Hansard, 1957-11-18

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (3) (i) of section 47 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from meetings of the Assembly:- Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer) - from 1st to 10th November, 1957. Dr Lim Yew Hock (Havelock) - from 5th to 16th November, 1957. Mr Wong Foo Nam (Pasir Panjang) - two months from 9th November, 1957.

Mr Rutherford Carl Hoffman, Chief Secretary (Acting), took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance.

I have received three messages from His Excellency the Governor informing me that His Excellency had, on the days stated, assented to the following Bills:- 21st October, 1957 - Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Bill, and Singapore Citizenship Bill. 23rd October, 1957 - Little Sisters of the Poor Bill. 12th November, 1957 - Diplomatic Privileges (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Bill.

asked the Chief Minister to state (a) how many conferences held abroad were attended by Ministers of the Singapore Government this year; (b) the nature and period of such conferences, and the names of Ministers who attended them; (c) the cost to the Singapore Government to send these Ministers to such conferences; and (d) what has the Singapore Government benefited by representation at such conferences.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to (a) is four. The answer to (b) is: (1) The Singapore Constitutional Conference from 7th March to 14th April, attended by the Hon. Dr Lim Yew Hock, the Hon. Inche Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat and the Hon. Mr Chew Swee Kee. (2) The 40th session of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conference from 25th May, 1957, to 30th June, 1957, attended by the Hon. Dr Lim Yew Hock. (3) The Colombo Plan Consultative Committee Conference from 21st October, 1957, to 25th October, 1957, attended by the Hon. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy. (4) The Asian Regional Conference of the ILO in New Delhi from 13th November, 1957, to 26th November, 1957, attended by the Hon. Dr Lim Yew Hock. The answer to (c), on cost: Under (b) (1) the total cost is $64,773. This is the cost of the whole mission. Separate figures of the cost of sending the three Ministers are not available. Under (b) (2) the cost is $6,754; (b) (3) - $825 estimated, final amount not yet available; (b) (4) - $ 1,750 estimated. The answer to (d) is the benefits derived from ministerial representation at the Singapore Constitutional Conference are many. To mention only two, they include the new Constitution which will come into force next year and the creation of a separate Singapore citizenship within the Commonwealth. With regard to the ILO and Colombo Plan Conferences attended by Ministers, the benefits derived cannot be expressed in precise quantitative and monetary terms. I would emphasise, however, the considerable material benefits given under the Colombo Plan and the technical training and service advice given both under the Plan and under ILO auspices. Almost all participating countries send a minister to these conferences and Singapore cannot accept a lower level of representation for itself, either to say thank you for the benefits received or successfully to press its case for continued assistance or to explain, in the case of the ILO Conference, labour or social policies of this country.

Will the Hon. the Chief Minister state if his visits and those of the other Ministers overseas beyond what he has described were on their own or at the expense of the public revenue?

Sir, ministers of some other countries do not of course have constitutional problems, so therefore in regard to the first part of the question, I do not think so. But in regard to the ILO and the Colombo Plan, when Ministers are on official visits they are in receipt of an allowance from the Government.

Sir, I do not think the Hon. the Chief Minister has understood my question, which is this: have our Ministers visited overseas at the public expense beyond what is mentioned here?

The answer is no.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Goh Tong Liang:- 2. To ask the Chief Secretary how many babies were born in the City and the rural areas of Singapore from-

Mr Goh Tong Liang. There being no response -

Mr Lee Choon Eng.

asked the Chief Secretary to state as at 31st October, 1957-

Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of vacancies in the Police Force for Assistant Superintendents of Police is 24. There are eight Inspectors of Police eligible for promotion to this rank. None has yet been promoted but their cases are now being considered by the Public Service Commission. Over recent years, five Inspectors of Police have been promoted to the rank of A.S.P. although they have not passed all the examinations required under Part I of the Scheme of Service.

Can the Hon. the Chief Secretary tell us whether these promotions were made by the Commissioner of Police or the Public Service Commission, and why those five who were unqualified were promoted to become A.S.P's, while none of the qualified were promoted?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the promotions were made by the Public Service Commission, that is based on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. The reason why no promotion has yet been made in regard to the Inspectors of Police who are already qualified for consideration for promotion is that their cases are now under consideration by the P.S.C. I should explain that these officers have only recently qualified for consideration for promotion. As regards the other part of the question, the five Inspectors of Police who have already been promoted, these promotions have been over recent years. There is provision for the promotion of such officers who have passed the majority of the examinations required to qualify for promotion but not all. They have been promoted on the grounds of outstanding work and qualities of leadership and courage normally expected of more senior officers.

Sir, can the Hon. the Chief Secretary tell us whether these promotions are acting appointments or substantive Ones?

They are substantive appointments.

Sir, are we to understand from the Hon. the Chief Secretary's reply that the higher a position a person holds in the Police Force, the more courageous he is?

I merely suggested that there are other considerations apart from that of passing exanimations written and otherwise.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware of the hardship and inconvenience experienced by people seeking registration as Singapore citizens by allotting certain days for people with only certain surnames; and whether he will take early action to open registration on all days and at all centres irrespective of the surnames of the applicants.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not aware of any hardship or inconvenience caused by the system of regisration by surnames. This system is in operation in two centres only, namely, the Central Registration Office in Fort Canning Road and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce premises, where registration is heaviest. The system is working well and ensures a speedy handling of applications. In all other centres where registration is not as heavy, the surname system has not been introduced. It is not proposed to change the present arrangements.

Sir, will the Hon. the Chief Secretary care to make a personal call at these two centres and make enquiries from those who queue up whether they are happy about the present system?

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing if he will consider making a grant to the Singapore Improvement Trust for the purpose of covering the unguarded space between the top rail and the balcony of the 14-storey flats at Queenstown with wire mesh as a preventive measure against persons falling over the balcony.

No, Sir.

asked the Minister for Education whether he is aware of an increasing number of teenagers who are not allowed to continue their studies in the Government and Government-Aided Secondary Schools; and what steps does he propose to take or has taken to absorb them in other educational establishments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this question involves a problem which cannot be solved by the Ministry of Education alone. It is an accepted fact that not every person can benefit from secondary education, and even of those who qualify for admission into secondary schools after passing a common qualifying examination many fall by the wayside before reaching School Certificate level. The problem involving the future of teenagers cannot be solved by absorbing them into educational institutions. For those who are not likely to benefit from secondary education, Government has provided trade schools and apprenticeship schemes. It will be the policy of Government to increase these institutions to meet this increasing problem.

Will the Hon. Minister for Education explain that these principles can absorb all the overage teenagers?

Besides these educational institutions there is the Adult Education Council which deals with adult education. And as mentioned, the apprenticeship scheme is in operation and will absorb most of these overage students.

asked the Minister for Health whether he will consider introducing amending legislation to make inoculation of children against diphtheria compulsory.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the matter has been referred to the Medical Advisory Council for consideration and advice.

asked the Minister for Health whether he will consider putting up a plan at the entrance to every block in the General Hospital indicating the whereabouts of different wards and departments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, plans showing the whereabouts of each ward, unit, etc., are not only put up at the entrance of the blocks but also at the other vantage points such as the car park. There are also in addition direction indicators to the various wards and units in each block. The hon. Member will realise that the General Hospital is a very spread-out structure and in consequence any plan, however simplified, would be somewhat difficult to read by persons unaccustomed to reading plans.

Will the Hon. The Minister for Health consider putting up plans in the Chinese language?

Sir, at present the plans are only in the English language. This is of course of an experimental nature in order to see whether persons normally educated in English at least would be able to follow directions of the plans. The general observations we have indicate that even such persons find it difficult to read the plans and, in consequence, seek assistance from members of the staff for directions to various points. Under these circumstances, it is doubtful whether displaying further plans in Malay, Chinese, Tamil and other languages would be of any useful assistance. The matter, however, will be reviewed when found necessary.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works whether he will now consider arranging for announcements of the arrivals and departures of planes to be made in Mandarin and Tamil over the public-address system at the Singapore Airport, in addition to the languages now used.

Sir, the question of arranging for announcements to be made in Mandarin and Tamil over the public address system at the Singapore Airport of the arrivals and departures of aircraft has been under consideration for a number of months. The hon. Member for Tiong Bahru was invited as long ago as April this year to let me have details of what he had described as "many instances in which passengers missed their planes or went to the wrong plane just because they did not know English". I have received no such evidence either from the hon. Member or from any other source that passengers have been inconvenienced by the fact that announcements over the public address system are not made in Mandarin and Tamil. Until I do get such evidence, I am not prepared to direct that such announcements should be made.

Why does the Hon. Minister for Communications and Works not check with the Information Bureau of the Singapore Airport that passengers actually have been inconvenienced? Whenever announcements are made in English or Malay, we find passengers rushing to the Information Bureau to ask whoever is in charge what the announcements say.

The hon. Member should not make a speech.

Sir, the hon. Member must be aware that a question of this sort is not answered by the Minister from his private thoughts but that it is circulated to the officials to get full official accounts for reply; and of course the Airport authorities have been very fully questioned on this matter and the reply is based on the information given by them and by the airline operators, who naturally would themselves be concerned if their passengers failed to arrive at the aircraft. I am sure that the airline operators are fully satisfied at present that their passengers are not inconvenienced and do in fact arrive at the aircraft at the times and places that they should.

Is it not a duty to check up whether passengers have been inconvenienced or not?

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether he is aware of the pollution of the territorial waters and beaches of Singapore; whether he has ascertained the causes of such pollution; and what measures he will take to prevent such pollution.

Sir, the question is in three parts. The answer to part one is yes. The answer to part two is the pollution is caused by the discharge of oily substances by vessels in waters around Singapore. And the answer to part three is the discharge of oily substances within port limits has been prohibited for many years. Action to prevent oily discharges within and outside territorial waters is now in hand.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry if he has received a letter of protest from the Singapore Chinese Seafarers' Association regarding the composition of the Seamen's Registry Board; what action he has taken or will take in the matter; and, in particular, if he will consider taking action whereby a Chinese from the Seamen's Unions and Associations may be included on the Board.

Sir, I have received such a letter protesting that no Chinese has been nominated to represent seafarers on the Seamen's Registry Board. Incidentally I may say that I have received a similar letter from the Malay Seamen's Union, I believe, protesting that no Malay has been nominated to represent its seamen on the Board. Whilst I am willing, Sir, to consider proper representations at all times, I am disturbed at the communal line taken by the Chinese Seafarers' Association. However, for the information of the hon. Member, I may add that every effort was made to ensure that the seamen's interests as a whole receive the best representations possible on the Board. The hon. Member must realise that the law permits only three representatives of seamen on the Board, and it is my duty to ensure that persons best suited to advance the interests of seamen as a whole are put on the Board.

Sir, is it not possible to widen the representation of this Board so that it may be fully representative, be he a Malay or a Chinese; and by the fact that there is no representation of a Malay or a Chinese, is that Board fully representative?

Sir, it was the duty of the hon. Member when the Bill came up to this Assembly to point out that three members would not be sufficient to represent all races of seamen. However, Sir, the basis on which the Government always works is a non-communal basis and I always take into consideration the interests of seamen as a whole rather than the interests of any section of seamen.

10.20 am.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "City Council Elections (Temporary Provisions) Bill". Bill presented and read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by His Excellency the Governor in respect of the Bill, and desire to proceed with it through all its other stages today. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available?

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

Please proceed.

Sir, I beg to move. "That the Bill be now read a Second lime." The life of the present City Council expires on the first Saturday in December, which is 7th December, 1957, when elections would ordinarily take place. As hon. Members are aware, the elections to the new City Council under the provisions of the Local Government Elections Ordinance, 1957, are scheduled to take place on 21st December, 1957. There is therefore an interregnum of 14 days between the expiry of the present City Council and the elections to the new City Council, and the present Bill is therefore necessary to provide for the extension of the life of the present City Council until the day when the new City Council comes into being. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Tan Theng Chiang]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

10.26 a.m.

Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled the "Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Amendment) Bill" (Chapter 53 of the Revised Edition). Bill presented and read the First tune.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker. Sir, I lay on the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by His Excellency the Governor in respect of this Bill to enable this House to proceed with it through all its other stages today. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available?

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

Please proceed.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill proposes amendments to the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance which are rendered necessary by the enactment of the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance, 1957. The present qualifications of electors are laid down in section 5 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, part of which reads as follows: "...any person who-

I second it. Question proposed. 10.35 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, of course we agree to this Bill to give the rights to the citizens but I think the more important thing is after the passing of this Bill we should see that citizens should be accorded their rights. I am talking about the executive acts of the Government. We have noted that with all the good intentions Government has, there are still many waiting for their turn to swear allegiance to Singapore. They wait in long queues; they wait for days. They wait for teams to go for them to swear allegiance, but they have to wait for a very long time. They want forms to sign up but there are not enough forms. Forms are taken out one by one by people who would want to fill up for them, but none is available for the public. Forms are sometimes sold, as alleged in the newspapers, at 50 cents or a dollar each. This is most unsatisfactory. Government must wake up to the need of the people. Everybody wants to register before 1st February. They must be given that opportunity. They want to exercise their vote. Let us give them that vote. They have shown their loyalty. It is up to Government after the passage of this Bill to see to it that every person who wants to be a Singapore citizen is accorded his full rights and not made to wait. 10.37 a.m.

Sir, while we are glad that the residential date should be 1st February, 1958, I cannot help but join our Party leader in stating that by publishing this date we shall increase the fears of the people who wish to be registered, fear from thinking that they may not be able to get themselves registered. I have asked for registration teams from the Central Registration Office to go out to some of the outlying areas and only last week when I asked for a date, I was told that the dates available are 24th. 25th, 26th and 28th January. That is a rather disturbing feature, if at the present moment I ask for teams to go out to take the oaths of people who have signed their forms in certain areas, I am told that the only dates that are available are those nearing the end of the last date for registration. I would urge Government to take steps immediately to see that more teams are available so that when we apply for dates for the oath to be taken, we can be given them instead of being told that we can only get dates just a few days before the close of the register. 10.39 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to be able to reassure the House that extra teams have been recruited and will be in operation shortly. We have based our extra teams on the calculation that we have made so far and aim at registering 300,000 persons by the target date if there are that many who will come forward. I can assure the House that this matter is very much in the minds of the Government and we shall take all necessary steps to see that everyone who wants to be registered as a citizen will have an opportunity to do so before the target date. 10.40 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we welcome this Bill because it is the first of a series of steps to rationalise the foundations upon which we hope to build this State of Singapore. When I fought the last general elections, I could not help but think how stupidly obtuse the draftsman of the last Bill was in trying, by hypocritical legislation, to disqualify those born and bred in Singapore who have been away for three out of the last 10 years preceding the elections, although he allowed those, who were in no way connected with Singapore other than the fact that they had dwelt here for the last seven out of the last 10 years and made money out of it, to contest such elections. And the unholy spectacle of so many prominent Members of this Assembly taking their oaths of allegiance so late in the day is, I think, a salutary reminder to them and to the founder-members of the people of Singapore, namely, those born and bred here, that unless they rise up to their responsibilities then they deserve to perish. I am convinced that those born and bred here like myself do not intend to perish. We intend to fight and found this healthy and vigorous state which we hope one day will be part of the Federation of Malaya. And I would also like to remind all those who are enthusiastically applying for membership of this nation that it is not just a matter of going through the drill which the Registrar of Citizens assured me would not take more than eight minutes if efficiently done. He demonstrated it to me. I had the privilege of an actual demonstration of how a team of clerks could put a person through the mill in less than eight minutes, and I shudder to think what would happen if those eight minutes were the only impression which remained on the minds of the new citizens. It is the duty not only of the Government but of every political Party and every political leader to bring home the responsibilities and the meaning of citizenship, of what has so glibly been called "undivided loyalty". The test, very plainly and simply, is this: are you taking out citizenship because you think it is temporarily to your advantage, or are you swearing, now and forever more, that this is your home, that you will stand by it and fight for it? When we bring that fact home, then I say we have made the first step in our march to greater nationhood. 10.43 a.m.

Sir, I do not think I have very much to answer to the hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has already made his reply. But I must point out one factor in this, Sir, and that is that ever since registration came into force, there has been a terrific and spontaneous response to the call to be registered as citizens, and it was because of this spontaneous response that in the beginning we found that there was an enormous number of people asking for forms. The distribution of forms was very uneven. Those organisations and Parties which came up and demanded 2,000, 5,000 and 6,000 forms were all given forms in the complete faith that they would fill up those forms and help the registration officers to register the people as citizens. To date we have issued 320,000 forms and it is surprising that our forms have gone out of stock. It is hoped that these forms are not put into any waste-paper basket but all those organisations have been able to fill them up and keep ready for the registration officers to come and take the oaths. What I would like to appeal is this. Sir, that all Parties and organisations should have a little bit of patience so that the Registrar of Citizens will be able to organise the teams properly and systematically and without any confusion. That is the appeal I want to make to all those people who are helping in the voluntary registration of citizens.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second tune and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr Nair]. Bill considered in Committee.

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

Mr Chairman, Sir, because this Bill has been presented for the first time today, no doubt for very good reasons, I would like the Hon. the Attorney-General to clarify this point in sub-clause (i) paragraph (a): "...all persons who were on the 1st day of February 1958 -

The proper method is for the hon. Member to move an amendment in the first instance and if he is satisfied with the explanation given he can always beg leave to withdraw the amendment; otherwise the matter cannot be discussed.

Yes, Sir. Mr Chairman, I beg to move, In sub-clause (i), paragraph (a), after "(a)" to insert "ordinarily". Amendment handed in.

Sir, that amendment is acceptable. Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read the Third time and passed.

10.51 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "Local Government (Amendment) Bill" to amend the Local Government Ordinance, 1957 (No. 24 of 1957). Bill presented and read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker. Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by His Excellency the Governor, Sir Robert Black, and desire to proceed with the Bill through all its other stages today. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available?

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

Please proceed.

Mr Speaker. Sirs as you are aware, the elections to the new City Council are to take place on 21st December, at which time the greater part of the Local Government Ordinance, 1957, will be brought into operation. It is necessary to make the amendments contained in this amending Bill before the new City Council is established, for the following reasons. Firstly, the present definition of "City Council" in section 3 of the Local Government Ordinance, 1957, is inaccurate as the Royal Charter did not incorporate the City Council. This is corrected by the new definition at clause 2 of the Bill. Secondly, clause 7 of the Bill amending section 320 of the Local Government Ordinance, 1957, makes it possible to repeal the City Council Elections (Temporary Provisions No. 2) Ordinance, 1956, without at the same time repealing the Municipal Ordinance. The former will have to be repealed in December before the elections but the Municipal Ordinance, on the other hand, will not be repealed at the same time as some of its provisions have not been reproduced in the Local Government Ordinance. The provisions which have not been reproduced will be dealt with by by-laws issued by the City Council as provided for under Schedule VI of the Local Government Ordinance, but until such by-laws are in force it is considered necessary to keep the Municipal Ordinance and the Singapore City (Consequential Provisions) Ordinance, 1951, in force. Thirdly, Sir, doubts have been expressed as to whether the Minister can authorise the Rural Board to carry out its functions after the repeal of the Municipal Ordinance in view of the provisions of section 16 of the Local Government Ordinance which provide that the local government of each district shall be the responsibility of a district council. This doubt is removed in the amendment to section 321 of the Local Government Ordinance, set out in clause 8 of the Bill. Also, local authority officers exercise powers under Ordinances other than the Municipal Ordinance, as for example the Sale of Food and Drugs Ordinance, and to remove all doubts it is proposed that power be given to the Minister to authorise the Rural Board and the City Council to continue to exercise these powers. The opportunity has also been taken to make amendments to section 151 and section 169 of the Local Government Ordinance. The amendment to section 151 at clause 5 of the Bill is to enable the local authority to take action against persons who fix number plates to unauthorised huts thus misleading potential purchasers as well as officers of the local authority. The amendment to section 169 at clause 6 of the Bill gives additional powers to the Court to remove any erections made in altering a building without the licence of the local authority, and also to impose a daily fine of $50 for the use of the upper floor of a dwelling house for other purposes without the licence of the local authority. Under the existing section 169 there is no provision for the removal of any unauthorised erection or for imposing a fine on continuance of the offence. The definition of "Former City Council" at clause 2 and in the amendment at clause 8 of the Bill is to make plain references to such City Council in the Local Government Ordinance, 1957. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I second it. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there may have been some excuse for the two other Bills this morning going through on a Certificate of Urgency, but if there is to be a sitting of this House before the 21st of December, which is the day of the elections to the new City Council, I see no reason why this Bill should be rushed through all its three stages today. I understand the arguments of the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing and his desire to tie up all the loose ends to make sure that there is no ambiguity of any kind in the Local Government Ordinance where it overlaps the old Municipal Ordinance. But I strongly deplore this habit of putting Bills before this House under Certificates of Urgency when there is no urgency about them, as we will meet at least once more before the 21st of December, and I therefore object to the manner in which this Bill is being rushed through. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Division, Sir. The House divided and the Clerk proceeded to call out the names of hon. Members-

Aye.

No.

No. Column : 2755

No.

No.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

Order. I think the hon. Member has forgotten that he is paired.

Sir, my recollection is that the arrangement applies to the Budget only but if you hold otherwise, I withdraw my vote.

I think I had better explain the matter. Perhaps hon. Members are not aware that we have a Member who is attending the Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Associaticil in New Delhi as our representative, and the arrangement was that he would only go if a Member of the Opposition would pair with him. The Member concerned is Mr Wong Foo Nam. The arrangement was that the Member for Paya Lebar would pair with the Member attending this conference.

In that case, Sir, I abstain.

We will note the hon. Member as having paired with the Member for Pasir Panjang (Mr Wong Foo Nam). The voting thereafter was - Ayes. Noes. Lim Yew Hock. Soh Ghee Soon Mak Pak Shee. Tan, William Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Ong Piah Teng. Shanks, E. P. Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Theng Chiang. Thomas, Francis. Absent. Braga, A. J. Chew Swee Kee. Lee Choon Eng. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Ching Siong. Lim, R. C. H. Seah Peng Chuan. Paired. Lim Koon Teck. Wong Foo Nam.

The result of the division is: Ayes, 13; Noes, 10; Paired, 2; Abstentions, Nil. Question accordingly agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Inche Abdul Hamid.] Bill considered in Committee.

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

Mr Minister, in page 3, line 10, there is the word "of" - "daily fine of fifty dollars". I was wondering whether that is deliberate and whether the word should not be altered to read "not exceeding", to be in line with other sections of the Ordinance; for instance, section 168 (3) provides, for a continuing offence, "a fine not exceeding ten dollars for each day during which the offence is continued after conviction." It is the same in sections 165 (2) and 166 (2).

You are correct, Mr Chairman. The word "of" should read "not exceeding". Sir, I move, In page 3, line 10, to leave out "of" and insert "not exceeding". Amendment agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an Amendment; read the Third Time and passed.

11.12 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill". Bill presented and read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I have a Certificate of Urgency signed by His Excellency the Governor in respect of this Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for hon. Members?

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very short amending Bill. It proposes that the definition of "City Council" for the purpose of the Local Government Elections Ordinance, 1957, be amended to relate it to the definition in the Local Government Ordinance, 1957, that that definition in the Local Government Ordinance, 1957, will be amended by the Local Government (Amendment) Ordinance, 1957, which has just been approved by this Assembly. One advantage of the amendment that is now proposed is that, if in future it becomes necessary to amend the definition of "City Council", it will only be necessary to do so in the Local Government Ordinance. Sir, I beg to move.

I take it that the hon. Member is moving "That the Bill be now read a Second time"?

Yes, Sir. The Assistant Minister for Education (Inche Mohamed Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid): I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr Tan Theng Chiang]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.19 am.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now Second time." At present, the corporate body of Tan Tock Seng's Hospital and the committee of management of the hospital include ex-officio the Deputy Chief Secretary and the Secretary for Chinese Affairs. The Deputy Chief Secretary is not directly concerned with hospitals and it is thought that it would be useful to replace him by the Assistant Director of Medical Services, Tuberculosis, who is of course intimately concerned with the administration of this particular hospital. The post of Secretary for Chinese Affairs will, it is expected, be abolished in the very near future and it is thought that that officer could most usefully be replaced by a representative of the Treasury. This Bill is designed to effect the changes I have referred to. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr Shanks]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.23 a.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Customs Ordinance which was introduced in April 1956, consolidated the law of the colony regarding dutiable goods and also introduced certain new provisions. It was to be expected that it would require certain amendments after it had been in operation for some time. This Bill seeks to make the amendments which experience has proved necessary. The Objects and Reasons for the amendments are explained in considerable detail in the Explanatory Note which appears at the back of the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill amends the definition of "intoxicating liquor" in section 3 of the original Ordinance so that it will include "fermented rice mash" which is used in the illicit distillation of samsu. This amendment is necessary in order to enable the Customs Department to bring illicit distillers to book. Hitherto, it has been difficult to obtain conviction in court because the existing definition has been held not to embrace "fermented rice mash". Section 15 of the Ordinance permits the Comptroller to remit duty in respect of dutiable goods which have been lost or damaged before removal from bond. The second part of the section states that no remission will be allowed in respect of damage or in respect of a claim to pay duty at preferential rates unless the claim is made before the goods are removed from bond. The amendment in clause 4 extends the section to cover claims for remission of duty arising from the fact that the Customs officer responsible may have misdirected himself in determining the amount of duty to be paid. Once goods have been removed from bond, it is difficult to identify them and to make re-calculations of duty payable. Section 20 of the Ordinance stipulates the conditions under which dutiable goods may be removed from Customs control. Duty must be paid and conditions governing deposits in a Government licensed warehouse must be observed. Any conditions prescribed by the Customs about export must be complied with and so on. The proviso to the section states however that goods can only be removed from a licensed warehouse before payment of duty if adequate security has been lodged in advance. It has been found that the application of this section, as it stands, would cause embarrassment and give cause for considerable dissatisfaction. Clause 6 therefore seeks to amend it so as to give power to the Comptroller to allow goods to be removed from bond without provision of security if he considers it desirable to do so in any particular case. It is considered that the powers already given to the Comptroller under Regulations 15 and 21 are adequate without any additional powers under section 20. Clause 7 introduces a new section to provide for the import of trade samples. No duty is charged on such samples but if they are of more than token value, a deposit in lieu of duty has to be made. This will be recoverable when the samples are removed from the colony. Section 40 of the Ordinance prescribes that a warehouse deposit receipt will be issued in respect of all goods deposited in a Government warehouse and further states that the holder or endorsee in due course of such a receipt shall be deemed to be the owner of the goods to which it refers and delivery to such holder or endorsee shall be a good and lawful delivery: in other words, that the goods will only be delivered on production of a deposit receipt. This section was introduced for the first time in the Customs Ordinance, having been taken from the Federation of Malaya Customs Ordinance. It has not previously been incorporated in the law of the colony. It has been found to be impracticable in operation. In many cases, consignments are split up and sales made while the goods are still in bond. It is impossible in every case for the purchaser to present a deposit receipt. To overcome the difficulty, it is proposed to amend section 40 to permit the use of an authenticated delivery order in lieu of a deposit receipt. Clause 13 seeks to amend section 56 of the Ordinance which permits the sale of beer for "off the premises" consumption without a licence between six in the morning and ten at night. Beer is in fact sold at all hours of the day and night in Singapore and it is quite impossible to stop the practice. In the circumstances, it is desired to amend the law to take account of the facts of the situation. Clause 14 also deals with the sale of beer and aims at freeing licensed liquor retailers from the obligation to keep elaborate records of beer stocks. Practically every sundry goods shop keeps and sells beer in much larger total quantity without having to keep any records at all. Section 90 of the Ordinance lays the burden of proof on the defendant in any case arising out of the provisions of the Ordinance. Clause 16 of the Bill extends the scope of the section to cover cases arising out of section 13 which empowers the Governor in Council to exempt goods from duty at his discretion. Section 96 of the Ordinance makes all goods liable to seizure under the Ordinance liable to forfeiture. Goods for the purpose of this section are defined as including receptacles, packages, vehicles, aircraft and vessels not exceeding 200 tons. The object of clause 17 is to exempt large aircraft from the operation of the section in the same way as large ships are exempted. Clause 18 is important. It amends the law relating to the forfeiture of goods. At present, where a prosecution has been brought for an offence under the Ordinance in respect of goods and the Court finds that an offence has been committed in respect of the goods, the Court may order the goods to be forfeited even if no person has been convicted of the offence. It is however open to the owner of the goods, it he has not been charged with an offence under the Ordinance or any regulation made hereunder in respect of the goods, to show that the offence was committed without his knowledge, consent or connivance, or otherwise that the goods should not be forfeited. The Court may then, after examination into the matter, make any order it deems fit and may order the return of the goods to the owner. Where no prosecution has been brought but goods have been seized under the Ordinance, the owner may send a notice stating that the offence was committed without his knowledge, consent or connivance, or otherwise that the goods should not be forfeited. The Comptroller may then order the goods to be released but if he decides not to do so, he refers the matter to the Court. The Court will then examine the matter and if the Court is satisfied that an offence against the Ordinance has been committed in respect of the goods, it will order the goods to be forfeited but if it is not so satisfied, it will order the goods to be released. The position is un-satisfactory because the Ordinance appears to give the owner of goods a better case where there has been a prosecution than where there has been no prosecution. The law in the Federation of Malaya is that once the Court is satisfied that an offence has been committed against the Ordinance in respect of the goods, then the Court must order forfeiture of the goods. It is proposed to bring the law in the Colony into line with the law in the Federation. Clause 18 of the Bill proposes amendments to section 97 of the Customs Ordinance which will make it mandatory for the Court to order forfeiture when it is proved that an offence against the Ordinance has been committed in respect of the goods. It is also provided that things forfeited are to be delivered to Customs for disposal. This is the present practice and the clause clarifies this is the position. The other clauses in the Bill have been explained in the Explanatory Note and do not require further explanation. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr Hart]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

11.36 a.m. Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main purpose of the amendments proposed in this Bill is to facilitate the admission and treatment of patients and to avoid non-essential formalities and publicity which often tend to deter patients and their relatives from seeking help from mental hospitals. Modern opinion, expressed by such authorities as the World Health Organisation, is that in the past legislation has laid too much importance on putting restraint or a check on the mentally ill and the doctors who look after them and has emphasised too little the realisation of the fact that there is no essential difference between the majority of mental patients and the ordinary sick. They are the same as, arid should be treated in a manner comparable with, those who suffer from injuries or other illnesses. The law provides proper safeguards for the treatment without their consent of persons who are dangerous but the primary aim should be to make it as easy as possible for ordinary mental patients to receive treatment. The need for amending legislation is perhaps most clearly seen in respect of the procedure for admission to and discharge from mental hospitals. It is proposed by this Bill that admission should be made very much easier. In practice, this will mean that the documentation and formalities will be cut to a minimum and brought into line with those required for admission to any other hospital. The discharge of patients will similarly be made very much easier and, if this Bill is brought into force, the Medical Superintendent will be empowered to discharge any patient. At present, with very few exceptions, patients have to be examined as to their normality by a Board consisting largely of laymen. This examination, coming just before discharge when the patient is well again, is embarrassing and discourages patients and relatives of people who ought to be patients from seeking treatment when their symptoms are still only mild. The opportunity has been taken of making it easier for persons who have attempted to commit suicide to be given treatment. Such persons are very often in need of mental care, perhaps more than of punishment, and it is thought right that the courts and medical officers in ordinary hospitals should be given the opportunity of ensuring that these people can get proper treatment with a very minimum of formality and administrative procedure. The amendments proposed by the Bill are all, I think, fully explained in the Explanatory Note and I do not think that hon. Members will want me to go through them in detail again at this stage. The Bill will, I think, be welcomed by all who have the interests of the mentally diseased at heart. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.41 am.

Sir, I do indeed welcome this Bill in its present form, particularly as it is stated in the Explanatory Note that this Bill is "to bring the provision of the Ordinance more in line with modern conceptions relating to the treatment of persons suffering from mental disorder". Sir, so far, persons suffering from mental disorders have been regarded with a certain amount of abhorrence and fear but in the modern world living under the stresses which we do with all the more problems that we have to face, mental unbalance occurs more frequently and it is only right that it should be approached in a different light. It is true that we should make it very difficult - almost impossible - for persons who out of spite or hate would want to commit their relatives into a mental hospital but by making it simple, as this Bill tends to, persons suffering from mild symptoms can be accepted quickly and with understanding be helped to be cured. Sir, I support this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr Shanks]. Bill considered in Committee. 11.44 a.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Sir, on clause 2, may I under the proviso to Standing Order 51 (2) move an amendment of a minor and drafting character?

Will the Attorney-General indicate the nature of the amendment?

Sir, at present, section 31 of the Ordinance provides that "no person shall be received into a mental hospital except" in certain specified circumstances. Clause 2 of the Bill, as at present drafted, would remove only a reference to 34. It would not alter the restrictions which apply to section 32, which require that the order should be signed by two registered medical practitioners of whom one shall be a medical officer. By clause 3 of this Bill, it is proposed that under section 32, only the certificate of one medical officer at a mental hospital shall be required and not two registered medical practitioners. That fact was overlooked when various other alterations were made to the Bill after it had been first drafted.

What would be the hon. Member's amendment?

May I mention one other minor matter? In the present section 31, there is reference to reception of patients under the provisions of section 37. It is proposed to repeal the existing section 37 by clause 7 of this Bill but by clause 4 of this Bill-I apologise for making this sound very complicated- there is another means of reception now to be given for those persons who are either charged with attempted suicide or are believed to have attempted to commit suicide, so that reference to section 37 could very usefully be altered to read section 34. I have here, Sir, a written amendment that I would propose. Amendment handed in.

Do I understand, Mr Attorney-General, that these amendments are necessitated by reason of the amendments proposed in the present Bill?

Yes, Sir.

Therefore, the Attorney-General considers that they are of a purely drafting character?

Yes, Sir.

I do not know whether hon. Members have followed that. The Standing Order reads: "Any proposed amendments of which notice has not been given shall be handed to the Chairman in writing if the Chairman so requires. Except in the case of urgent Bills, no amendment shall be proposed unless two clear days' notice thereof has been given: Provided that if the Chairman is of opinion that an amendment is of a minor or purely drafting character, he may, with the general assent of Members present, permit it to be moved without notice." May I know whether the Attorney-General has the assent of hon. Members present?

May we know what in fact the amendment is?

It is a purely drafting amendment which is consequential on the amendments which are proposed in the present Bill. Perhaps the Attorney-General had better read the amendment?

If it please you, Sir. The amendment would be, in page 1, to leave out lines 8 and 9, and insert: "principal Ordinance") is hereby amended -

Am I correct in saying that the Attorney-General wishes to leave out lines 8, 9 and 10?

Yes, 8, 9 and 10.

Has it become a little clearer to the Member for Tanglin?

It is a little less clear, but we are willing to take your ruling that it is merely a drafting amendment.

It appears to me to be of a purely drafting character necessitated by the amendments which are proposed to be made by the present Bill. I take it then that the Attorney-General has the assent of hon. Members that these amendments should be made. No dissenting voice? Will the Attorney-General then please proceed?

Sir, I move, In page 1, to leave out lines 8, 9 and 10, and insert- "principal Ordinance") is hereby amended (a) by deleting paragraph (b) thereof and substituting therefor the following:- "(b) upon the order under section 32 of this Ordinance of a Medical Officer at a mental hospital; or"; and (b) by deleting paragraph (d) thereof and substituting therefor the following: -"(d) upon the order under section 34 of this Ordinance of a Medical Officer at a mental hospital; or"'. Sir, the first part of this amendment, I think, can be understood by reference to the existing paragraph (b) of the section which refers to receptions upon an order of two registered medical practitioners, one of whom shall be a medical officer. By clause 3 of the Bill, it is proposed to amend section 32 so that the certificate of only one doctor will be required. It becomes therefore, as a matter of drafting, necessary to remove the reference to two doctors in section 31. Sir, I beg to move Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read the Third time and passed.

This is probably an appropriate time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at fifty-nine minutes past Eleven o'clock a.m. to 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1.553.080 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 46 of 1957. Sir, all the items in the Schedule have been explained in very great detail and I do not think I need add further to these explanations at the present time. Sir, I beg to move.

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

2.32 p.m.

The summary is at page 11. Head 8 - The sum of $285,885 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 16 - The sum of $4,621 for Head 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 26- The sum of $23,923 for Head 26 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 39 - The sum of $10 for Head 39 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 46 - The sum of $350,000 for Head 46 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 49 - The sum of $12,630 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 51 - The sum of $4,250 for Head 51 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 53 - The sum of $312 for Head 53 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 55 - The sum of $4,175 for Head 55 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 59 - The sum of $58,000 for Head 59 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 60 - The sum of $90,200 for Head 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D44 - The sum of $60,000 for Head D44 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D47 - The sum of $549,000 for Head D47 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D53 - Question proposed, "That the sum of $91,000 for Head D53 stand part of the Schedule."

Sir, under this head provision of $91,000 is asked for the extra cost of building two boys' hostels. The estimated cost, when this scheme was proposed in 1951, was $360,000 and now the revised cost is $451,000, $91,000 extra. To my knowledge, I would concede ten per cent in the increased cost of construction, and I would like particulars as to why this $91,000 is required.

I might be able to help the hon. Member, Sir, I think the estimate was made before the brief was prepared. I do not think it got into the estimates until 1955. My friend and colleague the Financial Secretary can advise on that. At that stage there was only one hostel and it was not until 1957 that they got down to two. The site has been changed from the Geylang Town Centre, of which they have still not finalised the planning. I think the concern is mainly with the Bukit Batoh site at present in this provision. The accommodation is two Division II quarters, dormitories for 50 boys, classrooms, workshops, dining-room and kitchen, playing fields, an office, septic tanks and, I suppose, some road-works. The other site, I think, is in Dunman Road and it is not finalised yet.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $91,000 for Head D53 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D61 - The sum of $62,604 for Head D61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sum of $1,553,080 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the motion. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question on the Motion put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1,553,080 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 46 of 1957.

2.41 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection(2) of section 490 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 207), resolves that the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Certificate Partial Survey Fees) (Amendment) Rules, 1957, published as Notification No. S 265 in the Gazette Supplement No. 75 dated 18th October, 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 20 of 1957, be approved. Sir, the position at present is that under the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Certificate Partial Survey Fees) Rules, 1955, the Government can only charge shipowners partial survey fees, that is fees for surveys of parts of a ship, when the ship holds a full certificate which is issued by the administration of a territory other than the Government of Singapore. The Merchant Shipping (Passenger Certificate Partial Survey Fees) (Amendment) Rules, 1957, are therefore designed to permit Government to charge such partial survey fees in all cases including those in which the current full Passenger Certificate is issued by the Colony Government. Sir, opportunity has also been taken to include fees for the four items listed in the Rules. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 490 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 207), resolves that the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Certificate Partial Survey Fees) (Amendment) Rules, 1957, published as Notification No. S 265 in the Gazette Supplement No. 75 dated 18th October, 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 20 of 1957, be approved.

2.43 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I formally move the motion standing in my name, may I seek your indulgence and guidance as to whether it would be proper, in view of the length of the Schedule attached to the motion, that I refer the House to the Schedule as contained in the terms of the Order Paper at pages 139 and 140?

If the Schedule is correctly reproduced, Mr Chief Secretary, you may do so.

It is, Sir.

Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly, pursuant to section 3 of the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Ordinance (Chapter 55), resolves that the Schedule to the said Ordinance be amended by the deletion under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the items shown in Part I of the following Schedule, and by the addition under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the items shown in Part 11 of the following Schedule, the Schedule being in the terms as shown on pages 139 and 140* of the Order Paper. *Following is the Schedule- The Schedule Part I and II(Cols 2772-2774) Sir, this is rather a formidable sounding motion, but it is really a formality. Since the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Ordinance was enacted in 1950, it has from time to time been necessary to bring the Schedule included in it up to date, so that the powers and duties of the authorities named in legislation, contracts and such like documents, but which authorities have been abolished or renamed in the course of reorganisation, can be statutorily vested in authorities now existing. The sole purpose of the motion, therefore, is that officers may be able to fulfil their statutory requirements under their correct titles. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it. Question proposed. 2.47 p.m.

A rose by any other name -! Sir, I see in Part 11 of the Schedule that three roses, by three highfaluting names, have been bracketed into one orchid with two petals to its name, and I do not quite understand it. It says there in Part II - Secretary for Internal Affairs, Secretary for Chinese Affairs (presumably that means Chinese affairs pertaining to Malaya or Singapore) and Principal Assistant Secretary, Internal Security. The three officers are to be bracketed and be known as Secretary for Home and External Affairs. I have always believed that we are not in charge of our destiny in external affairs. I would like to know how three minuses makes one minus and one plus. Mr Hoffman rose -

In reply, Mr Chief Secretary?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the point, I take it, is that the hon. Member wishes to know why external affairs is still in the portfolio of the Chief Secretary?

As I understand the Chief Secretary, all we are doing is juggling with words and titles. Now there are three officers-

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is essentially a change in name. The duties are still within the portfolio of the Chief Secretary and external affairs remain, as heretofore, within his jurisdiction.

Further elucidation, Sir. Did any of these three officers have jurisdiction in external affairs as distinct from the Chief Secretary? There are three officers, designated by three high-sounding titles - Secretary for Internal Affairs, Secretary for Chinese Affairs, and Principal Assistant Secretary, Internal Security. Did they have anything to do with external affairs? If not, how does external affairs become combined in one?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the duties coming under external affairs were always performed in the Ministry of the Chief Secretary and will continue to be so. The change merely means that these duties will now be performed by the Secretary for Home and External Affairs rather than by any other officer of the Ministry.

My last point of elucidation, Sir. May I put it as simply and as plainly as possible? Did any of these three officers who are being abolished have anything to do with external affairs before?

It is correct to say that the Secretary for Internal Affairs formerly performed duties which can be described as external affairs in the sense that the officers serving under him carried out duties in regard to external affairs, and the present title reflects far better than those before the duties now performed by the Secretary for Home and External Affairs.

The rose was not properly called!

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to section 3 of the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Ordinance (Chapter 55), resolves that the Schedule to the said Ordinance be amended by the deletion under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the items shown in Part I of the following Schedule, and by the addition under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the items shown in Part II of the following Schedule:- The Schedule Part I and II(Cols 2778-2778) The Schedule Part II-continued(Cols 2779-2779)

2.58 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the Report of the Select Committee on the Education Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 19 of 1957, be adopted, subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of Clauses 2, 5, 8, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 31, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 42, 44, 46, 48, 49, 53, 62 and 66 to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Sir, I hope hon. Members of this House will not feel overwhelmed by the number of amendments that appear in the motion. We must all agree that the Education Bill has been one of the most difficult and controversial Bills in this Assembly. That the Select Committee has been able to present its Report is a sure indication that all Members of the Committee have co-operated fully in coming to a happy solution to most of the difficult problems presented by this Bill. In this respect, Sir, I must thank you, as Chairman of the Select Committee, for helping all of us to come to the present position. I must also say that the Members of the Opposition in the Select Committee have co-operated with the Members on the Government Benches in making most constructive and helpful suggestions during the meetings of the Select Committee. There were some points which were not entirely agreeable to all Members of the Committee and I have given an undertaking to consider them and make my recommendations at this sitting. In going through these points I have also gone through the Bill quite thoroughly and have come to the conclusion that the amendments contained in my motion are necessary not only to improve the language of the Bill but also to put things right, and generally to make the Bill workable. I will not take more time than is necessary in moving my motion by going into the various amendments in detail. I will deal with these amendments as each of them comes up and I will explain the need for them. The Government is able to come to the decisions for the amendments today because there have been useful suggestions and criticisms from members of the public and organisations which have either submitted memoranda to the Select Committee or appeared personally before the Committee. Education is a matter that should concern everybody in this country, both young and old, and it is only right that people should have taken an interest in the Bill. In introducing this Bill, Government is laying the foundation stone for the education of children of all communities in Singapore without discrimination whatsoever. The job facing Government in educating the children of Singapore is enormous, and unless there is goodwill all-round, all the efforts that have been put into this Bill will be in vain. There have been criticisms levelled at certain discretionary powers to be given to the Director of Education. I want to stress that we have tried to meet these criticisms as best we could, but I must remind the House that unless officials who are to administer the law for the good of the country have certain powers, we might as well have no laws. We must accept in good faith the fact that responsible officers will exercise their powers judiciously, and as far as my Ministry is concerned, I can assure the House that I will see that the powers are not abused by any of my officers. I would like to reiterate the assurance I gave to this House at one of the previous sittings of the Assembly that, wherever the Director of Education has discretionary powers under the Education Bill, I will take the necessary administrative action in my Ministry to see that he does not exercise these powers to the disadvantage of anyone, without prior reference to my Permanent Secretary or to me. There is one other point which I wish to touch on, and that is in regard to clause 24 (e). There was some argument as to whether that provision should be taken out of the Bill, and I also gave an undertaking in the Select Committee to reconsider whether or not this paragraph (e) should be deleted. Although it is a fact that land is hard to come by in Singapore, particularly in the city area, I feel that the deletion of this paragraph will encourage the management of proposed schools in rural areas, or in places where land is not difficult to come by, to shirk its responsibility in providing adequate open air recreation for the pupils. We must also plan for the day when it may be possible to provide well-built school buildings in areas where large areas of land are not available. When we reach that stage, we may wish to consider taking over the pupils from schools that are unhealthy because of inadequate or unsatisfactory provision for open air recreation. Certain Members fear that this provision might be made use of rather indiscriminately for the cancellation of existing schools which cannot provide adequate or satisfactory open air recreation; but I must remind Members that no one will be so mad as to do this at a time when the problem involved of providing accommodation for children of school going age is already enormous. To cancel existing schools at such a juncture will worsen the problem rather than improve it, but this does not mean that my Ministry will not insist on certain improvements to schools which have inadequate or unsatisfactory open air recreation. In view of all the reasons given above, I have decided that paragraph (e) should remain if my Ministry is to function properly. Sir, I beg to move. The Assistant Minister for Education (Inche Mohamed Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid): Sir, I second the motion. Bill accordingly recommitted to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Bill considered in Committee.

3.00 p.m. Clause 2 -

Note has been taken in page 27, line 4, to leave out "Health: Inspector" where they first occur, and insert "health inspector".

Sir, I move, In page 27, line 10, to leave out from "means" to the end of line 12 and insert: "education beyond the standard normally required for admission to a university;". Sir, it is considered that the definition of "higher education" as contained in the Bill is unsatisfactory because of the vagueness of the term "Chinese Higher Middle three". We have also left out the Malay and Tamil languages the proposed amendment therefore makes it clearer. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 27, after line 12, to insert:- '"Local authority" means the City Council, the Rural Board or a District Council;'. Sir, the proposed amendment to the definition is necessary as a result of a reference to "local authority" in clause 18. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 27, to leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert: -'"public security" means the security of Malaya and the maintenance of public order therein;'. Sir, the proposed amendment to the definition of "public security" is more satisfactory in that it makes a specific reference rather than by inference to the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 27, line 23, after "managers", to insert "and supervisors". This amendment is necessary as a result of the amendments which have been made to clause 28 under which the supervisor of a school is registered and not approved by the Director. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 27, line 39, to leave out from "manager" to "supervisor" in line 41 and insert "registered as the". Sir, this new definition of "supervisor" is necessary because, as I mentioned earlier, of clause 28 under which the supervisor of a school is registered. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 -

Sir, I move, In page 28, line 28, after "authority,", to insert:- "to be nominated by such educational institutions, organizations or associations as may be approved by the Minister for that purpose and". I gave an undertaking in the Select Committee to reconsider the amendment to clause 5 (2) at the recommittal stage. I have now given further thought to clause 5 (2) and decided to amend it as in the proposed amendment. This amendment will allow such educational institutions, organizations or associations to nominate persons to serve on the Finance Board. This is in line with the provisions of clause 8. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 28, line 36, to leave out "giving reasons". Sir, on further consideration of the proviso to clause 5 (5), I have come to the conclusion that it is quite inappropriate to require the Minister to give reasons when he revokes an appointment originally made by him. Under the Interpretation Ordinance it is provided that the appointing authority is also the revoking authority, and no reasons are necessary. I should also like to point out that when the Minister makes an appointment, he is not required to give reasons. It must be accepted in good faith that responsible persons will exercise their powers judiciously, and it is no use requiring a person to give reasons if he is bent on acting injudiciously. However, as I have pointed out, under the Interpretation Ordinance the appointing authority is also the revoking authority.

Mr Chairman, Sir, if I remember correctly, the words "giving reasons" were accepted by the Minister in Select Committee. Now the reason for not giving reasons when exercising the powers under this clause 5 (5) seems to be contrary to what he had reasoned out to be right. I will say that appointments of this nature to the Finance Board are important and the revocation of appointments is also as important. It may be the law of the Colony that the appointing authority is also the revoking authority, but it will definitely help to satisfy the public if the Minister agrees to his original idea of giving reasons for revoking any appointment, as had been requested by the representors who appeared before the Select Committee. Whether it is on the statute book or not, I believe it would be best to explain the reasons for taking such an important action as revoking an appointment.

Sir, as I have pointed out, the Interpretation Ordinance states that the appointing authority is also the revoking authority and it appears then that having the words "giving reasons" in this Bill would actually be ultra vires. I have already given the reason for moving to leave out "giving reasons". I should also like to point out, Sir, that at the time of revoking an appointment, the Minister surely must have reasons for such revocation. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 29, line 3, to leave out "the" where it first occurs. Sir, the words "On the" at the beginning of the sentence are the common words in that sentence and therefore the word "the" before "revocation" is not necessary. Amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 -

Sir, I move, In page 29, line 30, after "all", to insert "other". This amendment is actually to render the phraseology clearer. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 30, line 13, to leave out "giving reasons". The same remarks apply when I spoke on clause 5, Sir. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: In page 30, line 33, to leave out "the" where it first occurs. [Mr Chew Swee Kee]. Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 - Amendment made: In page 32, line 22, to leave out "the" where it first occurs. - [Mr Chew Swee Kee]. Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 -.

Sir, I move, In page 32, line 31, after "a", to insert "manager or". Sir, the Appeals Board provides for a membership consisting of, among other persons, registered teachers (not Government teachers) and also two registered managers to be appointed by the Minister. It is therefore logical that no appeal which concerns the registration of a manager or teacher, and not simply a teacher alone, shall be proceeded with unless one of the members present is a registered manager or teacher, as the case may be. Amendment agreed to. 3.15 p.m. Further Amendment made: In page 32, line 32, to leave out "registered teacher" and insert "registered manager or registered teacher, as the case may be". [Mr Chew Swee Kee]. Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 -

Sir, I move, In page 33, line 2, after "Director", to insert "under this Ordinance". It is necessary to make it quite clear that appeals are from the decisions of the Director under this Bill and not simply any decision of the Director. Amendment agreed to. Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 18 -

Sir, I move, In page 34, line 4, to leave out "or". Deletion of the word "or" is necessary to make sure that payment is paid half yearly in advance and not half yearly or in advance, which may mean that a person could either pay in advance or half yearly at any time he likes. Amendment agreed to. Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 19 -

Sir, I move, In page 34, line 17, after "manager", to insert "and of the supervisor". This is necessary because the supervisor of a school is now registered under clause 28. Amendment agreed to. Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 22 -

Sir, I move, In page 35, line 19, to leave out from "application" to the end of line 20 and insert "with or without conditions, or may refuse such application giving reasons for his refusal". Sir, this is merely a rewording of the sub-clause to improve the language. Amendment agreed to. Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23 -

Sir, I move, In page 35, line 30, to leave out "enquiry' and insert "such enquiry as may be necessary". Sir, the wording as it stands in the Bill means that the Director must make an enquiry whether there is need for it or not. The amendment will allow the Director to make such enquiry as may be necessary. Sir, this is in line with other provisions in the Bill where the Director is required to make some sort of enquiry and is usually given the discretion to make such enquiry as may be necessary. Amendment agreed to. Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 24 -

Sir, I move, in page 37, lines 4 to 6, to leave out paragraph (j). Sir, the paragraph as it stands is quite useless because it is not possible to say under any circumstances that "the proposed school premises or equipment cannot be raised to a standard to allow of efficient tuition in the subjects to be taught in the school". Even a shack can be raised to a standard to allow of efficient tuition if it were pulled down and a skyscraper erected in its place. I have therefore considered this paragraph useless and it is better to delete it. It will do no harm to the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we welcome the decision of the Government to leave out this paragraph. We have always considered it to be vague and unsatisfactory and it is better deleted.. Amendment agreed to.

Consequential amendments to the letters of the succeeding paragraphs will be made.

Sir, I move, In page 37, line 7, to leave out from "school" to "or" in line 8 and insert:- "is designed to accommodate more than one thousand two hundred pupils in any one session;". Sir, this is merely a rewording to make it more logical. This paragraph deals with the Director's refusal to register a school in regard to its student population, and a proposed school cannot have a student population before it is registered. It is therefore quite wrong and illogical to say that a proposed school has a student population. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 37, line 13, to leave out "manager" and insert "Committee of Management". Sir, this is necessary because the supervisor is recommended by the Committee of Management and not by the manager alone. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 37, line 28, to leave out "undesirable in" and insert "against". Sir, the word "undesirable" in this paragraph is obviously not the right word to use with the words "in the interests of the Colony". The proper word seems to me to be "against" and not "undesirable". Amendment agreed to. Question proposed, "That clause 24, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir, I have never been happy about this clause 24 right from the beginning and this will probably be noticed in the Report of the Select Committee. Up to now, Sir, I am still not happy with many paragraphs of this clause. On clause 24 (a) -"the Director may refuse to register a school if adequate educational facilities already exist in the area . . ."-I personally feel that this is not necessary, because if there are already sufficient educational facilities in the area, then nobody will want to build a school there. I argued that out in the Select Committee and I will not waste the time of Members here to proceed further with it. But I should like to voice my non-conviction of the necessity for this paragraph. On clause 24 (e) - "The Director may refuse to register a school if the area provided for the open air recreation of pupils is inadequate or unsatisfactory;"- that is practically an impossibility in the town. Business people in town may not find the cost of land excessive, but people living in the rural areas may find it formidable. To provide ideal conditions to run a school in any area which has limited land is, I think, too much to hope for. Under clause 24 (g) - "The Director may refuse to register a school if the proposed fees are excessive, having regard to the cost of maintaining and conducting the proposed school and the standard of education to be provided;"- no one would send their children to a school that is demanding excessive fees, but because they cannot send their children to a school that is charging reasonable fees, that is the reason why the pupils have to go to schools which are charging excessive fees. Under clause 24 (h) - "The Director may refuse to register a school if the qualifications and experience of the proposed teachers are not adequate to ensure the efficient conduct of the proposed school;"- I would say that no sane parents will send their children to a school with under-qualified teachers unless they are forced to. All these points indicate that educational facilities in this colony are still inadequate and it is up to the Government to try and solve the problem. If they do not solve it, such conditions will still exist and such schools will still spring up. I am, however, more concerned especially when clause 24 is going to be related to clause 25 where the Director may, under clause 25 (1) (a), cancel existing schools on all these grounds. All these schools are serving a useful purpose; they are helping in the education of our children. They must be given all the regard and respect because of their good work, and the powers in clause 24 (a) and (e) should never be exercised under clause 25 (1) (a), because it will be impossible for schools to make available playing fields when there are none. I want an assurance from the Minister for Education that clause 25 (1) (a), which touches on clause 24, will be exercised with the greatest of care and that no existing school should be punished. 3.30 p.m.

I cannot help feeling, Mr Chairman, that the hon. Member has in mind the exciting debate we had in this House when our former Chief Minister proved that "may" means "shall". I would remind him that the word is "may" here - a permissive clause enabling the Director, in his discretion, to exercise a measure of control over these various aspects of school buildings. I am sure the hon. Member will agree that we should secure the very best we can for our students in schools. If we can get a committee to provide playing fields, they should have them. Some schools do not provide very big playing fields, others do; but if we can get them to provide them, they should provide them. And so with the other things mentioned in this clause. The hon. Member raised the point about paragraph (a), that "adequate educational facilities already exist in the area in which it is proposed . . .". and I think he said that no sane person would attempt to provide facilities in an area where adequate facilities already were proposed would exist. Well, again I cannot help remembering the debate which took place in another democratic body, the City Council, when there was already one cinema in an area and two more were proposed, and more time and trouble were spent on those three cinemas than on almost any other matter which has come before the public of Singapore. The presumption is that somebody must, I suppose, have been insane because they were all trying to provide facilities where adequate facilities already existed. My view is that his arguments in general are insufficient. The point is that the clause is not to close schools, or to be repressive or unnecessarily restrictive; the point is that the clause is to enable the authorities to put some pressure on any slack or negligent committee, to make sure that they do move forward and give the very best that can be given for our students, who are so important to us in Singapore.

Sir, in reply to the hon. Member for Serangoon, I will give this undertaking as I have given just now, that no action will be taken to de-register any existing schools just because they lack recreational facilities. As I have pointed out in Select Committee, such a clause is merely to provide a guard against any unscrupulous person wanting to take advantage of the dollar-for-dollar grant-in-aid, just to make use of public funds for their own ends.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

There is a slight alteration to the title in Part VI; that will be made. May I draw the attention of the Minister to the marginal note to clause 28? The marginal note reads, "Appointment and cancellation of appointment of supervisor.". whereas the clause reads: "(1)The Committee of Management of a school shall recommend for registration one of their members to be the supervisor of the school. (2) The Director may withhold registration . . . (3) . . . he may withdraw registration ...". I wonder whether the marginal title should not in fact be, "Registration and withdrawal of registration of supervisor."?

Yes, Sir, it should be changed.

That will be done. Clause 31 -

Sir, I move, In page 40, line 1, to leave out "other than a manager of a school" and insert "of a school other than a manager". The words "of a school" are in the wrong place. The amendment is therefore to put the phraseology right. Amendment agreed to. Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 33 -

Sir, I move, In page 40, line 24, after "to", to insert "education or". This amendment is to bring the provisions into line with similar provisions in clause 38 (b) and (d). Amendment agreed to. Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 34 -

Sir, I move, In page 41, line 17, to leave out "after the date of his registration". Under this clause the Director may cancel the registration of any manager of a school, that is to say, the Director will be considering managers who are already registered. Therefore the words "after the date of his registration" in paragraph (g) are redundant because it must be after the date of registration if the Director is considering the cancellation of registration. Amendment agreed to. Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 37 -

Sir, I move, In page 41, line 32, to leave out "he may think" and insert "may be". This is to improve the phraseology. Amendment agreed to. Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 38 -

Sir, I move, In page 42, line 22, to leave out "as a manager or".

I think the Hon. Minister might touch on the next two amendments if he will give an explanation.

Yes, Sir. The amendment proposed to paragraph (d) is to allow a person to be registered as a teacher even if he has been struck off the register as a manager. This will be in line with the provisions of clause 33, under which a person may be registered as a manager even if he has been refused or struck off as a teacher. Amendment agreed to. Further Amendments made: In page 42, line 27, to leave out "manager or". - [Mr Chew Swee Kee]. In page 42, lines 29 and 30, to leave out "or of which he was a manager". [Mr Chew Swee Kee]. Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 39 -

Sir, I move, In page 43, line 5, after "if", to insert "he is". This is to improve the phraseology and make it clearer. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 43, to leave out lines 7 to 11 inclusive and insert: - "(c) if he is satisfied that the teacher is not competent to perform the duties of a teacher; or (d) if the teacher has contravened any of the provisions of this Ordinance or of the regulations made thereunder.". This is a re-arrangement to make the clause more readable and to prevent any ambiguity. Paragraph (c) has been slightly re-worded to make it more specific, that is to say, instead of a teacher not competent to perform the duties for which he is employed, it is more specific to say that the teacher is not competent to perform the duties of a teacher. Amendment agreed to. Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 42 -

Sir, I move, In page 44, lines 1 and 2, to leave out "an unregistered teacher to teach" and insert "the employment of an unregistered teacher'. This amendment is to conform with what the Director does under clause 41. What the Director does is to authorise the employment of an unregistered teacher and such authority will be authority for the unregistered teacher to teach. The Director does not directly authorise an unregistered teacher as such. Amendment agreed to. Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 44 -

Sir, I move, In page 44, line 24, to leave out "revoked" and insert "cancelled". The amendment to the word "revoked" to make it "cancelled" is to bring it in line with clause 20 (c), where it speaks of the cancellation of the authority to teach as an unregistered teacher under clause 44. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 44, lines 26 to 30, to leave out sub-clause (3). This sub-clause is in fact unnecessary. Amendment agreed to. Clause 44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 46 -

Sir, I move, In page 45, line 4, to leave out from "applicant" to "to" in line 7. This is to leave out paragraph (a) which is unnecessary and would give rise to all sorts of difficulties. It must be assumed that the Director and the proposed manager will wish at one time or another before registration to meet and discuss certain matters. It is therefore better to have no such paragraph and leave it to the Director and the manager to see each other as and when necessary in their mutual interests. Amendment agreed to. Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 48 -

Sir, I move, In page 45, line 20, after "25,", to insert "28,". This is necessary as a result of the registration of the supervisor under clause 28. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move. In page 45, line 35, to leave out from "the" to "of" where it secondly occurs in line 39 and insert:- "decision has been made under paragraph(n), (o) or (p) of section 24, paragraph (a) or (e) of subsection (1) of section 25, paragraph (f) of section 33, paragraph (f) or (g) of section 34, paragraph (g) of section 38 or paragraph (a) of section 39". This is partly a rewording and partly the addition of paragraph (f) of section 34 and paragraph (a) of section 39 to make it clear that a decision under these additional paragraphs may come within the jurisdiction of the Minister and therefore appeals should be made to him. However, there may be borderline cases and I propose at a later stage to move an amendment to the same clause by adding a proviso, and that is where the Minister may direct that the appeal may be heard by the Appeals Board.

There seems to be another addition, Mr Minister - paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 25. I thought the Minister mentioned paragraph (f) of section 34 and paragraph (a) of section 39; I did not hear him say paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 25.

Yes, Sir, I did mention paragraph (a) of section 25. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 45, line 41, at end, to add:-

Provided that the Minister may direct that any appeal made to him shall be heard by the Appeals Board". I have given the explanation earlier. Amendment agreed to. Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 3.45 p.m. Clause 49 - Amendment made: In page 46, line 23, after "25,", to insert "28,". [Mr Chew Swee Kee]. Clause 49, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 53 -

Sir, I move, In page 47, line 36, after "officer", to insert "empowered under section 4 of this Ordinance". This is to make it clear and to prove beyond doubt that the officers are the officers empowered under section 4, and not just any officer. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made. In page 48, line 7, after "or" to insert "such".-[Mr Chew Swee Kee]. Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55, Mr Minister, in page 49, line 1, there appears to be a typographical error - "of" where it secondly occurs should be "or".

Yes, Sir.

We shall make that correction. Clause 62 -

Sir, I move, In page 52, line 24, to leave out "of" and insert "not exceeding". This amendment is to give the sub-clause the spirit that is intended, and that is to make it more flexible for a court to impose the fine. Amendment agreed to. Clause 62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 66 -

Sir, I move, In page 53, line 14, to leave out from "registered" to the end of line 24 and insert - "as the supervisor of any school registered at the date of the coming into force of this Ordinance such school shall be deemed to have ceased to be registered unless, within one month of the coming into force of this Ordinance, a manager has been recommended by the Committee of Management of the school to be supervisor thereof for the purpose of this Ordinance and duly registered under the provisions of section 28 of this Ordinance.". This amendment is necessary in view of the change that has been brought about under clause 28 of the Bill, where a supervisor is recommended by the committee of management and subsequently registered as a supervisor. Amendment agreed to. Clause 66, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, with Amendments; read the Third time and passed.

3.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That at its rising today, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Wednesday, 4th December, 1957.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising today, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Wednesday, 4th December, 1957.

Resolved, "That the Assembly do now adjourn." -[The Chief Minister]. Adjourned accordingly at fifty-one minutes past three o'clock p.m.

Monday, 18th November, 1957

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (a) what is the total number of attap and-plank dwelling-houses on Singapore Island built on-

There are no comprehensive records from which the exact number of attap and plank dwelling houses whether on Crown or on private land in Singapore can be ascertained: the existing records of the City Council, Rural Board and Land Office do not provide this detailed information. A survey of attap areas carried out in July 1953 for the purpose of assisting in the preparation of the Master Plan estimated, however, that of temporary housing in the form of plank and attap huts, some 246,000 people were living within the area shown in the Town Map, and it was possible that a further 150,000 lived in attap huts in the rural area, including the Islands. (b) In so far as Crown Land or land acquired for public purposes is concerned, the Member for Changi is probably aware that a comprehensive re-housing and resettlement scheme has been in operation for some time by which alternative accommodation and! or ex-gratia compensation is provided to bona fide occupants who are required to move from their houses on land required by Government or other public bodies for development. With regard to private land, Government cannot compel owners to pay any ex-gratia compensation but it is believed that Government's example has had a persuasive effect on many owners who have paid occupants in accordance with Government's own rates.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry to state the Government's policy, and the measures already taken or contemplated, to promote and develop the fishing industry of Singapore.

The Government's policy is to develop the offshore and deep sea fishing industry by encouraging joint Singapore/Japanese fishing projects which include the training of local personnel as an integral part of the projects. The conditions under which licences will be issued for such projects were publicised in the local papers on 18th September, 1957, and applications have been invited. An apprenticeship training scheme has been formulated by the Joint Advisory Council for Apprenticeship Training to ensure that the trainees will receive proper training and instruction. The following question for Oral Answer stood on the Order Paper of 18th November, 1957:-

To ask the Chief Secretary how many babies were born in the City and the rural areas of Singapore from (a) 1st November,1955, to 31st October, 1956; and (b) 1st November,1956, to 31st October, 1957." Pursuant to Standing Order 16 (2), the Chief Secretary supplied the following answer:- "During the period 1st November, 1955, to 31st October, 1956, 43,620 babies were born in the City area and 16,442 in the rural areas. I regret that I am unable to quote figures for the whole of the period covered by the second part of your question, i.e. 1st November, 1956, to 31st October, 1957, since the figures for the months after July are not yet available. 34,189 babies were born in the City area and 12,319 in the rural areas during the period 1st November, 1956, to 31st July, 1957."