is going to have in order that he should be impartial. After all, what powers are you going to give to the Mayor except only that he is a figurehead in the City Council? He presides over its meetings but he has no other power except this one vote which we propose to give him and which you wish to take out of his hands. He is not going to have the power of the President of the United States surely. He is not going to control a body with such big resources and big population that you want to make him so impartial. He is going to be just a figurehead presiding over meetings of the City Council. I think the Opposition Members are trying to exaggerate the position of the Mayor. I, Sir, emphatically state here that we on this side of the House cannot be impartial to our Party programme. We must be partial and carry out our Party programme. If the Opposition think that we can be impartial, then they are mistaken. We have promised the electorate to carry out our Party programme and we shall carry out that programme as far as possible. So do not let anybody misinterpret it. We can be impartial in smaller things but when it comes to a Party programme, we cannot be impartial; we have to be partial.

Mr Chairman, I would just like to make a comment that if the position is that the Mayor is to be regarded purely as a figurehead, then the Government are introducing something which they do not understand.

Sir, may I just give a solid example arising out of the quotations by the Minister for Communications and Works? He read out to us when the previous clauses were debated that City Councillors busied themselves with such things as whether A should sell hot drinks or B should sell hot drinks. Of course, if A happens to be a Party member, he gets two points down and if B happens to be another person not connected with the Party, he gets one point up, and still A is approved, then the partiality of a Mayor comes in. Such partiality can range from granting a licence to sell fish in a market to bigger things. I am alarmed that if this sort of affairs go on at high government level, it will be very, very bad for Singapore.

Sir, I think we cannot accept the suggestion of the Member for Tanglin that the Government is unaware of the responsibilities of a Mayor and that it does not know what it is talking about. Sir, there are in the United Kingdom a very large number of City and Borough Councils which have Mayors and if the hon. Member were to look at the United Kingdom Local Government Act, he will find that Mayors there have votes. I think it is a very misleading suggestion to make that we are on the wrong track. I think the hon. Member is trying to figure the Mayor of Singapore as a piece of wood. I do not think, Sir, that the Government can agree to that. Amendment negatived.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not wish to move my amendment: [In page 90, lines 38 to 39, to leave out "whether or not entitled to vote in the first instance" and insert "not being the mayor".] Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 41-

Mr Chairman, I beg to move, In page 91, lines 5 and 6, to leave out "or by resolution in respect of any particular meeting". Perhaps I have your permission, Sir, to refer indirectly to the next amendment which is to some extent connected. It reads: In page 91, line 10, to leave out "and" and insert "or". Sir, this is quite a small amendment and I think these words are in fact unnecessary in their context; the sub-clause will then read: "Such minutes shall, unless the local authority by Standing Orders shall otherwise decide, be open to inspection by the public...". Now, it seems to me that it is better for the local authority to decide by Standing Orders throughout as to whether or not minutes should be open to inspection. The normal practice is that the minutes of every ordinary meeting of a local authority are open to inspection; in fact, they are gazetted but not that the minutes of proceedings of every committee are open to inspection. It seems to me better to make these provisions under Standing Orders which would define the type of meeting by such terms as "ordinary" meeting or "special" meeting rather than that there should be a resolution in respect of any particular meeting that it is not intended to have the minutes open to inspection. I think that might give the wrong impression to the public that, when a certain matter was being debated, the City Councillors were not desirous of allowing the public to know what was going on but if that is covered as it can be covered by Standing Orders, that impression could be avoided. In the same way, I think the word "or" in sub-clause (3) is preferable to "and". The sub-clause will then read: "Such minutes or parts thereof may be published in the Gazette or in such other manner, if any, as the local authority may decide." For the same reason, that "such minutes or parts thereof" in sub-clause (3) refer to sub-clause (1) : "Minutes of the proceedings of every meeting of a local authority and of every committee thereof...". Now, as I have said, in point of fact, the minutes of every committee meeting are not published in the Gazette. They are kept confidential and it is only the resolutions of that committee that are published and I think it is desirable to keep to that practice.

It has been proposed as an amendment: In page 91, lines 5 and 6, to leave out "or by resolution in respect of any particular meeting". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." The debate may range over the next amendment: In page 91, line 10, to leave out "and" and insert "or".

Sir, in the light of the explanation given by the hon. mover of the amendment, the Government is pleased to accept it. Amendment agreed to. Further Amendment made: In page 91, line 10: to leave out "and" and insert "or". -[Mr Ede]. Clause 41, as amended, agreed to stand part of the Bill. Clause 45-

Mr Chairman, I beg to move, In page 92, to leave out lines 18 to 22. Sir, it seems to me that this particular sub-clause (4) is redundant if you take it in connection with sub-clause (1). Sub-clause (1) reads: "A member of a local authority shall not vote or be present at the discussion of any matter before the local authority or a committee in which he has directly or indirectly by himself or by a partner any pecuniary interest:" Sub-clause (4), it seems to us, is repetitive: "A local authority may by Standing Orders provide for the exclusion of a member of that authority from a meeting of the authority whilst any contract, proposed contract or other matter in which he has such an interest as aforesaid is under consideration." It may be remembered that this clause 45 was amended by the Select Committee and it seems to us that in making the amendment, it was overlooked that this sub-clause (4) is actually covered by sub-clause (1).

We accept the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 60-

Mr Chairman, I beg to move, In page 97, line 5, to leave out from "may" to the end of line 13 and insert:-

Mr Chairman, Sir, in connection with the amendment of the Member for Tanglin, I would like to point out that there have been no inroads as the Member suggests into the powers of the local authority by the Minister. In fact, a similar power of the Minister exists in the present City Council; I think it is section 366 but, Sir, on reconsideration of this amendment, I am pleased to say that we accept the amendment of the Member for Tanglin. Amendment agreed to. Clause 60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 3.30 p.m. Clause 67-

Mr Chairman, I beg to move, In page 101, to leave out lines 23 to 25. These three lines refer to paragraph (d) of sub-clause (1). Sub-clause (1) reads: "Local authorities are authorised to expend the appropriate local authority fund for the following purposes:-" And (d) refers to: "the acquisition, construction or establishment and maintenance, supervision and control of systems of public transport;". It seems to us, Sir, that this clause is now an anachronism. Government's promise was the nationalisation of public transport and the removal of its control from the City Council. First steps have been taken in this direction: bus companies and services are now under an omnibus licensing authority. So if the Government is in earnest regarding its promises, it seems to us that this clause has now become redundant and need not be retained in the Bill. If the Government does not accept this amendment, it seems to us an indication that they are having second thoughts about the whole question of public transport and that they had pledged themselves to a policy which they do not propose to follow.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to waste many words on this minor point. The hon. Member has obviously overlooked section 29 of Cap. 111 - the Singapore Traction Ordinance. If you would like, I can refer to it; otherwise we can accept that it provides reasonable grounds for retaining this power.

Perhaps the Minister may read the relevant section for the record.

Yes, Sir. The section is of course the one which empowers the City Council to buy the Traction Company. Section 29 of the Singapore Traction Ordinance reads: "The City Council may within six months after the fifth day of June, 1955 or within six months after the expiration of any subsequent period of seven years or within three months after the making of any Order by the Minister under either of the two immediately preceding sections by notice in writing to the Company require the Company to sell and thereupon the Company shall sell to the City Council the whole Undertaking, land, buildings, generating stations, substations, car sheds, works, materials, stores, rolling-stock and plant of the Company as a going concern. The total price failing agreement shall be fixed by arbitration, and in arriving at such total price the Arbitrator shall have regard to the fair market value of the Undertaking, as a going concern, but without any allowance being made for compulsory purchase." The hon. Member will appreciate that that Ordinance is a specific Ordinance referring to the Singapore Traction Company. To take away from the City Council the power to expend money for this purpose, whilst leaving in the Traction Company Ordinance this provision, would be - in colloquial terms - to make nonsense of the situation. I think there is a legal point but I would not care to expound a legal point in this distinguished company. Briefly, you have an enablement under one Ordinance and you had better have the corresponding enablement under the other. The question of whether the enablement is going to be used or not is rather by the way.

Mr Chairman, if that explanation had been forthcoming from the Minister in the Select Committee, all would have been made clear. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, I move, In page 102, line 9, to leave out "real or personal" and insert "movable or immovable". I understand, Sir, that the term "movable or immovable" is the appropriate term to use. Amendment agreed to. Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 68-

Mr Chairman, I move, In page 102, line 22, to leave out "Fund" and insert "accounts". The last line in sub-clause (1), Sir, refers to accounts. It is against these accounts that all orders or cheques must be signed by the Treasurer. Amendment agreed to. Clause 68, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 81-

Mr Chairman, I beg to move, In page 107, line 18, to leave out "nor, except in special circumstances, the period". And I would ask, Sir, that the second amendment may be taken into consideration: In page 107, lines 19 and 20, to leave out "under section 78 of the Ordinance", which we agreed should, in fact, be section 79. Mr Chairman, this clause refers to the period of redemption of monies borrowed by the City Council under clause 78 of this Bill. Money can be borrowed for any of three purposes, as given in sub-clause (1) of clause 78: "(a) the acquisition of any premises which the City Council may acquire under this Ordinance or any other written law for the time being in force; (b) the erection of any building which the City Council has authority to erect; (c) the execution of any permanent work, the provision or renewal of any plant or equipment, the provision or replacement of any vehicles, or the doing of anything which the City Council has authority under this Ordinance to execute, provide or do if, in the opinion of the Minister, the cost of carrying out that purpose ought to be spread over a term of years:" Now, Sir, there are three restrictions in clause 81 as regards the period of redemption. Firstly, the period shall not exceed 60 years in any case. With this, after due consideration, we are prepared to agree. The second restriction is that the period shall not exceed the estimated life of the purpose: that is to say, for example, 40 years in the case of a power station. We agree that this is financially sound. The third restriction is that the period shall not exceed the period of the loan under clause 79 of the Bill which loan under clause 80 shall be charged on City Council revenue. It is this restriction to which we object and which we seek to remove, bearing in mind that long-term loans are not easy to raise in the Singapore market and that short-term loans for long-term projects are all that can normally be hoped for. Let me now illustrate what happens. Let us suppose that the City Council wishes to raise a loan of $10 million to extend the power station; the life of the asset or this extension being, let us say, 40 years and the period of the loan 10 years. If the period of redemption is related to the period of the loan, namely ten years, then apart from considerations of interest, a refund has to be made under clause 82 of $1 million per year from your electricity revenue account. On the other hand, if the period of redemption is related to the period of the estimated useful life of the project, namely 40 years, then apart from considerations of interest, a refund of only $250,000 per year has to be made. This is a saving of $750,000 per year in your revenue account. What is the result? As a result of this saving, the unit price of electricity can be reduced and the present generation is not being made to pay unnecessarily heavily for the benefit of future generations. The unit price of electricity not only can but ought to be reduced in this way and I would suggest, particularly, for industrial purposes, because if the Minister for Commerce and Industry could attract industrialists to set up factories here today, as indeed is the policy of the Government - one of the inducements being an adequate supply of cheaper power - we should be better off not only now but in the future and we would therefore be in a better position to raise further loans in the future. The very fact that the City Council has to redeem loans within the period of the loan and not within the estimated useful life of the purpose does tend to handicap much needed development. Not only the present generation suffers by having to pay an inflated price for electricity, but the future generation suffers through lack of industrial expansion today. The amendment before us will remove this unnecessary and short-sighted restriction.

It has been proposed as an amendment, In page 107, line 18, to leave out "nor, except in special circumstances, the period". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." In debating that Question, the debate may range over the next amendment: In page 107, lines 19 and 20, to leave out "under section 78 of the Ordinance". 3.42 p.m.

Mr Chairman, I should say, before I start to reply to the hon. Member, Sir, that of course the proviso to which he objects does not preclude short-term borrowing. As hon. Members are aware, under the existing Municipal Ordinance, the City Council is obliged to arrange for the redemption of a loan within the period sanctioned for the repayment of a loan. In other words, the period of redemption must be not more than the period for repayment. The period of redemption is not related to the useful life of the purpose for which the loan is raised. This would be clear from the minutes of the Parliamentary Bills Committee which are quoted on page 38 of the Sessional Paper L.A. 10 of 1957, that is, the book containing the Bill. Before proceeding further, Sir, I should perhaps make it quite clear that a distinction has been drawn in this Bill between redemption and repayment. This distinction was not made in the existing Municipal Ordinance. Unless this distinction is clearly understood, discussion of the clauses of the Bill referring to loans will be largely meaningless. Here again, I would refer to page 38 of the Sessional Paper. Repayment is the physical act of repaying the subscribers to a loan. Redemption in this context refers to the arrangements made by the borrower to provide funds for repayment and I hope this distinction is clear. For some time, financial officers of the City Council have considered that the terms of the Municipal Ordinance are, in certain circumstances, unnecessarily restrictive on the Council's powers to raise and redeem loans. Short-term borrowing has been rendered difficult because of the difficulties of redeeming a loan over the short period for which it has been raised. In some cases, where money has been raised for a purpose with a long useful life, it has not been possible to redeem the loan over that period although there may have been a strong case for doing so. In this latter connection, however, I must make it clear that at no time has it ever seriously been suggested that a loan should be redeemed over a longer period than 60 years even although the useful life of the purpose for which the loan is raised may appear to be more than 60 years. I must emphasise this. Sixty years is a very long time: in fact, two generations or the lifetime of an average man. There are very few purposes which have a useful life even approaching 60 years. By useful life, I mean the period of life of an asset before it requires major expenditure on replacements or to modernise it or adapt it to meet current requirements. Even in the case of permanent buildings, it would be a rash man who would say with complete confidence that the useful life, that is, the period of life before repairs, adaptations and modifications were required, was over 60 years. Again, since these modifications would normally require fresh capital, it would be unfair that any particular generation of consumers should be saddled with the financial consequences of their great-grandfathers' undertakings as well as their own. For these reasons, it has never been seriously suggested that the period of redemption of any loan should exceed 60 years. As I said earlier, the financial officers of the City Council have been anxious to obtain some relaxation of the restrictions placed on the City Council's powers of borrowing and funding by the Municipal Ordinance. When clause 81 was drafted - at this stage, I should say that the financial clauses of this Bill were all drafted by the City Treasurer and have only been subjected to minor modifications since - it was provided that every sum borrowed under section 78 - which should read 79 - shall be redeemed within such period not exceeding 60 years as the City Council with the sanction of the Governor in Council may determine. In short, clause 81, as it appears in the Bill without the proviso. When this clause came to be discussed with the City Treasurer, it was readily agreed that a proviso should be added to the effect that such period shall not exceed the estimated useful life of the purpose for which the money has been raised. Quite obviously, it would be most imprudent to fund a loan over a longer period than the useful life of the purpose for which it had been raised and I am sure that hon. Members will agree unanimously on this point. So far so good. It had, at this stage, been agreed by all parties concerned that clause 81 should read as follows: "Every sum borrowed shall be redeemed within such period not exceeding sixty years as the City Council, with the sanction of the Governor in Council, may determine: Provided always that such period shall not exceed the estimated useful life of the purpose for which the money has been raised." At this stage, however, it had become clear that the matter was not quite as simple as it would at first appear. There were certain very important considerations which had to be taken into account before giving the City Council the powers contained in this clause. Firstly, the policy relating redemption to useful life rather than to the period of a loan means that on the due date of payment, the money available in the sinking fund will be less than the amount required for repayment. It also assumes that the borrowing authority can count on being able to float a loan to pay off the original loan whenever it is required. This, of course, is the position in England where there is a highly developed loan market and where local authorities can count with reasonable certainty on being allowed and able to float a loan wherever it is required but it is doubtful if the situation will ever be quite the same in Singapore. One is, of course, looking into the future and speculating rather than speaking with certainty about conditions which may then exist. It does, however, seem at least uncertain whether in the foreseeable future conditions in the local capital investment market will be such that the City Council could count with certainty on being able to float a redemption loan at any given date. In the first place, the City Council has already a substantial burden of debt. This is bound to increase considerably in the future and the local investing public will in the end be very heavily committed in respect of City Council loans with possibly a corresponding reluctance to become further committed. Again, the amount of capital available for investment will not be unlimited and there is certain to be competition for what is available. In all these circumstances, it seems at least doubtful that the City Council will always find it easy to float the loans it requires. It may, in fact, find it extremely difficult. This is a point which has to be borne in mind before agreeing that the City Council should embark on a new policy of loan redemption which is dependent for success on the ready availability of loan money. Secondly, it appears probable that if any relaxation of the present safe funding policy of the City Council is allowed in the interests of the present generation of ratepayers and consumers, the Council will be under great pressure from political interests to exploit the relaxation to the uttermost and this pressure will be passed on to the Government. Thirdly, account must be taken of the possible effect of a radical change in the funding policy on the credit of the City Council. So far, the Council has not had very much trouble in obtaining the loan money which it has required. It has had a free run of the Singapore market without competition from the Government or other borrowing authorities. It was borrowed for revenue producing purposes. The financial policies of the Council have commended themselves to the public and perhaps, as important as anything else, the Council has been obliged by law to redeem the loans within the period for which they were raised. Assuming the continuing liability of the Council, subscribers have always been sure of their cash. If this funding policy is changed and if a new policy is applied indiscriminately to all loans, potential subscribers, having intimate knowledge of the local loan market and of possible conditions in the future, might possibly be frightened off. This factor cannot be ignored. Fourthly, there is no gainsaying the fact that the soundest and most prudent policy which any local government authority with a large loan development programme can follow is to redeem as many loans as possible within the periods fixed for repayment. As I say, there is no gainsaying this. Lastly, although the City Council enjoys a large measure of autonomy, the fact remains that Government does, in the last resort, underwrite its loans. This gives the Government a special interest in the loan policies of the Council. All these measures which I have just mentioned were discussed at great length with the City Treasurer and balanced against the desire and need of the City Council for a more liberal loan redemption policy than as at present allowed under the Municipal Ordinance. In the end, a conclusion was reached that it would be unwise to give the Council carte blanche in this matter, that the normal policy should continue to be to redeem loans wherever possible within the period fixed for repayment, that any extension of the period for redemption should be an exception rather than the general rule and that when such exception was made, the extended period should not exceed the useful life of the purpose or 60 years whichever was the lesser. Clause 81, as drafted, gives effect to this conclusion. It does not exclude the relation of the period of redemption to the useful life of the purpose. It merely says that this will be allowed not generally but in special cases. I feel sure that in view of the special considerations which I have mentioned, hon. Members will agree that it is desirable to define the limits of loan redemption policy as has now been done in clause 81. I have been asked in what circumstances will the Governor in Council exercise discretion in this matter. In other words, what would be the special circumstances? This question cannot of course be answered specifically. It can only be answered in general terms. Generally, the special circumstances will, I imagine, be dictated by the needs of the Council to obtain loan money at any particular time and by the state of the loan market at that time. If funds are essential and can only be obtained on short term on reasonable terms, then the Council would, I imagine, normally be allowed to float a short-term loan and fund it over the life of the purpose for which it was required. If, however, money could be obtained at reasonable rates for a period which is not too far short of the useful life of the purpose, as has happened not infrequently in the past, permission would not be granted. As I say, however, it is difficult to speak in other than general terms on this matter. Many imponderables are involved. Sir, in the circumstances which I have outlined, Government cannot accept the amendment. 3.57 p.m.

Mr Chairman, I suppose that Financial Secretaries by nature and by training must be full of gloomy forebodings of the future. There are one or two points I would like to make indeed in answer to the Financial Secretary, and there are one or two points which he has not answered to what I stated at first, and I hope he will answer them later on. The first point is this, of course, that I did state quite clearly that we agreed with the first restriction, as I called it, under clause 81, that the period of 60 years should be the limit. Secondly, I also made it clear that we agreed that the period of redemption should not exceed the estimated useful life of the project and in the example I gave of an extension to a power station, I quoted the period of 40 years. So that we are in agreement with the first two restrictions but what we are not in agreement with is the third relating to the relation of the period of redemption to the period of the loan. Now, the Financial Secretary did say that it would be unwise to give carte blanche to the City Council in this matter. Of course, the City Council is not now being given carte blanche at all because it is quite clear in clause 78 that the City Council may only borrow with the sanction of the Governor in Council. It is quite clear in clause 81 that every sum borrowed shall be redeemed within such period not exceeding 60 years as the City Council, with the sanction of the Governor in Council, may determine. There is no question therefore of giving carte blanche to the City Council as the Governor in Council has the last word. Now, as I say, I think the Financial Secretary regards the future with too great pessimism and to assume that loans cannot be raised in the future in Singapore in the way it has been in the past is, I think, far too pessimistic an outlook. He said that he was doubtful whether they can float loans in the future as they did in the past. Now, if there is to be no floating of loans in the future in Singapore, then we may regard that as the end of Singapore. So I do not think that argument can carry very great weight. The thing is that, as I explained, through the keeping up of the price of electricity or the price of water, through having to keep the period of redemption to the period of the loan, we are hamstringing the future. If we could reduce the prices of electricity or water (and I know this is a matter in which the Minister is extremely interested), then by expanding our industry through these decreases today, we will make the whole financial position of the Colony more buoyant in the future.

Order. Moment of interruption. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that some progress has been made in Committee on this Bill and beg leave to sit on Monday, 29th July.

Monday it will be.

4.01 p.m.

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

Sir, I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Four o'clock p.m.