Hansard, 1958-04-23

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 Lim Cher Kheng (Changi) - from 26th April to 26th August, 1958. Mr Soh Ghee Soon (Cairnhill) - from 9th May to 9th June, 1958. Mr Seah Peng Chuan (Kampong Kapor) - on 23rd April, 1958.

asked the Chief Minister whether the Government intends to take steps to ensure that legislation regarding qualifications of candidates for elections to the Legislative Assembly, City and District Councils, will make provision for employees of the Crown in the United Kingdom as distinct from the Crown in the Colony of Singapore to stand for elections. The Chief Minister (Dr Lim Yew Hock): Yes, Sir.

When does the Chief Minister expect to introduce such amending legislation - before or after the District Council elections?

Before the District Council elections.

And when will that be, Sir?

At the June sitting.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare-

Sir, the Management Committee of the Singapore Joint Relief Organisation are as follows: Chairman: Mr R. N. Broome (retired) Vice-Chairmen: Mr Ko Teck Kin Mr C. J. Paglar (deceased) Mr Lim Keng Lian Treasurer: Mr Toh Eng Keng Secretary: Mr Ong Eng Lian Auditors: Messrs. Jee Ah Chian & Co. Committee: Mr Chuang Hui-chuan Mr G. H. Kiat Mr Quek Suan Loh Dr Chen Su Lan Mr Soh Ghee Soon Mr Teo Kiak Seng The Hon'ble Mr Mak Pak Shee Representative of the Blue Cross Charitable Institution Representative of World Red Swastika Society Representative of the Buddhist Federation Representative of Chinese Y.M.C.A. Representative of Sin Chew Jit Poh Representative of Chung Shing Jit Poh (now defunct) Representative of Nanyang Siang Pau Mr Yap Pheng Gek (elected in his absence) Mr Goh Peck Yew Mr Lim Kian Tat Mr Chuan Kiam Teck The Hon'ble Inche Mohammed Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid (elected in his absence) Mrs Elizabeth Choy Mr Wong Foo Nam Mr Teo Seok Guan Mr Tay Soo Yong Mr Ng Quee Lam Mr Ang Eng Ann Mr H. J. C. Kulasingha Mr Ng Sen Choy Mr Tang Peng Yeu Mr Wong Shian Yein The answer to (b) is that the Singapore Joint Relief Organisation is an exempted Society and as such is under the control of the Registrar of Societies under the Societies Ordinance. The answer to (c) is no.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.04 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by His Excellency the Governor in respect of the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

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

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, hon. Members will be aware of the growing public concern at the increase in gangsterism and secret society activities of recent months, and as indicated in the Governor's speech on 9th April, the Government considers it imperative to strengthen the laws by which these activities can be more effectively countered. The majority of these crimes are committed by individual gangsters or by gangs of thugs, who expect to retain all the proceeds or nearly all the proceeds of their crimes and look only to their parent secret societies - if I may put it that way - for protection from prosecution and for protection against rival gangs. These gangs hold sway in their own particular areas, where they organise gambling, smuggling, vice and extortion rackets of different kinds. They provoke gang fights and they intimidate the law-abiding public into the payment of protection money. Their hold, Sir, is such as to frighten the public from giving evidence against them, and their efforts to control each other's activities very often lead to violent clashes between different gangs. It is regrettably true, Sir, that in 1957, the number of gang fights, which was 150, was more than in all the three previous years put together, and that figure has not - regrettably - decreased this year since there have been 68 such fights in the first three months of this year. The majority of the members of these gangs are under 30 years of age and mostly, as far as we know, are born in Singapore. It directly reflects the serious social and economic problems presented by the great increase in Singapore's population since the War, problems which are receiving the earnest attention of the Government but which are not easy or susceptible to an early solution. The causes of this delinquency can be eradicated over a period of years only by improvement of economic and social conditions and by active youth welfare and educational work. The Government is doing all in its power to further these aims but in the meantime the immediate need is to preserve the peace of the Colony and to protect the law-abiding public from the criminal activities of these gangsters. In this, Sir, the police, the public and the Courts all have a part to play. The police require the support and the confidence of the public not only in providing information of actual crimes and projected crimes, but also in willingness to come forward and to give evidence against those responsible. The Courts, for their part, can only administer the laws enacted by the Legislature and it is for this Assembly to ensure that they are armed with the laws and the sanctions which the present situation requires. Sir, the existing provisions in the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance whereby a sentence of corrective training or preventive detention can only be imposed on proof of membership of, or connection with, an unlawful society, has not proved as effective as had been hoped, even though special provision is made in section 6 to facilitate evidence of such membership. In a number of such cases in which charges are brought of offences particularly associated with the activities of secret societies, there has not been the proof required in relation to membership of the secret society and it has not therefore proved possible to invoke the provisions of this Ordinance. The purpose of clause 2 of this amending Bill is to remedy that position and to provide the Courts with a wider discretion than they at present have in applying the provisions of this Ordinance, by removing the condition precedent that membership of, or connection with, an unlawful society must be proved in addition to the conviction. Another important amendment, Sir, to the principal Ordinance is in clause 3 of the Bill which empowers the arrest of any person found in the immediate vicinity of, or escaping from, any place in which a disturbance is occurring or has recently occurred, or any place where a disturbance, according to information received by the police, is likely to take place, and any person who is reasonably suspected of being connected with a secret society. Such a person can be required, under this provision, by a Court to show cause why he should not be ordered to sign a bond to keep the peace. Power is also given to the Courts to impose a curfew order on such a person. For breach of the bond or the order, such a person will be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or to a fine not exceeding $1,000, or to both such imprisonment and fine. At present, Sir, it often happens that the police, arriving at the scene of a planned clash, in time to prevent it, or arriving shortly after one has occurred, find persons present whom they have good reason to know are the fighter elements of the secret societies concerned, but short of catching them in actual possession of offensive weapons, the police are powerless since witnesses from the neighbourhood are not prepared to come forward to give evidence. I should like, Sir, to emphasise on this particular clause that it is not intended that this power should be used in any arbitrary manner. Moreover, the clause provides that the police must take the individual before the Court and it is provided in the following clause that the provisions of section 80 of the Criminal Procedure Code shall apply to an enquiry by the Court under this clause. And section 80 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that where such an order has been made and a person appears or is brought before a Court in compliance with or in execution of a summons or warrant, the Court shall proceed to enquire into the truth of the information upon which it is acting, and to take such further evidence as appears necessary. Such enquiry shall be made as nearly as is practicable in the manner hereof prescribed for conducting trials in summary cases, etc. Sir, I suggest to hon. Members that although this is an exceptional power of arrest, a safeguard against injustice to innocent people is amply provided for by the provisions which ensure that there shall be a proper enquiry before a Court before anyone is required to execute a bond as provided in this clause. Sir, the final amendment to the principal Ordinance is in clause 4 of the Bill which adds the offences of carrying knives or offensive weapons in public, loitering with intent to commit a seizable offence and offences under the Corrosive Substances Ordinance, 1956, to the list of scheduled offences under the principal Ordinance. The reason for this, Sir, is that these are the types of offences which are frequently committed by persons associated with gang warfare. Hon. Members will be aware of the ingenuity shown by these gangsters in devising and concealing weapons which are capable of killing their victims or maiming them for life, and of the increasing use in recent months of the particularly vicious weapon of acid bombs. Sir, I believe it will be the wish of all hon. Members of this Assembly to see the scourge of gang warfare wiped out from our midst. The legislation now proposed is designed to further that purpose and no more. I have every hope that, with the co-operation of the public, which I am glad to say is increasing daily, this legislation will strengthen the organs of law and order in removing this menace from our midst. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 10.19 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy that the Government has now given consideration to an amending Bill to tighten the activities of secret societies, first, in amending this Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance and following on, the Penal Code Ordinance. I believe that this is the result of the question filed by me, which was answered by the Chief Secretary yesterday. Without that question I doubt that the Government would ever have considered amending these two Ordinances. Every day we hear of gang clashes, gang fights and secret society activities, and of innocent people or innocent citizens being victimised and assaulted. Unless these gang clashes by secret societies are stopped immediately, I am afraid that the Government machinery will cease to be effective and is bound to collapse. In principle, Sir, the Bill is a good one and I should say that it merits the support of every sane and sensible Member of this House. But, Sir, however much I would like to support it, I am more anxious about its application when it becomes law. It would appear that there are cases when the police can be very fair, but also other cases when the police can abuse the powers of investigation given to them. We need not go very far for an example, Sir. Even the application of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance is subject to abuse. Just look at the complaints of torture received by Members of this Assembly which have prompted me to table a motion that will be debated at a later hour today or sometime tomorrow. What is there, Sir, to prevent an innocent person being dragged in for nothing under this Bill? Clause 3 is very delicate and I am sure that everyone, including the Chief Secretary, will agree that there are loopholes in it for abuse. Clause 3 reads: "The principal Ordinance is hereby amended by inserting immediately after section 3 thereof, the following new section: 3A.-

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are all aware that gangsterism has taken control in Singapore in many aspects of life. The enquiry into corrupt practices has given us an insight into the secret societies' influence over the public. We must eradicate this and substitute it by better law and order; we must give the police a greater measure of power to enable them to protect innocent people. If a question is put forward to me, `Would you like to have the powers in the hands of the secret societies, or in the hands of the police?', I would definitely say: `We want the powers to be in the hands of the police - but just sufficient powers to enable them to protect us and no more, so that they will not be in a position to misuse them'. Certainly, Sir, this Bill goes a long way to helping the people get rid of secret societies. But whilst we want to get rid of the secret societies, we also want to protect innocent people. They have every right to be protected. We do not want to see an innocent man hauled into a police station, kept there for 24 hours or made to appear before the police court, and after that released. The inconvenience he has to undergo would be sufficient to make him feel that the police is not his friend. No doubt there has been a great deal of explanation as to how this Bill will be operated when it becomes law; no doubt there are safeguards in section 80 of the Criminal Procedure Code. But I would like the Press, especially, to put it over to the people how this law will operate - that unless they are criminals or secret society gangsters, they will not be hauled in by the police. At the same time, I think the Chief Secretary should give detailed instructions as to how this law should be enforced. Every known secret society member should be hauled in, but anybody who is reasonably regarded as not being a secret society member should be given the benefit of the doubt. I know that whether a person is in the secret society movement or not is well known to the police. They have a record of secret society members. They also have an unofficial record of secret society members. If arrests are made and cases brought before the Courts after the police have consulted all these records, nothing much will go wrong. But if an inspector acts on just suspicion and uses his own discretion, there might be cases where old scores may be squared. We must avoid this. No old scores should be squared. This law is meant for the purpose of keeping law and order and it should remain so. I say this, Sir, because I know that whenever a raid is being carried out, a police inspector will take out a dozen or more men to the scene. The inspector would be there but the arrests would be made by the constables and detectives. They may be within sight of the inspector, or out of his sight, but the inspector would have to stand up for his men on such cases. I would ask the Government to give to the police and to every individual officer minute instructions as to how this law should be operated, in order to safeguard the innocent. We are all against secret society members. We want them to be cleaned up but, at the same time, we ask that the innocent be protected and not be inconvenienced. 10.30 am.

Mr Speaker, Sir, despite my hearty support of this amendment, yet I wish to stress a few points. This amending Bill appears to be very effective medicine to cure a very dangerous disease - gangsterism; but in using a very effective drug to cure a dangerous disease, we must be very careful. The Member for Queenstown as well as the Member for Serangoon touched upon abuse of powers by police officers in applying the law which we are now going to enact. Sir, we all respect police inspectors, yet as I pointed out yesterday about the C.I.D. organisation, should not the Government realise that an inspector can easily be misled into abusing powers? I do not say that inspectors will abuse the powers straightaway, but that they may be misled into abusing them, especially as many of our new inspectors are fresh from school with only a School Certificate and three years' training. Then the whole source of his information is the detectives, and I invited the Chief Secretary yesterday to come out with me into the street to see how many people have faith in detectives. One of the clauses in the Bill reads, ".. the inspector on receipt of information which he considers to be reliable..". The inspectors rely on the detectives' information and consider that reliable. However, I have had bitter experience about this in the past, and I think every other Member here must have had one or two also. I remember a night not long ago when there was a wayang play in Chai Chee Village. That night from 10 p.m. my telephone kept ringing. Why? Hawkers and farmers had been arrested and confined in Joo Chiat Police Station. Many of them I knew personally, especially one fishmonger who had to get up at about 3 am to go to the fish market to get fish to sell in Changi Market. Yet he was arrested. I contacted the police - by telephone of course - and they said that they had received information of an expected gang fight at the wayang. I dressed up and went to the vicinity of the wayang. And there I saw a few notorious gangsters whom I knew were active gangsters taking kwayteow, sitting around and drinking beer near the stage, while poor innocent farmers and fishermen were in the police station! Sir, that is the sort of thing which has taught me bitter lessons. Why should it happen? As I told the House yesterday, it is because the head of the gangsters is well known to the detectives and they have a relationship. They can dine and drink together in public restaurants and open bars. Can the public have faith in detectives when they see the law executors drinking and dining with notorious gangsters in a kampong or a street? Sir, therefore I strongly put over this point to the Government: try to find a remedy to prevent the police from being misled into abusing powers which this House and the country entrust to them. Only by so doing can they hope to make the detective organisation more effective, more respected and more trustworthy. Besides relying on detectives, uniformed inspectors also rely much on the police. In the past - I do not know what the reason is - everybody used to say, "Oh, the Chinese, because of their tradition, do not like the soldiers and therefore they do not like to be policemen". So many of our constables have been recruited from the Malays; worst of all, they have been recruited from Federation Malays. There is therefore not only the language barrier between them and the people, but also differences in traditions and customs. How then can you make the police become a good, reliable friend of the people, as I think it is a basic idea to have the people have faith and trust in the police force? Therefore unless the plainclothes and uniformed police can be completely re-organised into an effective and respected machinery, I am sure this amending Bill will be only just a waste of time. Sir, I am putting this point now for the Government, not only for the Chief Secretary: if we believe in the proverb that prevention is better than cure, we must think of ways how not to make it necessary to arrest and prosecute a person. Why do the police not consider certain measures before a thing is going to happen - by persuasion, by constant visits to the family of a suspected criminal, by improving the relationship between them and the public? We know - and I think the Chief Secretary knows better than anybody else here - that in many countries in the world the policeman is the best friend of the youngsters and adults alike. They take part in any community activity. Why not here? Here we have a very bad tradition. When children start crying, their parents often say, `Stop crying. Mata mata datang!' That makes the police out to be a terror, not a friend. They know all the bad hats in the area yet they only watch and wait and only start arresting when they begin to commit crimes. Sir, I do not think that is a good practice.

Order. I quite agree that perhaps it is not a good practice, but is not the hon. Member straying a little too far from the Bill itself? Is he relevant?

Sir, that was my concluding point - that I consider this amending Bill to be defective medicine. Therefore I put forward the moral of the proverb that prevention is better than cure, that it is better to adopt certain new measures to prevent crimes happening rather than be ready to arrest and prosecute only after the crimes have been committed. Sir, I beg and am forced to support this amendment. 10.40 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a few years back we did not require such a Bill to amend the law whereby, may I quote clause 3,", a police officer not below the rank of inspector on receipt of information which he considers to be reliable...can ...". A few years back we did not require these extra powers for the police. The problem now is that in the rank and file of the police force, there is now frustration, disappointment and discontent. Why do I say this? If you were to be seated in the C.I.D. building today, Sir, you will see many police officers, detectives, the rank and file, each and every one of whom is frustrated. Only a few days back, I understand a circular went out to all senior detectives directing that if they did not make an arrest or supply information to senior police officers in the force, their services would be terminated or they would be transferred to other branches of the force. This is dictatorial. Just think of a police officer who has been in the force for years and years; on receipt of such an instruction, what can he do? As we all know, most of the detectives in the force were all ex-members of secret societies, so that instruction will force them to make arrests or to supply information against their own enemies in other branches of the secret societies. Why do I say that, Sir? Only recently, the police introduced "Operation Dagger", under which thousands and thousands of people, innocent people, suffered. Walk along the streets and I am quite sure you will meet people with tattoo marks all over their bodies blackened. These blackened tattoo marks are for ever impressed on their bodies. This is what I call injustice. Just because you have a tattoo mark on your body. I mean a mark which is related to one of the insignias of a secret society, for example, a tattoo mark of a man fighting a tiger - in Chinese they call it Boo Siong pah haw - according to the records of the C.I.D., the Boo Siong pah haw mark belongs to Gang 18, you are a member of a secret society. That is rubbish - [Interruption].

Order.

Sir, that is rubbish. Take other examples: if you have a Red Indian head on your body, they say you belong to Gang 24; a sailing boat on the body, Gang 24; a black panther, Gang 24; a Goddess of Mercy. Gang 108; an eagle fighting a snake, Gang 108. Why not arrest the soldiers and sailors who have these similar marks? I am quite sure many people, innocent people, have these marks on their bodies.

Order. I was just wondering whether a detailed exposition of that nature is suitable for a debate on this Bill. I think the hon. Member will have an opportunity, when we continue with the debate on the Governor's Speech, to attack the police as such, but in this particular Bill I think details of that nature are really perhaps going a bit too far.

That I will do so, Sir. As I said just now, there is discontentment because we have people among the higher ranks of the police force favouring the other blue-eyed boys in the force. Therefore many members of the force, the rank and file, are very disappointed, discontented and frustrated. I personally feel that this amending Bill is not necessary. 10.45 a.m.

It should be on the record, Sir, that the operative word for the speech of the Member for Tiong Bahru on this amending Bill is that it is not necessary. Probably some of his friends will be very pleased to hear it. Sir, there are two distinct ways in which one could approach this Bill. First, the stand of the unsophisticated democrats - the rule of law, evidence corroborated beyond all reasonable doubt. When we try to bring the standards and patterns of law and order from some foreign land which does not suit the realities of our local conditions, then the result will be chaos. The democratic system cannot be transplanted wholesale. Neither can its rules, laws and enactments be repeated without amendment. The first question is how do we eradicate the source, the economic and the social causes which the Chief Secretary very lightly touched upon. As long as the social and economic forces are there, there will be an endless stream of recruits for secret societies, not only for the purposes of extortion, but also for the purposes of overthrowing the existing order. The second question is, until we have achieved that objective, what do we do about it? Now, Sir, the Japanese had a very effective way of dealing with it-they just potong kepala; and I do not think anybody doubts that it was a very effective method. I do not think the people of Singapore, or indeed in Malaya, ever lived through a more difficult or a more trying period than the three-and-a-half years of the Japanese occupation, and yet gangsterism was nil; because there were swaggering sergeants with long swords who made a habit of using them. And terror was used as a weapon to a point where it was not worth the feeding of a chicken to have one's head chopped off. I think many of us here still remember the grisly heads that were stuck up on all the bridges in Singapore just to remind the people that there was such a thing called law and order with the Japanese samurai sword. That is one way: you just knock down the other fellow, never mind about evidence and so on; never mind even if you knock out four innocent chaps to get one guilty one. But more important is that you terrify all the rest of the guilty ones to a point where they think it is not worth their fun. The other way I have only read about. I have not seen it at first hand, but I am told that if you try to be a teddy boy in Moscow, then you will not last very long. There are people who want to find out what your employment is, what you are doing, and why you are not doing anything and yet have so many of the good things in life. Very soon you find yourself in a healthy camp where you do very good work, and get yourself re-orientated into the right way of thinking, that the purpose in life is not to try and cheat your way out of society, but to work hard and contribute to it. Sir, somewhere between these two extremes, we have to find our solution. I am not in a position to say, not being in possession of detailed information of the probable habits and reactions of these secret society gangsters, whether a Bill of this nature will meet our needs. Certainly something has got to be done about it. The problem is to find some method which can be an effective counter, and can, to a certain extent, deter people from embarking on hazardous occupations such as secret society gangsterism, without being turned into a weapon of terror. I heard this morning, pass unchallenged, the statement that police inspectors were ex-secret society members. That, I think, is going a little bit too far. We all know, particularly those of us who by their profession have something to do with the Courts, and have to hear the evidence of detectives and inspectors, that it is not true to say that police inspectors have been ex-secret society members. But it is unfortunately true that there are very often ex-secret society members as detectives in the police force. The inspectors quite frankly tell us that you need a thief to catch another thief, and a monkey to catch another monkey, because if you cannot climb a tree and the other monkey can, you are left behind. That being so, all we can do is no more than exhort the Government to see that a great deal of care and supervision are maintained in order that there should not be corruption - not just financial corruption but general corruption in discipline and morale - where reliance is placed on the evidence of purely ex-secret society gangsters in order to get present secret society gangsters. But other than broad statements of principle, I do not think anybody in this House is in a position to say whether this Bill really answers the need. All we can say is, we hope that Ministers have given careful consideration to it, and we hope that it will answer the need. 10.51 am.

Sir, I welcome the general support that has been forthcoming for this Bill with one exception. The hon. Member for Queenstown suggested that, as a result of his question put down for answer in this Assembly yesterday, the Government had moved extremely quickly. I appreciate the bouquet which he is giving for the speed with which Government can move, but I am afraid I must tell him that this Bill was in preparation for some time before he put his question down. I do not propose, Sir, to answer now the accusations which have been made as to certain elements in the police force, and to certain abuses of their powers. That is a matter which as you yourself have said, Sir, has been raised on the debate on the Governor's Speech, and I shall be having something to say when that debate is resumed. As regards the general provisions of this Bill, I am entirely in concurrence with the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar that what we have to do broadly is to try and find the proper balance between the necessary protection of innocent persons against abuse of authority and affording to the police, who have the responsibility of bringing these criminals to justice, the necessary powers to enable them to do so. No Government, and certainly not this Government, would wish to give the police or anybody else more powers than are necessary to discharge their functions. Wherever power or authority is vested, there is room for abuse, and that is a fact which must be recognised. I do assure hon. Members with regard to the application of the provisions of this Bill that I shall personally concern myself with the application of these provisions and endeavour to ensure that there is no abuse of the powers with which I hope the Assembly is now prepared to vest the police. There were two minor points raised, Sir, in connection with the wording of the Bill. One hon. Member referred to the provision in clause 3A (1) (i) that "on receipt of information which he considers to be reliable" and suggested that since that information came from a detective, it was to be suspect - I must point out to him that that provision refers only to information that a disturbance is likely to take place; that provision has nothing to do with the arrest or the grounds of arrest of any person. That is provided later in the clause where it is specifically stated that the police officer not below the rank of inspector has to have reason to suspect that the individual concerned is connected with an unlawful society, and that is a matter of identification. And as I explained in moving the Second Reading, the inspector will have to produce and support the grounds on which he has made his arrest when he brings the individual before the Court. Sir, I have nothing further to add.

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 David]. Bill considered in Committee. 10.56 a.m.

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

There appear to be two alterations to this clause. I take it that hon. Members have copies with similar alterations. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by His Excellency the Governor in respect of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

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

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the legislation which the Assembly has just approved will, as I have indicated, give greater powers to the Police and to the Courts to combat the activities of criminal gangsters under the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. The Bill now before the Assembly makes certain amendments to the Penal Code to enable the courts to impose heavier sentences on persons found guilty of certain crimes which are all too prevalent at the present time and to act as a deterrent against their commission. The first amendment in clause 2 deals with persons who are guilty of the offence of committing an affray. The punishment provided at present in the Penal Code for this offence is unduly lenient in the present circumstances consisting as it does of imprisonment which may extend to one month or a maximum fine of $100 or both such imprisonment and fine. I have already indicated to the Assembly the vicious nature of the type of gang fights which are unfortunately of such frequent occurrence in Singapore and I do not doubt that hon. Members will agree that the present penalties which I have detailed are not a sufficient deterrent in the present circumstances. It is accordingly proposed that the maximum punishment for committing an affray should be increased to imprisonment for a maximum period of one year or to a fine which may amount to $1,000 or to both such imprisonment and fine. Sir, clause 3 of the Bill makes a number of amendments to certain sections of the Penal Code to increase the sentences which may be imposed by the courts for the crime of kidnapping or abduction to ten years and to make such offences also punishable with whipping. Members are no doubt aware from reports in the daily press that over a number of years there have been several cases of kidnapping and also a number of attempts which have been thwarted by the vigilance of the Police. There is also good reason to believe that there have been other successful kidnappings which have not been reported to the Police and which have resulted in the payment of large sums of money as ransom. Sir, the essence of every kidnapping case is to put the victim and his relatives in fear of physical violence and frequently involves the detention of the victim in conditions of extreme discomfort. If this form of crime is to be adequately discouraged, it is imperative that the punishment for this crime should be increased to a level which will afford the severest deterrent to those who seek to profit from it. Although modern penal reform is antipathetic to the use of corporal punishment, these principles of reform, if they are to achieve their purpose, require the existence of conditions which it must regrettably he admitted do not exist in Singapore today. The thugs who take part in these crimes of violence are not for the most part susceptible to the sympathetic treatment which these principles symbolise and for the better protection of the public, it is considered advisable to arm the Courts with this additional power to be used at discretion and which will act as a greater deterrent to those who now think nothing of inflicting physical violence on their innocent victims. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.05 am.

Mr Speaker Sir, the introduction of this Bill to amend the Penal Code Ordinance should be most welcome. I may say that this amendment more or less answers my question yesterday rather than the previous one, the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, as this applies more to kidnapping and gangsterism. However, Sir, in my opinion, I feel that the new punishment proposed under this new amendment is still inadequate. Kidnapping and gangsterism are very, very serious offences because they cause fear and alarm not only to the rich and poor but also to every individual citizen in this country. The condition in which the victim finds himself is not all to be considered. We must also consider the condition of the family of that victim. When a victim is kidnapped and confined illegally or wrongfully, the family is put under mental torture and suffers more if that victim is the sole bread-winner of the family. People who steal or commit minor offences may receive the sympathy and mercy of the court but kidnapping and gangsterism should not receive the slightest sympathy at all. These kidnappers or extortionists are just out to satisfy their taste for richness in that they can demand fantastic sums of money from the so-called rich people. Sir, apart from the mental torture caused to the family, the victim is also subject to torture just as in one case where he was confined in a small box some time ago. The only way to wipe out such offences is to introduce the severest form of punishment so that the courts could impose the maximum fine allowed by law. Although the new legislation proposes ten years' imprisonment and/or whipping, I feel that that is inadequate as the Member for Tanjong Pagar this morning said that we must show to those who intend to commit these crimes that the Government really means business - not just putting it on paper. Sir, although I am not satisfied with this proposed amendment because the new punishment is not adequate, I do not intend to propose another amendment to provide for more severe punishment because I may be obstructing the passing of this law. I am prepared to allow this amendment to go through. If after this amendment is made law and further crimes of this nature are not stopped, I would urge Government to consider introducing more severe punishment than ten years' imprisonment and/or whipping. 11.10 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this amendment but there is one point I would like to bring up for the consideration of Government. Sir, the amendment to section 160 of the Penal Code proposes to increase the term of imprisonment to one year and a fine of $1,000. I think this is beyond the power of a Magistrate Court to deal with. Therefore if there are not many District Criminal Courts available to deal with such cases, the Magistrates' Courts will not be able to impose the maximum term of imprisonment and this Bill will just be a scrap of paper. I want the Government to give me an assurance that we have sufficient District Criminal Courts to deal with such cases. 11.13 a.m.

Sir, the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng) suggested that these penalties are not adequate enough; that I think myself to be a matter of balance. In providing for maximum penalties, one must strike an appropriate balance between different types of crimes and, of course, it is for the courts in individual cases to decide what the appropriate penalty may be. What this legislation provides for is only the maximum. The Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) pointed out that Magistrates' Courts can only inflict maximum penalties of six months and that therefore for any greater penalty under this amended provision, it would be necessary for cases to be taken before the District Courts. That is the case and serious cases will have to be taken before the District Courts. I can assure the hon. Member as regards the number of Courts that the position will be watched.

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 David]. Bill considered in Committee. 11.15 a.m.

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule-

Mr Chief Secretary, on page 2, the word "Ditto" appears. I was wondering whether it would not be preferable to insert all the words appearing therein previously.

Yes. Sir, I move. To leave out "Ditto" appearing in the Second Column against "367" appearing in the First Column, and insert- "Insert the words "or to whipping" after the word "fine" at the end thereof'. Amendment agreed to. The Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.18 a.m. The Chief Minister (Dr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by His Excellency the Governor in respect of the Singapore Citizenship (Amendment No. 2) Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

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

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Singapore Citizenship (Amendment) Ordinance, 1958 came into force on 15th January, 1958. It will be remembered that one of the provisions of that Ordinance was that any person who applied for registration as a citizen before 31st January, 1958 - that is the end of the initial registration period - and was registered within one month after that date, would be deemed to be a citizen of Singapore on 1st February, 1958, for the purpose of being included in the first registers prepared for the Singapore Legislative Assembly elections. 1,412 persons in this category were registered during this extended period of one month. The present Bill seeks to extend this one month period by a further month. The reason is that in respect of a number of persons whose applications were approved by the Minister before 28th February, 1958, it was impossible to complete the formalities by that date and they could only be registered during March. There were a very large number of applications outstanding on 31st January, 1958, for investigation during February and although the Advisory Committee and the Minister concerned considered these applications with all possible speed, there were a number on which it was only possible to complete action leading to approval at the very end of the month. It is considered that it would only be fair that such persons so registered will also be deemed to be citizens of Singapore on 1st February, 1958, for the purpose of being included in the first registers prepared for the Singapore Legislative Assembly elections. This Bill therefore makes enabling provision for the above purpose. 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. [The Chief Minister]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [22nd April], "That an Address be sent to His Excellency the Governor expressing the thanks of this Assembly for his speech delivered on Wednesday. 9th of April, 1958."-(The Chief Minister). Question again proposed. 11.25 am.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I was speaking on the fishing industry and I was referring to the slogans that were encouraged by the Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy). One of his slogans was, "Support local industry and buy Singapore goods." Sir, by allowing the Japanese to come here and compete with our local fishermen, I wonder how that slogan can mean what it is meant to mean. Is the Minister not contradicting himself and going against the policy of his own Government to encourage local industry? The Governor's Speech stated, Sir, that the Government intends "to assist local fishermen who are willing to be trained in new methods of fishing". In what way or how can the Government train our local people in new methods of fishing? In Singapore, we have no fishing schools. Furthermore, the Fisheries Department do not have the personnel to train our local people in the fishing industry. Government has got to rely on the Japanese to train our local people here but are the Japanese prepared to teach our local people when they know very well that when our local people are fully trained as fishermen it will affect their own trade considerably? I am quite sure that they are not prepared. So the only way, Sir, under the guise that they will train our local people, is they offer very, very small salaries to our local people who join them as recruits for training in the catch of fish. Street boys from road corners are recruited and the salary that they now offer is between $80 to $100 a month. Sir, can a man live on $80 to $100 a month? It is rather difficult. Now, Sir, apart from this low salary, these street boys, as I call them, are in fact treated as deckhands instead of learning how to catch fish. They are given all sorts of odd jobs aboard a ship to do either in the way of carrying empty crates or boxes or crushing ice to preserve the fish. Now, is this what you mean by learning how to catch fish-the carrying of empty crates and the crushing of ice or putting fish into boxes with the ice on top? Is this what the Japanese mean by teaching us how to catch fish? Certainly, the Japanese do not want us to know how to catch fish. So, unless the Government forces the Japanese to give adequate salaries to our local boys who join their ships to learn how to catch fish, I am quite sure that the response will be very, very poor. This state of affairs suits the Japanese very well because they do not want in fact the right type of people to come into the fishing trade. As I said, if we have the right type of people who come into the fishing trade, their trade will be killed by us. The only suggestion I can put now, Sir, is to compel the Japanese to pay our boys adequate salaries. That is one way to encourage new methods of catching fish. Another way, Sir, is to establish fishing schools in Singapore and engage Japanese personnel to come to Singapore to teach our local boys in our schools and after a certain period of training or learning in the schools, they will go out under the supervision of our own local officers to show them how to actually catch fish. Unless Government implements this sort of a scheme, I am afraid that it will not be able to introduce any new methods of catching fish so that our boys can learn how to catch fish. My next subject is on education, Sir. This time I must give credit to the Government for having the foresight to build more schools for our youngsters. The Government must also be congratulated on its policy "of seeking to give every child the chance to have primary education up to the age of 14." Education is very essential for a country and unless our younger generation are given proper education when they are young, then however much improvement you may have in your country will serve no purpose. But one thing is lacking in the policy of the Government and it is that, according to the Governor's Speech, the primary schools being built "will be allocated for Malay, Chinese and English language teaching according to the parents' choice and available staff." Sir, I am not an Indian but as multilingualism has come to stay, I cannot understand why the Tamil language has been omitted from the policy of the Government. Malay, Chinese and English are given prominence and the Government will continue to give further education in these three languages. What about the Tamil language? Are we going to say that there should not be any Tamil language teaching here? What is the purpose of introducing multilingualism in the Assembly, in the City Council and in the District Councils? It serves no purpose. I hope the Minister for Education will be able to explain this. One more bouquet I may give to the Government, and that is that the University of Malaya is introducing part-time training for teaching diplomas; but, Sir, this is not sufficient. After the war Singapore has progressed considerably in the construction field. We can now see many skyscrapers constructed within the city, and I understand some of them have been designed by our local boys. This is another indication that our local lads can undertake big jobs if they are given the chance. But what I regret to say is this - that our local boys have to go abroad for their architectural training. There are no facilities in Singapore for local boys to take degrees in architecture and they have to go to foreign countries to learn the profession. We have here the University of Malaya and the Nanyang University, and I feel that it is the Government's responsibility to see that a Faculty of Architecture should be established, either in the University of Malaya or the Nanyang University, at the earliest possible date, so that our local boys will have the opportunity of learning this profession here rather than go abroad. I now wish to touch on the housing policy of the Government. Its present policy is that the Singapore Improvement Trust will be converted into a Development and Housing Authority. That is what is stated in the Governor's Speech. But, Sir, this is not the first time we hear of a Housing Authority. We heard that more than two years ago. But I must congratulate the Government that at long last they are serious in establishing a Housing Authority. The people of Singapore are fed up with the Singapore Improvement Trust with all the Iron Curtain administration behind it. Nobody knows what is happening. The points system in regard to applications for houses is top secret and known only to very high officials of the S.I.T. So I want to ask: is Government going to establish this Housing Authority very soon? How long more will it take? Two years have already gone by. Maybe even after its term of office we will not have a Housing Authority. I hope that the Government will see to the establishment of this Housing Authority without further delay, so that we can have it in reality and not on paper. 11.35 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after hearing the Governor's Speech I do not think anyone will disagree with it. All that I would say is that it consists of a great deal of pious hopes, a rehash of what had been given in the last two Sessions. We do not want just pious hopes or promises that the Government will carry out this or that. What we want to hear from the Government is, "These are our methods. We will work them out and produce results." There are such hopes as: "We will increase trade. We will build more houses. We will have more home-grown food. We will have greater stability. We will offer greater incentive to capital investment and so on." But when you look behind all these promises and get to grips with them, you will find that many of them have very little substance. I think the people of Singapore and people outside Singapore want the Government here to give them some concrete assurance. However, I will come to all these subjects later on. Yesterday we had a few speakers on the Governor's Speech. One Member said that it sounded hollow and he had nothing more to add to the hollowness of the speech or the promises, but he turned this Assembly into a sounding board for election purposes. The question was asked: Will the Government hold early elections? Is the Government serious about holding early elections? To these questions the Member arrived at the answer "No". But what I think is more important is not the question of early elections or late elections, but the question of getting the machinery ready and making sure that Singapore will retain its democratic form of government. That, Sir, is the most important thing to Singapore. If a Member is dissatisfied that elections are delayed and he wants early elections, I think the remedy is in his hands. He has just to file a motion in the Assembly asking that elections be held early, and I defy any Member in this Assembly - and we have 32 Members in this House - to say no to that motion. Everyone will say yes, and there you are - so any Member who wants early elections can file a motion. There is no need to ask the Government to hold early elections.

You pledge to say yes to the motion?

We are more concerned with what form of government we will get later on. At present the Government intends to go back to London to hold another talk with the Colonial Office. In fact, during the past weeks I have been pestered by the Press who asked me, "What do you know of the mission? You were one of the five members." I had to tell them, "No, I know nothing about it. I have not received any indication from the Government. I do not know what they are cooking. No drafts have been circulated, and if there should be anything known, it is just known to the Government." As a member of the delegation, I think I should be allowed into the secret of what is to come. I think in fairness to all of us, we should be given ample notice of what to expect. We should be acquainted of any changes if there are any. I can assure the Government that, if what we are going to secure is not less than what we have got and it is in the interests of the people, we will go; but if it should be less than what we have got, and if it is not in the interests of the people-

Better follow the P.A.P.!

-then we may think again. But I assure the House that we will not follow the P.A.P. In fact, whichever direction the P.A.P. goes, I think it is the wrong way, and we will go directly opposite to that! We have the classic example of big brothers and small brothers being enacted in Singapore. We had the City Council election in December and we have the type of democracy which is said to be: "Here is the people's government. Come and have a look at it." I can only say, "God help us if we are going to have the same thing repeated in the Assembly. If we are going to have in the Assembly cat-calls, booings and all the disturbances that have occurred in the City Council, then I think that the people's government will be, dictated by intimidation - intimidation by another type of secret society. Say the wrong things and when you walk out of the Assembly you will be expected to be beaten up. Be careful you should be escorted by one of their members to the taxi, otherwise you get the worse of it. That is not democracy. I think that is a very poor form of government. I think even Communist countries have not that form of government. At least they can deliberate whatever action they need take in quiet and peace. With that lead given in the City Council and the failures that have occurred there one after another, the small boy cried on the shoulders of the big brother and the big brother takes it up in the Assembly! The people want something better than that. The people want something more stable. The people want sane people to govern them. The people of Singapore want a government consisting of sane people and not any Tom, Dick or Harry picked up on the road to voice their opinions. They do not want people who clench their fists, shout slogans and then carry out a policy that is only right if they propose it! In the past we have had experience of that sort of government. You must have trade unions for collective bargaining. We must not suppress the workers, or working class, or anything you like to call them. They must be given a chance to negotiate. They must be given the right to strike for better conditions. But let me tell the people of Singapore, Sir, if we are going to have the form of government that is at present exhibited in the City Council, we have heard that swift retribution will come if you do not toe the P.A.P. line: "Carry out our orders! Be our henchmen, or you will get it in the neck!" That is not the way a democratic government is run. I believe, Sir, we have also had a line or two from the former Chief Minister, and I think the P.A.P. is also wise to follow that policy of calling for All-Party committees to negotiate on matters on which they have failed. Here we have the P.A.P. leader saying that there is an All-Party Committee in the City Council negotiating with the union to avert a strike. They say that if the P.A.P. should offer 20 cents, then nobody should offer more. You must all offer less! If you offer less, then you are against the workers! If you offer more, then you are wrong, you are trying to out-P.A.P. the P.A.P., which is again wrong. What is right? I am sure that what they want the people to do will be, "Follow us. We are always right." That is not the democratic way of thinking. Anybody may be right. Let us take the best idea. If the strike takes place, the P.A.P. leader pointed to the Minister for Local Government and said, "The trouble will be in your hands. Follow us again." I think that is the wrong idea. We must always try and strike a balance between the demands of the workers and what the people of Singapore can take. I do not think the P.A.P.is always right. If the P.A.P. thinks it is always right, then do not appoint All-Party committees - go it alone. Appoint a committee and you will find that they will again use it as a soiled rag. Anything is wrong, and all the dirt is put on it. Anything is right, and that is the P.A.P.'s work! That is not at all a fair deal. It does not become the leader of a great Party to say all these!

Thank you! It is a great Party!

But that great Party, Sir, is divided into many smaller parties. There is the Right-wing group and there is the extreme Left group. I rather agree with the hon. Member for Changi that our friend the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar belongs to the Right wing of the P.A.P. and he is trying to exert control over them; but his silence from December to March did not give us a very good picture. Neither did his Party's annual election, which got him into a fix - as to whether to go ahead with the extreme Left or to come out on his own - give us a very good picture of a leader trying to run the Party. It seems to me that the Party is running the leader and that the leader will take a cue from those who boo from the City Council galleries. Otherwise I am sure that sooner or later he will be in an unenviable position of being left high and dry. I think for the stability of Singapore the hon. Member should be persuaded to see further ahead and consider the interests of the people of Singapore rather than have two legs, one on each boat. If the two boats should run in opposite directions, he will be right inside the water. Sir, on the Government's policy on trade, I find that Singapore is getting into a very difficult position. The Government stated that Singapore exists because of its trade. Right from the beginning of Singapore until today, everybody knows that Singapore exists because of its trade. Singapore must have its entrepot trade but today I am afraid that despite all the Government's efforts to try and bring a greater volume of trade to Singapore, that volume is not increasing. I have heard very disturbing reports that the centre of entrepot trade is not going to remain in Singapore for a very long time. At least we will have a lot of rivals. I know that plans are now being put forward by large shipping companies and business interests to shift the centre of the entrepot trade to Hongkong. Previously we have all the trade and all the transhipment by small steamers from Singapore to North Borneo, Brunei, Sarawak and the other islands. Today we have transhipment from Hongkong to these other places, and I know that notices and circulars have been sent round to the dealers in all these islands asking them whether they would agree to transhipment being effected from Hongkong. That is very serious, Sir, and we are going to lose a great deal of that entrepot trade, if it comes to that. Again, Sir, previously Bangkok has sent its produce to Singapore and, thereafter, Singapore, as a distributing centre, has sent the goods forward to Sumatra, Java or the other islands. Today we have direct shipping from Bangkok to all the other places. This serious problem, Sir, is not without cause. Business people will only look towards what they can get out of trade. Singapore has been used as an entrepot centre from time immemorial because it is centrally situated. It is a most convenient centre. It is logical to have Singapore as a distributing point, with all the harbour and transport facilities. I ask, Sir: Do we still have these harbour and transport facilities? The answer is yes, we still have these facilities here. Then, Sir, why are people shifting their entrepot trade to other ports? I say the cause lies with the P.A.P.

You must be getting nightmares!

The Singapore Harbour Board has its many troubles. It has had strikes. There is a go-slow programme. All these are done in the name of the interests of the working people. The workers must have higher pay and holidays. If they cannot get a pass for their union secretary into the Harbour Board, they must go slow or go on strike. All this means delay in handling goods, higher storage costs and higher handling costs. Soon we find that business people are not quite ready to take all that. We are not dealing with people inside the colony that we can control. We are dealing with people in independent countries. Whether to use Singapore or any other port is within their right. They have the choice. If they choose Singapore, they will use Singapore. If they choose Hongkong, they will use Hongkong. Because of the things happening here, they are slowly trying to find whether they can choose another substitute port instead of Singapore. To the workers what benefit have we given them by such actions? Today the volume of trade will go down. Tomorrow it will be less. Soon you will find that the labourers, instead of getting a bigger pay packet, will have nothing to bring home. Unemployment will surely come. Those who handle cargoes in the Harbour Board will have a little bit more, but for the many other unfortunates, the Social Welfare public assistance scheme will have to go into higher gear to assist them. These are the doings of the P.A.P., and for the good of Singapore!

On a point of information, Sir.

If the Member will give way.

It is a very important point, Sir.

I am not giving way, Sir. On a matter like this, Sir, the P.A.P. and all other politicians must act sanely. If they want to increase the earnings of the workers, they must not increase their earnings today and make the earnings diminish as the days go by. If they want to assist the workers, they must try and create more employment so that the workers will have jobs and pay, and sooner or later their pay will increase. Sir, there is another contributing factor regarding the shifting of this entrepot trade. We know that we have to create certain facilities for Singapore. If we cannot cheapen labour, then we must use mechanised equipment in order to get over this. Furthermore, Singapore must provide all facilities which are required for its entrepot trade. We must have a good system of shipping to other places. We must encourage our local shipping. If we can have local shipping brought to a high degree of efficiency, then we have the facilities for the people of other countries to come to Singapore. Our local ships may be few in number, but we have to make a start somewhere. We are not starting badly. We have quite a number of local ships. Let the Government assist our local shipping so that its fate will be in our hands and not in the hands of other people who establish their business here. Help our local shipping to have more cargoes to send out. Keep them alive. If we do that, we will build them up. If we have a few ships today, we will have more ships later on. It will not only help these shipping lines, but incidentally it will also provide employment. I have always urged the Minister for Commerce and Industry to think of establishing a merchant navy. That is what Singapore wants. If we can establish it, it will go a long way to keep the entrepot trade going. If we cannot establish a merchant navy, then at least find ways and means of keeping our local shipping alive. After all, if the ships are registered here, all that they earn will come back to Singapore. We will be grateful if the Minister for Commerce and Industry will take concrete steps to help our own local people. Of course, in the matter of trade, we must have many parties. We simply cannot depend on other people choosing to make use of Singapore. We must at least adopt some of the tactics of insurance agents. Many of them come along very persistently selling their policies to customers. Some of the customers want to buy and some do not, but in many cases when you have a very skilful insurance agent, he invariably persuades his "victims" to buy policies. Let us adopt that tactic. Establish trade missions in all the places where we can trade with, where we think we will be able to get goods from them or send goods to them. If we do not have the money to establish missions there, we can follow the example of the Israeli Government appointing somebody here to be their honorary consul. We can at least approach somebody and ask him, "Will you act for us there and promote our trade?" If we set up missions in the countries we trade with, we can publicise the facilities we have here and it means a great deal when we have publicity. For example, in publicising our facilities, we can also publicise tourism. If suggestions like this are adopted, I am sure they will go a long way. Sir, we have heard from the Government that they are going to promote industries and that they will establish an Industrial Promotion Board. They say they will assist the industries, especially the small ones with no capital, but I find that in practice they have not done much. They have not even touched on the fringes. If the Industrial Promotion Board is going to do good work, then it must not act like a bank - "Show us all your securities; show us that you have money, so that we may lend you money." It is bound to fail. That is the work of banks. But for industrial boards, Government should know whether a certain type of industry is going to prosper and whether it will help the people of Singapore. If Government is convinced that it will assist them, the best thing for Government to do is to initiate a move to start such an industry. If, however, such an industry is already in existence and Government knows that it will not make a loss but instead a profit, then Government should help it in the proper manner. I have said in this Assembly sometime ago that certain industries have been affected, like the shoe factories, the beehoon factories, the biscuit factories and others. They need help. Have Government helped them? The Minister for Commerce and Industry has promised to help them. Have these industries received such help? I shall be glad if I can have an answer to that, and I shall be glad also if Government will confirm that they have not helped them. Why have they not helped them? In Sembawang today, Sir, you have a station called the Sembawang Experimental Station to help farmers rear their poultry, to help pig breeders and vegetable farmers. But I think it would be better to put all these experiments into practice. Today we still have a lot of vacant land that may not be used for short periods of time or long periods of time. We will say that there might be pieces of vacant land which have been lying vacant for 15 years, but nothing is going to be done about them, because Government is having a plan to build a hospital or houses on them! But I believe that whenever Government have plans to build houses or anything on vacant land, they will not be able to do it immediately, but a long time after. If in the intervening period we could allow that piece of vacant land to be made use of by the farmers living around there, at least it will be a practical way of increasing food production, instead of Government just saying, "We will increase food production." In places where plots of vacant land are available - and I know there are - the farmers should be given fixed tenure of occupation of the land. The Government have of course built experimental roads for all these farmlands, but I think more of such roads could be built in order to help the farmers. During the Budget sittings I said that one direction in which the Government could help Singapore in food production would be fisheries. I was disappointed that the Government have not licensed more deep-sea fishing companies to go and operate in deep-sea fishing to catch more fish. In fact, many applications for licences for deep-sea fishing were turned down. I think once the enthusiasm of the applicants is gone, it will be difficult to ask them to come back and operate again. I would suggest to Government that it we cannot get our local capital interested in such a project, then we invite foreign capital. More fish will be landed here; at least our boys can be trained in deep-sea fishing. At least we will have a percentage of the earnings. All in all, Sir, Government should candidly tell the people, "We will help trade and industry." We may not have original ideas but we can follow our neighbours. We can declare, like the Federation or Sarawak, tax holidays for new projects. We can allow a percentage of the profit to be remitted back to the land where the capital comes from. We should also be prepared to take on our hands a survey of our needs so that we may be able to advise people who are interested to invest money here. It is no use telling the people, "Come and put your money into Singapore." What to put in? What do we need? And I think our needs cannot be ascertained until we have had that survey and until we have a permanent office to advise people who are interested. There are, I can assure you, plenty of people who have money but just do not know what best to be done with it and where to seek advice. If you publicise that section of the Ministry which can give advice, at least that will help. Another way would be to insert in the Press a note informing people that if they are prepared to come here and start new industries, we have the land available, as shown in Map A, or B or C, for whichever purpose. That will save these people a lot of trouble in having to find land to build their factories; but one factor may not be in the hands of the Government, because they always deny responsibility for that, and that is the passing of plans for factories and houses. That matter comes within the jurisdiction of the department which everybody complains about, and that is the Singapore Improvement Trust.

Order. Will the hon. Member indicate whether it is appropriate to suspend?

I will be taking some more time, Sir.

The sitting is suspended. I will take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.13 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Debate resumed on Question.

Mr Speaker, I was talking about the Singapore Improvement Trust. I think it has been most obstructive with regard to the building of factories and houses. I have never yet heard of anybody in Singapore saying a good word about the S.I.T. Whenever any plan gets into the S.I.T., you can count the months before it comes out again. Hon. Member: Yes.

In fact, in many cases, the plans get into the S.I.T. and come out again with a request about some slight alterations and then they get in again for another period of time and out again. In this manner, it has caused a great deal of delay. I know of one factory which submitted a plan for a factory and workers' quarters and the S.I.T. asked them to draw a line as a demarcation between the factory and the quarters for a playground for the children. It has gone inside there for months just for the drawing of a line - an imaginary line for the demarcation of a playground-and it has not yet come out. This is what I call an unnecessary delay which is aimed at discouraging these people from pushing on with their job and acting contrary to what the Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy) said about encouraging local industries. More serious than that, Sir, is that Singapore needs a lot of houses and we not only need the building of houses for the people by Government but also by private enterprise. Yet we find the Singapore Improvement Trust insisting on its own way of having the houses built. We know that Singapore has got very little land. We want to build the houses cheap so as to bring them within the reach of those who can afford to buy them and yet in Bulim Estate, the S.I.T. says, "You may build only one house on one acre of land. For every acre of land, you can build only one house and not a housing estate." That scheme was abandoned by the builder. What nonsense is this, Sir, obstructing the people to build more houses when the S.I.T. itself cannot build more for the people of Singapore! I know of another instance in Ponggol. A person wants to build houses for a few thousand dollars and yet the S.I.T. says, "You must have double the land for each house or else your plans will not be passed." And that means a great deal more money for those few who want to buy them. Again, that scheme was shelved. In such instances, Sir, I think the S.I.T. is not acting in accordance with the policy laid down by the Government. It is acting contrariwise. It is not assisting in the housing programme. Yet when questions of this sort are put to the Minister for Housing, (Inche Abdul Hamid) the reply is that the S.I.T. is out of his control. If the S.I.T. is going to act in this manner, then I think it is high time that it should be re-organised with saner people put there. In fact, I think in the S.I.T., the passing of plans, etc, is all in the hands of one single person. He has the say as to what Singapore must do and what Singapore must not do. All the plans are in the hands of one man. One man can say, "Yes" to the whole plan; one man can say, "No" to the whole plan. That does not make sense! At least, Sir, if it were a Board which has come to a conclusion after some consideration, it might be said that they had thought about it but to have one man controlling the destiny of Singapore in the matter of housing, I think it is really a shame that we should be prevented from providing more houses or encouraging more people to come and establish factories in Singapore. Now, Sir, I turn on to some more pleasant aspects of Government work. I must say that the Ministry of Education has done a good job. It has started night classes for those overage people who cannot attend day classes. It has opened up new avenues for those who cannot ordinarily study right up to Senior Cambridge or Chinese Middle III to study in the evening to bring their education up to a general standard. That is good. It has given the parents a choice of schools in which their children can go to. I think that is a sane step. But it must do more. This morning we passed amendments to the Penal Code, all aimed at getting at the gangsters. There will be no gangsters or they will die out if they get no recruits and the recruits that they are getting now are those people who cannot attend schools and who have nothing to do. I suggest, Sir, that this serious problem should be tackled not only from the point of view of strengthening our laws to deal with the criminals but also with positive action by the Government to help them. In column 8 of the Governor's Speech, you will read: "To provide for the leisure of Singapore's youthful population, a large expansion in youth clubs and youth organisation is in hand, and training courses are being given in Chinese, Malay and English." Of course, this paragraph does not give further details. I would say that this is the type of work that is done by the voluntary organisation called the Federation of Boys' Clubs. This is the work of that voluntary organisation in conjunction with the Government and I say that this organisation can do more and will do more if the Government will co-operate with them. I believe that not only must we allow the young people places like clubs and organisations to train them in games and other things but we can also start vocational courses whereby a boy can be taught a trade. I think if these boys can be taught a trade, then instead of frequenting undesirable places, they will be able to learn something. A boy who cannot go to school any further and who has no aptitude to learn will be able to learn something that will help him make a living. I have suggested this scheme tentatively to the Ministry and if they feel that this is useful enough to be pursued, I am prepared to pursue it further and assist the young people of Singapore to help themselves. That will, I believe, Sir, lessen the burden on Government in having to have more police to get rid of gangsters. In the matter of the other Ministries, Sir, I just want to touch upon the Ministry of Health. Government may have tried its best but I find that out-door dispensaries and clinics are still not sufficient. A large number of people going to these clinics have to wait for a long time and many are forced to go to private practitioners not because they have the money but because of the inconvenience they experience when they ask for treatment. If Government will also see to this, then I think it will assist the people who need such attention. All in all, Sir, I believe that the policy as outlined in the Governor's Speech should be supported by Government with actions and if actions are forthcoming, we expect to see greater progress and satisfaction from the public this year. 2.43 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am amazed at the omission in His Excellency's Speech of any reference to the City Council. Sir, it has now occurred to Members of the Assembly that the City Council has become the centre of the Government. The City Council today is what this Assembly was in 1955. It is unfortunate that nothing was mentioned in the Governor's Speech as to whether the Government approves or disapproves the activities of the City Council. In spite of the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat), the City Council, in my opinion, is doing a magnificent job. When I say the City Council is the centre of the Government, I mean that the City Councillors do not plan to go to the United Kingdom on pleasure trips on various pretexts of Government business or plan to settle down in various countries immediately they lose the next elections. The next point I want to bring forward is that the Hon. the Chief Minister referred to the "Marshall" law. He said that had it not been for the "Marshall" law, the subversive elements would have been all over Singapore. It is a matter of regret to me that the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) did not thank Mr Marshall for the "Marshall" law. Because of this "Marshall" law, the Member for Tanjong Pagar was able to get rid of some of the true, democratic and national elements of his Party in the name of subversion. For two years, sir, we sat here listening to the speeches of the Member for Tanjong Pagar of the honesty of the Party leadership, the same leader who sat back and saw his closest colleagues imprisoned and did not take any action except lament, and after seeing that, he followed the executioners to London and, signed the so-called tiga suku merdeka. He was not able to fight a by-election when his closest colleagues were imprisoned, even as a protest, but he was willing to fight a by-election to defend the colonial constitution.

The people voted for him.

Yes, the people voted for him and he was able to win the by-election only with the tiga suku support of the gangsters because he signed the constitution and came here and said that he had signed only a tiga suku merdeka..

You might throw a challenge yet!

Yes, a challenge. Sir, for the last two years whenever there was a chance, the Member for Tanjong Pagar used to mention about political spoils.

That hurts, does, it not?

Order.

If the P.A.P. is going to win the next elections - of course, I believe they are going to win - what share of political spoils is the Member for Tanjong Pagar going to take from his Party?

Makes you jealous!

Will it be a tiga suku support or satu suku, I do not know because by his Assembly speech after the City Council elections, Members could have noticed that the leadership is not here. It is somewhere else and you will all agree with me that when the P.A.P. wins the next elections, the Prime Minister is not in this Assembly, definitely not in this Assembly!

Like Southern Rhodesia!

His roaring speeches in this Assembly have become a mild attack on various things and I believe the leadership of the P.A.P. has gone to the Mayor of the City Council. I wish Mr Lee Kuan Yew will join with me-

Order. The hon. Member must not refer to a Member by name.

I hope the Member for Tanjong Pagar will join with me when I say, "Long live Mr Ong Eng Guan!" 2.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, normally sitting on this side of the House, we are expected to criticise the Government. I for one believe that credit should be given where credit is due. The Labour Front Government despite all its faults has done not too badly under difficult circumstances. The Member for Tanjong Pagar whom I respect, Sir, has lately been very boastful. He has challenged every other Party in Singapore and believes that the P.A.P. will win the next elections. If I am not mistaken, I think he also said that not only the P.A.P. will win but will also win in every division. That I think is a bit too much.

You might lose yours.

I will be very sorry if the prediction of the Member for Tanjong Pagar comes true. The P.A.P., Sir, have turned the City Council from a dignified centre for running the administration of the city into a forum for political propaganda.

Sir, on a point of order. Is the Member aware that the Governor's Speech on which we are debating was not written by the P.A.P.?

It is hardly a point of order.

Sir, they have created chaos and insecurity in the City Council and also in the minds of the general public. Singapore, I am sure, will be in a very sorrowful state if the P.A.P. were to win the next general elections. I hope that the people of Singapore will now wake up and realise that their common enemy as was supposed to be in the past is not the Liberal-Socialist Party but the P.A.P. As the merits and demerits of the Governor's Speech have already been expressed by other Members of this Assembly, I will not touch on it any more but I feel very strongly, Sir, that we must not criticise the Government just for the sake of criticism. We should have enough courage to give them credit if they have done well. 2.54 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the leader of my Party has covered His Excellency's Speech quite comprehensively. However, there is one very short paragraph on which I would like to comment. The paragraph is in column 7 which reads: "The drive to produce more home grown food will receive further impetus when the Sembawang Station starts operating and as the results of research now being carried out are made available to farmers." Sir, I think just telling the farmer how best to grow vegetables is not good enough. Sympathy without relief is like mustard without beef. It is no use demonstrating to the farmer the wonders of a mechanical plough when he cannot afford to own one. Having lived since childhood among the farmers, I can say, Sir, that if a little financial assistance can be given to the farmers, it will go a long way towards helping them. If the farmers' financiers commonly called shop-keepers can allow credit to the farmers without security at least the Government can give out small loans through the shop-keepers or the secret societies - I mean the co-operative societies.

You have got a wicked mind.

I have in mind the P.A.P. So I hope that Government will consider this proposition. 2.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have heard with interest so many speeches yesterday and today on the Governor's Speech. It appears to me that none of these speeches have any substantial criticism to offer the Government and in fact most of them support the Government's policy, though with some advice or other. I think the Government having realised that Singapore exists because of its trade has already hit the nail on the head and I think they are on the right path. The possibility of trade depends on the confidence and stability of the currency and the Government's assurance on this is particularly welcome. If trade is possible, it will enable us to have the revenue to finance all our planned measures - social, welfare, educational, health, housing and all other measures - designed to uplift or to maintain the well-being of our people. Furthermore, it affords a living to the capitalists, businessmen, clerks, labourers and professional men. Therefore, it could be seen that the importance of trade to Singapore is paramount. Government intends to encourage trade and industry and everybody knows that this is right. The success or failure of these measures of encouragement is however dependent, to my mind, on the mechanics of how this encouragement is to take place. Government is aware of the increasing population and it is very eager to encourage industries to supplement our all-important entrepot trade. It has established an Industrial Promotion Board and it is now proposed "to re-organise and strengthen the industrial section of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and the possibility of the present Industrial Board actively assisting in the promotion of large scale industries". We know, Sir, that the Industrial Promotion Board was initially put up to promote small industries. No doubt, the intention there was good. However, what the Industrial Promotion Board is really doing and how successful it is in this field is very little known. Any one of us with experience will know that the setting up of industries is only possible through the determination and readiness for hard work and can only be maintained by continued hard work. Only then, can they be able to maintain their existence from day to day and from hand to mouth. There are many industries which we know are practically impossible to introduce in Singapore because of acute competition from outside both in efficiency and in labour costs which are disadvantageous to us. Therefore, there is a danger that these Government Boards having been set up would find themselves in fact being unable to do anything and because they try to justify themselves of their existence would be spoon-feeding some of these industries without properly ascertaining the necessary efficiency and willingness for hard work of the owners. I have some experience of this, Sir, and I can quote one Rubber Packing and Shipping Board which is still existing and which, in many people's opinion, is quite unjustified. Therefore, these Boards, if unnecessarily put up, are a burden to the taxpayer because of the additional administrative expenses and in this connection, as I have just expressed myself to be apprehensive about, we have the failure of R.I.D.A. in the Federation which is another example. Turning to the entrepot trade, Sir, I think this trade was built, as in many industries, by the sheer hard work of the people and in fact by the vast majority of the businessmen here who were originally either clerks or labourers themselves. It is because of our facilities here, of our fine harbour and of the services given by our banking. insurance, storage and especially by our businessmen who through long years have learned to re-process whatever raw produce we get from the neighbouring territories to suit the world markets that Singapore has now attained its present status. Government has expressed that it would try its best "to encourage entrepot trade". This, of course, is very good also, but I think the basis for the entrepot trade has been built because of the free enterprise and the profit incentive which have encouraged people to take some risk. I think that where Government interference is not necessary in the matter of encouragement it should refrain as far as possible from meddling in the entrepot trade and allow the traders to do it for themselves. One thing however which Government can immediately help very much in the maintenance of this entrepot trade is to see that a fair rate of freight is being accorded to Singapore. We know that we depend very much on shipping. Now, some time ago, we had the very disturbing spectacle of seeing - I will quote one particular commodity - copra going from the Philippines to Europe at the rate of 110 shillings per ton whereas the shipping conference here was still charging us 241s. 6d. per ton. Of course, representations were made and the rate was reduced at one stage to 184 shillings and now to 136 shillings a ton which is still a long way above the freight rate of other places. There has been the question as to why copra does not come here. In the ordinary course of trading, in such circumstances, copra will not come here because if it comes here, it cannot all be consumed internally and even if it were turned into oil, it would still have to be re-exported with that handicap in freight to pay. So there is a very great danger that Singapore's trade would be at the mercy and in the firm grip of shipping conferences. We know that there is a world-wide recession in shipping freights but we have not yet noticed that freight charges either to or from Singapore have been reduced. Another instance in this connection is that I heard one hon. Member mention this morning about local shipping: there was a lot of produce which used to come from places like Borneo and Indonesia and landed here and which was re-processed and shipped to Europe. The shipping companies now are enabling this produce to be shipped direct on a through bill of lading to Europe, but using the free services of Singapore harbour storage to enable them to do so. This is the most important thing which I would like the Government to look into if we are not to be gradually cut off from our entrepot trade. Now coming to the elections next year or this year, from the businessman's point of view, I should say that business would have to take any Government that comes in. In fact, most businessmen have not much interest as to who is to govern next but they would certainly like to see that, whichever Party comes into power, it has a sense of responsibility as expressed in the Governor's Speech - a sense of responsibility to the livelihood of all the people here and not to one section of the people. As I say, most of the businessmen have built up their businesses here from scratch. Most of them were labourers and clerks before. By dint of hard work, they were able to achieve whatever they have now and if there is any sign that Singapore would be destroyed because of politics, then those who are most able to - the biggest ones - will be running away and those who cannot afford to run away, I am quite sure, will fight for their lives. Therefore, I should like all political Parties to bear this point in mind, that the livelihood of the people - capitalists, the average businessman, and every section of the people - should be guarded and not destroyed. If it were destroyed, not only would the present capital not be maintained here but outside capital would surely not be attracted here. Besides, as I said, Singapore thrives because of its services - the harbour, shipping and storage. If the services of these establishments were driven to be priced out of the world market, then there would surely be no trade here and if there is no trade here then everybody will be losing their livelihood. 3.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is nothing in His Excellency's Speech which is praiseworthy or brings out any achievements of the present minority Government. Sir, in the present Governor - the third Governor during the last three years of Government by a Coalition regime - we have an experienced man who has been in the previous Legislative Council and in the present Assembly. He has been promoted to the governorship of this island and he knows the pulse of every Member in this Assembly through his experience and mixing with us. Sir, before I comment on the Speech, I was rather amused at the remarks of the Hon. the Chief Minister (Dr Lim Yew Hock) on his ex-boss and also much more amused by the remarks of the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) against his co-partners on all the important issues during the last three years. Something has gone wrong somewhere; I do not know.

Perhaps you want to be the third Chief Minister!

But one thing is certain; such alliances do not mean stability of the Government. They become friends, break off, attack, do this and do that. Now, Sir, coming to the new constitution in His Excellency's Speech - I believe that this has been agreed to by the last All-Party delegation which went to England - it is a wonder why the three political Parties have not pressed the United Kingdom to send this new constitution earlier. It was the duty not of the Labour Front, because they would like to govern as long as they can, but as a duty the Opposition Parties could have pressed for it if they had wanted to. However, we are assured by the Hon. the Chief Minister that we will be getting a copy of the new constitution by the end of this month. Now, Sir, it is idle to talk of this new constitution because it has been agreed to already. This new constitution keeps Singapore still as a colony and introduces only some high-sounding words. As I have said before, we have no control of external affairs, foreign policy or defence in our hands. We cannot even have trade and cultural relations with other countries unless with the consent of the United Kingdom Government. But I would still advise that we accept this as the future basis to secure our independence by ourselves, or by the coincidence of a new war, or possibly by the establishment of a Commonwealth of Asian nations which might help us later; otherwise there is no salvation and we have to remain as we are. Sir, I hope that there will be no more delay and that we shall get the new constitution immediately. Now, coming to the subject of union with the Federation, it is inevitable. Everybody believes it and knows it but it is not possible at present. Everybody knows that too, why go on harping on the same subject every time? The Hon. the Chief Minister remarked that both territories are inter-dependent. I think that this is a fallacy; it is not correct. Singapore is dependent on the Federation, but not the Federation on Singapore. Why say something that is displeasing to them? What for? We have no raw materials of our own. Whatever we get is from other countries, more especially from the Federation, such as rubber, tin, copra, oil, and so on. They can ship their commodities direct. Even the limited companies formed here for rubber and tin, as time goes by, will shift to their place of origin, that is, the Federation, where production takes place. So our position is dependent on the Federation and we have to consider the Federation as our elder brother and continue to humour them as long as possible. Sir, on the subject of elections, I will leave this important subject to the last in my speech. Coming, Sir, to the achievements of the present Coalition Government, I do not think that there has been any of an extraordinary nature. What progress has been made in health, education, and so on was either laid down in the policy of the previous Government and it is the duty of the Government - or whoever is in power for that matter - to continue the progress made, and they are paid for it very well. Sir, coming to entrepot trade, my good friend the new Nominated Member (Mr Tan Siak Kew) has given good advice. He has had a lot of experience in trade for many, many years. I myself have been watching the entrepot trade since the last 44 years in Singapore. We have lived on the entrepot trade and if we want to exist, we have got to live only by the entrepot trade. We should try to keep it so, but as I have said before in this very House time and again that the countries who have become independent have direct trade treaties with producing, or manufacturing countries and that it is cheaper for them to avoid Singapore. Further if the costs are very high, we are certainly going to lose the entrepot trade. This trade can only be maintained by a stable Government and not by an un stable Government as it is at present. Sir, people talk about industries and foreign capital. Will any one come and invest his capital over here with all these troubles existing in this little city of Singapore plus an unstable Government? Why should anybody come here? Why should foreign capital come here at all? Unless you create a favourable climate for foreign industrialists to come over here, there is no reason for them to do so. On the other hand, Sir, even if an industry is started, as I said, the basic need for our products is cheap labour and production should be cheap so that we can compete with other producing countries and this is most difficult over here. But we can certainly do one thing and that is this: we can encourage the women or unemployed people or their children in cottage industries. We can let them have a marketing board and give them advances, and so on. That will keep the wolf from the door of the unemployed. But to talk big is nothing but nonsense. Sir, one gentleman on this side of the House touched on local coastal shipping. Local coastal shipping means ships owned by the people of Singapore or who at least own 51 per cent of the capital. If that is so, any government of any country - of course it has to be an independent country - will have legislation so that no other foreign ships will be able to engage in the coastal trade except those owned by its own country. It is then only that local shipping can thrive. I do not think that the colony is in this position at present. Possibly, a fully elected Government in September this year may be able to devise means by which local shipping can flourish. Sir, His Excellency has never mentioned the date of the next General Elections in his speech. In September 1956, when the Hon. the present Chief Minister (Dr Lim Yew Hock) took office he told us that his Government was only a caretaker Government with the knowledge that he had only ten elected Members on his side as against 15 elected Members in the Opposition. He has only 15 Members in all on his side as against 17 on this side of the House. Of course, they had the private support of the P.A.P. Besides nobody else was willing to take charge of the Government for a short period. We also wanted to give them a chance in the constitutional talks and we wished them `good luck'. But, Sir, a caretaker Government does not mean that it should continue in office from 6th September, 1956 up till now - not one day, one week or one year, but nearly two years now - and it now seeks to extend its office from September this year to next March. In his own words, Sir, the Chief Minister promised that the elections would definitely be held in April this year and then to a question put by an hon. Member on this side, the then Hon. the Chief Secretary (Mr W. A. C. Goode) said that the elections would be held in August or September this year. Now, Sir, what is the reason for the delay? We all know that many of the Members of this House who are drawing from $500 to $3,500 a month will not be here any more. Is their lust for power so great that they want to harm the country by sticking to their posts as long as possible? Sir, the controversy which I have read about in the Press is this, and His Excellency has also mentioned it. He said: "The time-table will depend on the preparation and enactment of the necessary constitutional instruments and legislation If the caretaker Government were honest, they could have introduced all this legislation earlier. Why wait? Then, Sir, District Council elections were to have been held in March, but now they are to be held in June. Why? It is the people's wish and nobody can prevent them from voting one way or the other. It is for them to choose, but for God's sake, elect a stable government, whatever Party it may be. We want stability, and the public will at least know that they have to deal with this Government only, and they are waiting for that day. Sir, the first phase of the Labour Front Coalition Government has been murder, riots and strikes. The second phase has been travelling, self-publicity and talking. I do not see any achievements - they are nil. If they have done anything good, well, it is their duty.

That is first-class!

They are paid for it! The public pay them for it. There is no credit. Sir, on the subject of education, I am glad the Member for Queenstown brought up the question of the omission of the Tamil language. I hope the Minister for Education will take note of this - that he should be fair to all the languages which have been accepted by this House and, if education is to be given, it must be given equally to all. Sir, the Government is driving out trade and industry, and is keeping the people in suspense. It is best for the Government to take steps to hold the elections in September. Three months or six months of sticking to their posts will do them more harm than good. 3.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is rather regrettable that I, the only Back-bencher on this side of the House, have to criticise the Government today, and I hope that my action will not be interpreted by the Member for Tanjong Pagar as another attempt to make a hole in the sinking ship. An hon. Member: Two holes!

No, because I believe the ship will float and must float to prevent extremist elements from getting hold of power for the coming five years, regardless of what happens in the next 50. It is for this reason that I want to speak on two subjects which I believe I know quite well. Another reason is that I believe this is the only way I can voice my opinion with any hope of effect, because my past pleadings to the Ministers have been falling on deaf ears. The two subjects which I am going to raise are the Singapore Improvement Trust and the Public Works Department. The Governor in his speech on 22nd April, 1955, said: "To further the carrying out of public housing and slum clearance, legislation will be introduced to set up a Housing Authority to replace the Singapore Improvement Trust." On 29th August, 1956, the Governor in his speech said: "Public housing development has hitherto been slowed down. To carry out this building programme, the Singapore Improvement Trust will be replaced by a Housing Authority." On the 9th April, 1958, the Governor in his speech said: "To carry out future building programmes, the Singapore Improvement Trust will be converted into a Development and Housing Authority and planning duties will be dealt with separately. Singapore has only 225 square miles of land. Population at present is 6,600 per square mile, and may by 1967 be 10,000 per square mile. Consequently, long-term planning is necessary to make sure that all land is used in the best way and not wasted." It is already three years since the Governor promised this House that legislation will be introduced to have a new Housing and Planning Authority, and today, three years later, we still have that kind of promise; and if we survive the elections next year, it is quite possible the same thing might be repeated in the Governor's Speech again. First, I would like to deal with the Singapore Improvement Trust. I endorse everything that has been said by the Member for Serangoon about the S.I.T. They are the most obstructive, the most corrupted organisation one can ever expect to have in Singapore.

Shame on the Government!

This corruption did not start only after the war. It started even before the war. I am sure everyone will remember how the then Manager of the Singapore Improvement Trust was conveniently found drowned beside the reservoir at the height of the investigation into Capt. Loveday's corruption, and today, with development more than ten times that of pre-war, one can come to the conclusion of the kind of harm the S.I.T. has done to Singapore. The Singapore Improvement Trust is the Housing Authority as well as the Planning Authority for Singapore. Let us start with the Housing Authority first. I am not going to be so unkind as Dr Foch who has criticised the housing put up by the Singapore Improvement Trust as being monotonous. I think, on the whole, it is not so badly designed. But what I would like to say is that the S.I.T. are most unrealistic. They are talking of having two bedrooms, a sitting-room, a dining-room, a kitchen and everything for the people. Yes, very good, I agree, but can you provide enough units? With the limited resources the S.I.T. has at its command, how many hundreds of years do you think the S.I.T. would take to provide anything near to the requirements of the people? Sir, I have seen housing throughout the world. If the S.I.T. were more realistic, I think they should adopt some things that Hongkong has done. I would not say their's is the best way of housing people, but the housing authorities in Hongkong are more realistic and they can cater for a much bigger number of people than can the S.I.T. today. The people are being housed in single units - by single units, I mean single rooms - an area of 10 feet by 12 feet, with common kitchens and bathrooms. I do agree that is not the best way of doing it, but it is a practical way. With the same amount of money you can house possibly four families instead of one family. Until you can do better, why not give them that type of housing today, instead of having, for instance, the recent fire at Lorong 3? And if we are not going to do anything, we may have many of these Lorong 3 fires to come. They had one a couple of years ago, they have had one very recently, and they may have many more. An hon. Member: God forbid!

Whether God forbids or not, it is a fact we must face. I can imagine what the S.I.T. are thinking about. They say, "We will plan an ideal town. We can possibly get a few medals from the Town Planning Society." But they forget that these medals are stained with the blood of the people of Singapore and that their children will be only too pleased to get rid of them. The S.I.T. just want idealism. What do they care for the people of Singapore? They will go away very soon from here. Now about the Planning Authority, as the Member for Serangoon has said, they are most obstructive. We know very well, as I said a moment ago, that with the limited resources at its command, the Government will never expect to solve the housing problem for Singapore for generations to come without assistance from the general public. So it is only to be expected that an organisation like the S.I.T. should assist in whatever way it could in developing the housing industry or whatever the requirements of this place demand. The S.I.T. ask for a lot of unrealistic requirements. Unless you are one of their gang- An hon. Member: Which gang?

Well, not your gang anyway-

Order. The hon. Member is forgetting himself. I do not think I belong to any gang.

I apologise, Sir. The question is this: the Planning Authority has a lot to do with the prosperity of this place, whether it is housing, schools or factories, and I would like to crave the indulgence of this House if I may be permitted to quote a few examples of the type of treatment which the public gets from the S.I.T. Take, for instance, a piece of land in South Bridge Road. One association wanted to develop it and build a number of shophouses and a few flats on it. The original application was submitted about 1950. When the application was presented to the S.I.T., they turned round and told the association, "Oh, you cannot do that. That land is required for a traffic island. It will be cut into half. What about changing over to the land opposite?" The association said, "Yes, since this is for the improvement of the town, we should co-operate with the authorities." After that, the S.I.T. said, "Oh, no, there is a difference in value. The opposite will be dearer." The association then said, "All right, then you get the City Assessor to assess the land." The Assessor said, "$10 a square foot extra." The association said, "All right, whatever it is, we are quite prepared to do it." This time, the S.I.T. said, "No, we do not need the traffic island any more. You start re-submitting your plan". When the association submitted their plan, the S.I.T. replied, "No, we are still not sure of the scheme. Can you wait six months or eight months?" The association said, "All right, we will wait eight months." After eight months, the S.I.T. said, "You can proceed with the scheme, but you must bear in mind that there will be a road overhead, 20 feet above the street, and provided you comply with that, we will approve the plan." When the association submitted the plan, they said this time, "Oh, no, the Master Plan considers that an ancient building must be preserved." And there you are stuck. So you can see, in 1950 the S.I.T. knew very well that the association wanted to turn that ancient temple into a modern building, yet today that half-fallen building is still there for everyone to see. Another case is about an application for a factory in the Tiong Bahru area. It is about eight years ago. The application was submitted to the S.I.T. but no reply was received from them. When the applicant asked, "Why do you not give us a reply?", they said, "Oh, we sent it to the wrong architect." Afterwards they said, "Oh, we cannot give you a reply. We want the land to develop some other building." Allowing that the Government should have preference over private requirements, yet today the empty land is still there. If you are in their group, you can get everything done. You can always get away with murder. If you are not, then everything is wrong because, as one member of the Board of the S.I.T. told me, "The power given to them is shocking." If you apply to the S.I.T. for permission to build a factory on a piece of land just outside the so-called factory area which is of their own making - no one knows what it is and how far it extends - they say, "Oh, yes, since you are a friend, we will just lift the line and include your piece of land. All right, it is approved." If you are not, they say, "Oh, no, your land is just outside the factory area." And if you talk too much, they will just lift the line and put the centre on the land and render it useless. If you appeal to the Governor - there is no appeal to the courts - then the Governor will write back to the S.I.T. and the S.I.T. will advise the Governor accordingly, and you get nowhere. Someone may ask why those who drew up the legislation should make it in such a way. Well, I think I can tell you why, because those who drew up the legislation then knew very well they were in it. When they were in it, they knew that through their influence they could get whatever they wanted. It is because they can get what they want and others cannot that they can make money. Another complaint is that the S.I.T. never give you the reason in writing for disapproving your application, so there is no proof. If they disapprove your application, they say, "You can always come and interview the Manager." I have interviewed the Manager four times on the same case, and four times he gave me different reasons. The S.I.T. do not give you a reason for disapproval in writing because it is very convenient for them to do so. The S.I.T. do not give you a reason for disapproval in writing. They can favour their friends when they come, or they are offered a big enough prize to do so. Such is the S.I.T.- and yet that kind of organisation is allowed to remain with this Government for three years! Every time we ask the Ministry, "What are you going to do about it?", they say, "The expatriate officers are objecting." I can understand why they are objecting, because their grabbing opportunities are about to come to an end; because they know their days are numbered, and if they do not grab now, they have no chance of grabbing any more. That is the reason for this delayed legislation and unless it is brought up very soon, I think I will have to introduce a motion to amend the S.I.T. Ordinance and take out the absolute powers given to them. Another point that I wish to raise is the Public Works Department. The P.W.D. is known throughout Singapore for building the most expensive buildings they can ever think of, because it is public money, and if those who are in control of building do not make the cost as high as possible, how can they squeeze anything out of it? Remember that you cannot squeeze water out of a stone. Fortunately we have a Financial Secretary who is most sympathic-

What is he suffering from?

Sympathetic. I have managed to persuade him to see some three bedroom flats with all the proper finishes costing less than $20,000 each, whereas the P.W.D. ask for more than $50,000 for an ordinary assistant doctor's flat. During the Budget debate on the question of the Polytechnic, I asked that a commission be set up. What did the Government do? They appointed an expatriate officer, an ex-architect of the P.W.D., giving him $8,000 to do a two months' job. When I asked the Minister, "Why do you pay him so much money?", his reply was, "If I do not pay him in a lump sum, he might take years to do it. That will be more expensive." If the Minister had so little confidence in that expatriate officer, do you not think it is quite possible that if a person slipped a few thousand dollars in his hand he would make an entirely wrong report, different from what the actual situation was? I appealed once to the Minister to have a committee set up to enquire how to cheapen the cost of building. I, for one, am prepared to challenge the Minister or any of his experts to a public debate on the P.W.D., without the protection of the privileges of this House, at any time, any place and anywhere.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday one of the Members of this House criticised the morale and efficiency of the police and claimed that the public has entirely no confidence or faith in the police, especially the detectives. Sir, there is no foundation or truth in this statement. I am not surprised at this statement at all, for there are many people in Singapore who believe that there is no need at all for a police force. Sir, relations between the people and the police have been disturbed first by the first world war and then by the emergency. In recent years the police have steadily built up public confidence. Adequate measures have from time to time been taken to see that the police - public co-operation is maintained at a high level. In a democratic country, Sir, it is wrong for the Government to resort to either Fascist or Communist methods for the prevention and detection of crime. Government is taking the natural cure through firm education, which is the only lasting and worthwhile measure. Government is doing its utmost to educate the people. Already the police are taking a big part in the frequent civics courses run by the Department of Information Services. Police officers are lecturing in schools, at rural district committees and community centres. I am sure hon. Members, are aware that these lectures have done good to the people. I am reliably informed that the police have received favourable reactions as a result of these lectures. The police are trying to get more public telephones for emergency reports, and it is pleasing to note that the mobile police stations which were in use recently have been extremely useful to the people. Efforts to break down the mistaken idea that the police are in any way different from the people have been made. Talks by the police officers drawn from the various units they belong to about the inside of their work and how they can help the public are being organised. This will also illustrate the normal every-day contacts of the police with the public. The Department of Information Services will take tape recordings of these talks in all vernacular languages and broadcast to the people throughout the length and breadth of Singapore. The radio and Rediffusion will assist in our campaign with programmes on the police background. Radio Malaya will also ask listeners for questions on police matters and will build up Question and Answer programmes. Dramatised shows are also planned on the theme - Police at your service - to stimulate the people's interest. Four films of police work are in the making. These will be shown throughout the island of Singapore. We are also seeking the co-operation of theatre management in the city as well as in the rural areas to show these films to the people. Besides these, the Department of Information Services will show them in various parts of the rural areas in Singapore. A poster competition has been initiated by the Government to illustrate the slogan "Citizens fight the extortion evil", and I hope that the people will enter this competition and make it a success. It is hoped, Sir, that these efforts, which are designed to promote co-operation between the police and public, will be a success and through this education young people will not be attracted to gangsterism. Sir, this is the answer to Members who spoke on secret societies and the methods which the Government is taking to educate the people to understand police activities. Sir, as a Member of the Assembly, I would like to participate in the debate. Some Members of the Opposition have clearly indicated that they are not interested in any of the plans envisaged by the Government in the coming months. But as far as I am concerned, Sir, I particularly attach great importance to the Rural Development Panel which the Government will be setting up shortly. For a very long time in the rural areas there has been no co-ordination to stimulate the rural economy and to raise the standard of living of the rural dwellers. So the Rural Development Panel will be particularly welcomed by them. In the rural areas particularly there are very many roads which need immediate attention, roads which would help to raise the standard of living of the agricultural workers-

Order. Moment of interruption. Further consideration, what day?

Tomorrow, Sir.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[The Chief Minister]. Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Four o'clock p.m.