Hansard, 1958-04-24

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23rd 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. 10.02 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Assembly adjourned yesterday, I was mentioning about the Government's efforts to improve the living conditions of the people in the rural areas. I quoted two very outstanding efforts in this direction, namely, the road development plan and the Rural Development Panel. Besides these efforts of the Government to improve the lives of the people, Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister has introduced the Factories Bill which is designed to protect the welfare of the working people in the factories. All this is evidence to prove that the Government is quite earnestly endeavouring to bring prosperity to the people of Singapore. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, Sir, referred in his speech - I quote the Straits Times of 23rd April: "Referring to the Labour Front Government, he said the party had never grown up from what it was when a group of individuals got together to fight an election and got the surprise of their lives when they became Ministers. They never recovered from the shock." I think all these achievements of the Labour Front go on to prove that the Labour Front Coalition Government - "the ship" he referred to is safe and sound, and that it is sailing along smoothly in the best interests of the people. But while the Government is endeavouring to do that, the P.A.P. does not want to do anything about those achievements. They are only interested to know when the elections will be held. This means that the P.A.P. is not interested in the welfare of the people; it is only endeavouring to seek power. We know this; the people of Singapore know it; and I am happy indeed that there are signs to indicate that the people have realised fully the implications of the Member's speech. Sir, the Government cannot easily give way to the political passions of the P.A.P. It cannot give up its duty to the public. If the hon. Member felt that the ship is sinking, and if the Member can contribute anything to make it safer, I would invite him to join the Labour Front. Failing that, I would request him to mind his own business in the P.A.P. and not try to meddle in the business of the Labour Front. Sir, the hon. Member also mentioned the over-optimism of his Party's achievements in the forthcoming Legislative Assembly elections. Sir, if only the P.A.P. knew its weakness, it would not boast so much. I am hopeful that even the Member for Tanjong Pagar will admit that the P.A.P. policies have antagonised the people to a very considerable extent. Workers, farmers and hawkers - everybody in Singapore - are completely frustrated. The P.A.P. is gradually losing its faith in the coming elections. The people, too, have completely lost confidence in the P.A.P. For instance, the wise policy of the Labour Front Government has been responsible for winning over all the Chinese middle and primary school students who once backed the P.A.P. to its side. The working population of Singapore are also dissatisfied with the P.A.P. Sir, the Labour Front Government has always tried to foster good relationships between the employers and the employees. It has been responsible for the promotion of genuine trade unionism in Singapore. Once, the P.A.P. said the same thing. That was when they were not in power either in the Assembly or in the City Council. They had been responsible for telling workers to demand more money and better conditions of service. But today what do we find? They shun trade unionism and they try to make use of the workers for their own interests. Sir, I am not making a guesswork of the whole thing; I have solid proof of this, and I think the people of Singapore also have evidence to prove this. Sir, the first act of the P.A.P. Councillors in the City Council against trade union interests was this: when the City Council Labour Unions Federation started negotiations with the City Council, the City Council very willingly accepted but when it found that the Unions were not toeing their line, it decided to send its agents to individual workers to split the unity which was existing in the City Council Labour Unions Federation. As a result, P.A.P. agents went into individual houses of the labourers and asked them to accept the proposals put forward by the P.A.P. Councillors. Sir, I think this is a very bad act and I do not think for a moment that this kind of trade union policy is good for this country. Again, there is evidence to show that the P.A.P. has tried to split the trade union movement in Singapore and to disrupt its unity. Sir, I am now reading a press release which was issued by the Information Bureau of City Hall, dated 22nd March. It states: "The Chairman of the Labour Sub-Committee, Mr Ong Pang Boon, is happy to announce that 70 per cent of the redundant workers in the City Gas Department have today accepted the Council's ...". Sir, this was an attempt to break "black legs" in the trade union movement, disrupting the trade union movement in Singapore. This is undemocratic.

Yellow unions!

Sir, I do not think that in the history of the Labour Front Government, it has ever engaged people to go out and see workers against a recognised trade union. We have kept our faith with the working people, but today the so-called champions of labour in Singapore are trying to disrupt the healthy trade union movement in Singapore. Sir, there are also allegations which I received from City Council employees that P.A.P. agents are propagating communalism among the workers. I have heard it said and workers complain to me that the Chinese members of the trade unions have been told, "These 8,000 Indian employees have got an independent country and they can very well go off, and we are going to stick firm to our terms and if we win the day we will see that we will replace them with Chinese and Malay labour." I do not think, Sir, this is a very healthy sign in Singapore. This happened in the Naval Base; this happened in the Harbour Board; and this will happen wherever the P.A.P. has influence in the trade union movement. All this, Sir, is proof to show that the P.A.P. has completely failed in its policy towards the labour movement in Singapore. Sir, the P.A.P. can only fool some people some time but they cannot fool all the people all the time. The people of Singapore, particularly the trade union people, now realise that all the empty promises all the empty policies which the P.A.P. normally urge before they get into power, will not be fulfilled when once they get into power. This is a solid and concrete example of its policy. Briefly, Sir, I think the P.A.P. trade union policy is to enslave the trade union people on to its side and make them work as slaves. I do hope that those trade union people in the City Council, in the Harbour Board and in the Naval Base, who have suffered under the P.A.P. trade union policy, will realise where their loyalties should lie. Sir, I have heard it said that even if the P.A.P. gets a few seats in the Assembly to form a government, it is not preared to form a government. It is afraid of forming a government and face the people. It prefers to continue in opposition and to do the same kind of talking as it is used to. Sir, the activities of the P.A.P. in recent months have resulted in a genuine fear among the minority communities in Singapore. Recently, one of the P.A.P. leaders in the City Council asked a minority member - an Indian member - to pack up all his things and go to India if he so wishes. The P.A.P. has tried to meddle with the Malays. Sir, very many minority community members have approached me and posed me questions as to their future in Singapore. I have assured them that under a Labour Front Coalition Government, they have nothing to fear. But they are not satisfied. They are not satisfied because of the tactics of the P.A.P. in its treatment of minorities. Sir, that genuine fear can be seen in writing if one goes outside the Victoria Memorial Hall. The Singapore Indian Congress has called out at a public meeting demanding reserved seats in this Assembly. I do not personally support reserved seats in this Assembly because I believe that communalism has no place in Singapore. But all these demands have now come out as a result of the fears of the minority communities in Singapore if a future government which is opposed to them gets into power. Before I sit down, Sir, I have to reply to some of the remarks which the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has made. Unfortunately he is not here to listen to me but I do hope that he will read my statements if the newspapers publish them. Sir, the hon. Member has referred to the sad sights he has seen in which the junior ministers of the Government throw stones at the sinking ship to make it sink faster. I have already told this Assembly, Sir, that the Labour Front ship is safe and sound; it is not sinking. And I would assure him that my relations with the Ministers and Party members are very, very cordial, and I would serve my Party and the Ministers loyally and faithfully for ever. I have been a front-line soldier in the struggle for freedom for this country for so many years, and I have undergone several sacrifices in the best interests of the people. I think the Member has tried to throw a spanner into the works and to disrupt the unity which we have achieved among us. Had it not been for the fact that the P.A.P. leaders waged constant war on individual leaders of the Front and poisoned its members against the Front, the P.A.P. would not have survived. The P.A.P. today, divorced from the anti-British supporters of the M.C.P. members and subversive elements is not worth its name, and all their hopes of winning the 51 seats in the Assembly will remain nothing but empty dreams. 10.19 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whenever the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar speaks in this House, we can always rely on hearing something new. The day before yesterday, the hon. Member gave us a lengthy discourse on how to catch votes. He gave us a brilliant analysis of why, as he alleged, the Labour Front was on its way out. He accused the Labour Front, Sir, not of not doing enough for the people - he has admitted many times in the past that the Labour Front has done a lot of good things - but he accused the Labour Front of failing to capture the imagination of the people. Now therein lies the fundamental difference between us and the P.A.P. The hon. Member believes in firing the imagination of the people to catch votes. He even cited examples of action which his Party has taken in the City Council, like the removal of the mace and perhaps the firing of crackers. Why, even the ex-Chief Minister goes about brandishing hammers all over the place, and he has got his henchmen shouting slogans, `We are leftists! We are leftists!' - as if leftist is a pass-word to gaining access to this Assembly. `We are leftists! We are leftists!' by people who depend on trade and commerce for their livelihood, who depend on the flow of trade; they go about shouting `We are leftists, we are leftists'! And brandishing hammers all over Singapore! All very well indeed, Sir, I say, to fire the imagination of the people, but what then? Will the people eat slogans? Do they live on slogans? Do they live on strings of crackers? Do they earn their livelihood by waving hammers in public places? We, Sir, do not believe in these empty things. In fact, that is the fundamental difference between us and the P.A.P. or the ex-Chief Minister's hammer brandishing "heroes". We believe in serious work. We believe in doing things for the people, in providing education, housing, medical facilities, in broadening the basis of our economy, so that these slogan - calling people of today will find jobs tomorrow when their ardour for waving hammers and shouting slogans has cooled off and hunger gnaws at their insides. Sir, it is time the people of Singapore are told the truth. It is time the people of Singapore realise that dark clouds are already looming on the economic horizon. It is time they realise that all this shouting of "isms" is not going to fill their stomachs. It is time they realise that if they follow this talk of right, left, left, right, they are very soon going to left, right, left, right themselves to destruction! Just as Hitler's army goose-stepped itself out to oblivion. It is time the people realise, Sir, that the only possible "ism" in Singapore is "practicalism", or "realism", if you like. What, Sir, is the purpose of our politicians? Is it to gain seats for themselves in the elected Assembly? Is it to fill their pockets? Is it the lust for power? The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, Sir, says that it is to capture the imagination in order to catch votes. Then let the people beware of such politicians. For my part, Sir, I am proud to say that I am a businessman by vocation and that I am not a politician, because there is nothing so dangerous as a professional politician who will go to any length to retain his seat. He will not stop at anything. He will lie, he will plot, even betray his Party, his loyalty, just to keep his seat, because to him it means his livelihood - he needs his seat to earn his so many hundred dollars or so many thousand dollars if he becomes a Minister. But does it do any good to the country? My Party, Sir, stands for Singapore, not for the reactionaries, not for the revolutionaries - these are hackneyed words, Sir, that can be twisted by politicians as they please - words which really have no meaning in an entrepot trading centre like Singapore. Sir, we believe in good government. As an example that anyone in Singapore can see - all the statutory boards and committees - we have not stuffed them with people just because they are loyal to the Labour Front. We have put people on these boards whom we consider are capable of running those boards and undertakings, not caring whether they belong to whatever Party, whether they are in the opposition, whether they wave hammers, or go about with lightning banners, or go about with torches. Sir, there is an example which is fresh in the mind of everyone in Singapore. The Central Provident Fund - a few days ago we read that the City Council was floating a loan of $30 million and it was said that the Central Provident Fund has promised its support. Sir, if the Government wished it, it could have put pressure on the Central Provident Fund not to lend its money to the City Council, and thereby prove to the citizens of Singapore that the Central Provident Fund Board has no faith in the City Council. But for the sake of good government, we, Sir, do not stoop to such levels of pulling strings behind the scenes. We do not pack the boards with our Labour Front members. We let the boards operate of their own free will. Even, Sir, against pressure from the Member for Serangoon a few months back for the Beehoon Co-operative Society, asking me to put pressure on the Industrial Promotion Board - I point-blank refused to do so. It is true, Sir-

On a point of clarification, Sir - I certainly have not been putting pressure on the Minister because pressure would not do any good, but it was persuasion on my part to see whether he would see the right path to fulfil a promise made by him.

Thanks to the Member, Sir, for clarification - "persuasion" can be in inverted commas. But, Sir, I have not made such a promise because in fact legally I have no right to ask the Board to fulfil any promises I make. Otherwise it could mean I could make promises to so many people: "vote for me and I will get all the money for you from the Industrial Promotion Board." If we come to that stage, Sir, then I say that Singapore is not worth living in, and therefore I refuse to meddle. When I set up a board, I say, let the board work according to its own conscience. We heard criticism yesterday of the Singapore Improvement Trust delays and I have all along personally been sympathetic with the criticism, because I myself have fought the S.I.T. for five years during my political career, over delays. And I say that just because a board is under the control of a particular Minister, that is no excuse for the Minister to defend it. If that board does things wrong, let it get public criticism.

Abolish it!

It is going to be abolished. Sir, in short we stand for Singapore and the good of the people of Singapore, and we will go to the people, Sir, on the past performance of the Labour Front. We will go to the people, Sir, telling them honestly what the future is, and what the remedy for the future is, and how far that remedy can succeed, and what are the pitfalls in the future. In these days, Sir, of dishonest, power-seeking, budding dictators, this may sound unbelievable, but it is true. We are not going to thrust ourselves on the people with lies and slogans to fire their imagination. We are going to be frank and honest with them. If they still wish to choose dishonest slogan-shouting fanatics, it is their funeral. They can have the choice and they are welcome to it. I for my part, Sir, am entirely against politics as they are today, with all the dishonesty that is going on in politics today. And it is not only our misfortune, Sir, that politics are dishonest; it is the misfortune of many other countries in Asia today, where there are politicians who are out for power and for personal gain. I, Sir, quote what the President of the Republic of Pakistan said on 23rd March. This is what he said: "Pakistan is riddled with insincerity, disloyalty and lack of consistency. Self is universally above service."- How true also of Singapore- "All that matters is the craze to make money or gain power."- And I can tell the House one thing: the man who holds my seat in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry can make a fortune if he wishes to; and perhaps there are many who are after it just for the sake of making money. [Interruption].

Order.

It is true. I am not speaking of any particular person, but there are many; I can see on the political horizon many figures who are just out to fill their pockets if they can get hold of that ministry. Then the President of Pakistan goes on to say - no - the Prime Minister of Pakistan has this to say, Sir: "I cannot help reminding you that the economic difficulties with which the country is faced are due to a large extent to unstable political conditions." Again how true of Singapore; not because this Government is unstable because it has not got an elected majority. That is a lie. Stability is not the word. This Government is quite stable. It has carried on for two years and it is going to carry on for another year. But it will not, if as the Chief Minister said we find that our purpose for governing is over. We are not going to occupy those seats if we are not wanted. Instability here means instability created by these budding dictators who shout their heads off with leftism, rightism, this-ism, that-ism. "The paramount need" - I quote again, Sir, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, "The paramount need of the moment is sound and stable political conditions within the country, and unless we have such conditions, it is futile to hope that we can bring about balanced economic conditions." Hear, hear, I say! "Politicians are perpetually engaged in unprecedented political manoeuvring." How true! We have people crossing the floor of this House left and right, right and left, and who even will bring in a hammer if Mr Speaker will allow so. "This absorbing game of permutation and combination in which various political groups have been indulging in with such abandon must cease. We should know that this pastime no longer evokes any response except one of disgust at home and amusement abroad." In our case, Sir, it is not just amusement abroad, it is our livelihood; it is cutting off our stomachs.

Will the Minister identify those papers?

Sir, this is from a Pakistan press release dated 23rd March - both of them are dated 23rd March - and this was quoted in the local newspapers but I could not lay my hands on the local newspapers. Sir, even the Prime Minister of India, the man whom every Asian today respects as one of the biggest leaders of Asia, he, speaking of his own Congress Party, one of the biggest political parties in the world, said this, "We are worried about many things and most of all about the lowering of standards of political behaviour." This is from the Straits Times of 5th April. What matters to us, Sir, is that Singapore has the same problems. Democracy unfortunately is probablly not as suitable here as it is suitable in some countries in Europe. Perhaps we start with democracy but we might end up with dictatorship - with these goose-stepping, left-right, left-right, slogan-shouting, hammer-waving fanatics. Let us hope that democracy is not killed at the inception.

I endorse it.

Sir, in Singapore we have people who are out to exploit emotions. Emotionalism is their stock-in-trade for they have nothing better to offer. You have the hammer-waving ex-Chief Minister calling loudly for trade representation in China - an issue that is calculated to arouse the emotions of the Chinese people: `Our motherland, our fatherland, we must have trade representation.' Naturally they will support the man who says, `We must have trade representation in China.' Then somebody else starts shouting, `Minority seats for the Indians' and so on. Does the ex-Chief Minister justify the need for trade representation in China? What likely benefit is this going to bring to Singapore? He does not state that our trade, our imports are much more than our exports to China. He does not state that the Chinese Government's policy is to purchase direct from producing countries and therefore since we have nothing of our own to send to China she is not going to buy from us more. The only profit will be to China to sell more consumer goods to us, goods which are not costed, which are produced with cheap labour, like the eggs, and dumped on our market. And that will mean that in the end our labour will have to cut down its wages and lower its standard of living. Then what happens? This is muddled thinking, muddled thinking which is misleading the people of Singapore. Then we also have this hysteria about the postponement of general elections by a few months, if compulsory voting was introduced. Sir, we have waited one hundred years to get rid of colonialism, but these hammer-waving fanatics, and even for that matter the hon. Member for Telok Ayer, cannot even wait a few months more in order to ensure that the democratic right of voting is exercised by everyone who is eligible to exercise such a right. Sir, the Member for Telok Ayer and the hammer-waving fanatics are at one with each other in this respect. Mr R. Jumabhoy (Telok Ayer) rose -

Is it a point of order? Mr R. Jumabhoy resumed his seat.

This is not the first time, Sir-

Order. No point has been raised. Please continue.

Sir, these people have no patience. They want to get at the plums of office immediately but they have no constructive economic policy. Sir, I challenge the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar - I am sorry he is not here but I am sure that it will be conveyed to him by his colleague (the Member for Ponggol-Tampenis) - I challenge him, Sir, to come to this House and debate the economic policy of the P.A.P., what the P.A.P. is going to do on the economic front if it gets into power. So far the P.A.P. has talked in broad outlines, but what is its true economic policy? It has never publicly announced, "We are going to do this, we are going to do that." In fact, most of these Parties, what they do is they talk in broad outlines and just in order to get into power, play on the sympathies of the people on emotional issues, shout about colonialism which is a dead horse already and flog it. That is all they can do. Let me warn the House, Sir, and let me warn the people of Singapore, that the future is bleak as far as economic conditions are concerned, and that that is going to affect every man, woman and child in Singapore. It is not just a matter for those sitting in this House or for those who carry on trade. It is a matter for every man, woman and child. They earn their livelihood because of the economic prosperity of the colony. If that prosperity goes, they are sunk. And I am not going to be a partner, Sir, to that sort of destruction. Sir, in England when the Nazi bombers were hammering away at England in the battle of Britain, Sir Winston Churchill said all that he could promise was blood, sweat and toil. Blood we have had, Sir. Not much, some; but if we are not going to sweat and toil from now on and forget all this nonsense about isms and slogans, we are going to get more blood, Sir, more blood - secret society activity, gangsterism, murders and, possibly, riots, because when men's stomachs are empty they will go to any length to fill them.

Then the P.A.P. will come into power.

I say, Sir, let us forget all this nonsense. Let us get together. The time has come for all good citizens who are honest to get together in saving Singapore from dishonest politicians.

Hear, hear!

Coming down to more mundane affairs, Sir, of day-to-day administration - the hon. Mr Sutherland piously hoped that every Party will improve and encourage capital investment. It is with tongue in cheek, Sir, that politicians talk of encouraging capital. I remember, Sir, a delegate from Hongkong to the ECAFE Conference went to see his Lordship or Worship - I do not know the right term - but he went to see the Mayor, and the Mayor agreed with him that we need more capital here, we need industrialisation. Yet - I am sorry, Sir, that the Member [for Tanjong Pagar] has just come in - yet what is his Party doing? What steps is it taking to see that capital investment is encouraged? All the actions that it takes and all the actions that its rank and file take - some even following hammer wavers of another Party-

Order. The Minister is perhaps getting a little too excited. I cannot allow pointing at Members, at the same time using the pronoun "his" - I think it is the Member for Tanjong Pagar.

I am sorry, Sir, but when I think of the damage that is being done to Singapore, I cannot contain myself.

Address the Chair, Mr Minister.

Yes, Sir. Sir, all these politicians who talk with tongue in cheek of encouraging capital, of encouraging investment in industry - are they really doing it? They are killing all initiative for capital to come here.

Incentive; the Member has got it mixed up.

Order. Let us not have unnecessary interruptions.

I am not an expert in the colonial language, Sir, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar evidently seems to be, together with other colonial addictions like golf, and beer and Studebakers. The hon. Mr Sutherland expressed another hope that the Industrial Promotion Board should develop now into something bigger than what he called "a pilot scheme". Sir, let me remind him that I wanted to set up something bigger from the very beginning. This Board is just an apology, because I could not get the bankers and insurance companies to come in and participate with Government on a fifty-fifty basis for industrial development. If the hon. Mr Sutherland can use his good offices I will be very happy to sit down and discuss and find ways and means of enlarging this proposition. Sir, the Member for Ponggol-Tampenis suggested that the Labour Front has gone all-out to achieve a lot during its fourth year, and he asked why could it not have done this before? Perhaps, Sir, that is lack of understanding. There are many things which need a lot of time in planning, and when the planning stage is finished, then only can you bring it to accomplishment. And therefore the first few years have got to go into planning these things. When things are ready, they appear on the stage. The appearance on the stage is always at the last minute. The planning takes a much longer time than the showing on the stage. The hon. Member for Queenstown, Sir, was shouting at the portion in His Excellency the Governor's Speech which said that the Government, with the assent of the United Kingdom Government, would decide on trading relations with other countries - or words to that effect. He was not aware, Sir, of this portion in the White Paper which was published when the All-Party Delegation returned - perhaps I may quote it for his benefit: "We recognised, however, in our discussions on this subject that international law made it impossible to create an `international person' responsible only for certain specific fields of external affairs of any one territory, with the result that so long as the United Kingdom Government remained responsible in international law for the external affairs of Singapore, they could be held ultimately responsible for any agreements made by the Singapore Government." And so on; then it continues: "We therefore agreed, particularly in order that the exercise by the Singapore Government of the powers delegated to them should not be called in question by other Governments with whom they might negotiate, that the Constitution should provide that the Singapore Government would act in these matters with the assent of Her Majesty's Government. "We therefore agreed that the Constitution should contain a provision on the following lines:- Her Majesty's Government to have the conduct of external defence and external relations, provided that the Government of the State of Singapore, acting with the assent of Her Majesty's Government, shall have the power to initiate and conduct matters ..." That, Sir, is part of the agreement. It is nothing new that has popped out of Pandora's Box. The Member for Queenstown goes on to talk about our fishing industry. "How can you encourage local fishermen when you also encourage foreign fishing companies?" Sir, fisheries is something different from many other things. Fish is the cheapest form of protein that could be made available for the people in general. People like the Member for Queenstown could probably go and buy more expensive types of proteins like pork or mutton or beef, but the poor people have to depend largely on fish for their proteins. And therefore it is Government's duty not to restrict activities just for the sake of safeguarding the livelihood of 4,000 inefficient local fishermen. It is Government's duty to see that the catching of fish-

Has the Government done anything?

-is efficient. It is true, that the supplies of fish are thereby increased so that the price of fish comes down but people in general can now get a type of protein which is available at prices which they can afford to pay.

They are inefficient because -

Order. I think the habit has arisen of unseemly interruptions. If the hon. Member for Queenstown thinks he has been misunderstood, then he can rise, and I am sure the Minister will give way for an explanation. But a murmured interruption, I think, is disorderly.

Sir, he said that the training scheme we have cannot succeed because of inadequate salaries, and he suggested pre-sea training schools. Sir, pre-sea training schools are a costly affair, and I do not think that we have the right kind of material for those schools yet. But we are planning to have courses in our village schools now, schools in the rural areas, on fisheries, on agriculture and so on. That is being prepared now and I hope it can be put into operation shortly. But as regards the salaries paid by the Japanese companies to local trainees, he said they were inadequate. That is not so; those salaries were fixed by the Apprenticeship Training Committee. However, for his enlightenment, I will quote these figures, Sir, to show the type of material we have in Singapore. The total number of trainees recruited in 1957 was 170; the number of trainees resigned after less than one month, 41, or 24%; number of trainees resigned after one month, 26, 15%; number of trainees resigned after two to three months, 28, 16%; number of trainees resigned after four to six months, 19, 11 %; number of trainees resigned after seven to twelve months, 4, 2%; number of trainees still in service, 52, 32%; but out of the 52 trainees still in service, 33 have been in service for only one month, 13 for periods ranging from two to six months, and six only for periods exceeding six months. In other words, out of a total of 170 trainees recruited, only six trainees, or 3½%, can be said to have taken on the idea of serious training for these offshore fishing projects. The wastage is 96½%. Now, Sir, with this type of material-

On a point of clarification, Sir. The reasons for these mass resignations are entirely due to the fact that they are not given proper training and not given the proper type of work that they are supposed to be training for. As I said yesterday, they were used as deck-hands and similar work - is that the proper type of training?

That, Sir, is not so. Whenever somebody is inefficient, he blames somebody else. It is like using "colonialism" for hiding inefficiency. When you have nothing else to offer the people, you say, Colonialism, leftism, this-ism, that-ism, that is all! It is not so, Sir. These people do not want to work. That is true, and nothing that we do about it is going to make them. Sir, these people go out to the sea. First voyage they go out, they come back and say, "We cannot stand the sea, we cannot stand the sea; the China sea is too rough." If that is the type of trainees we are going to have in Singapore, God help Singapore, I say, Sir. We have got to produce hardier types of youngsters - youngsters who will fight to keep their place in the world. This is not the type of material and that is why I say that we want to start with the villagers in the rural areas, teach them the fundamentals of fishing, of agriculture and so on. And then give them the training - not these people. Even if you pay them a higher salary, you will not get the right type of men. On the industrial front, hon. Members may be happy to hear that the Chief Minister has issued a circular to heads of Government departments, and all the Ministers have issued similar circulars to heads of statutory boards and committees within their control and attached to that circular is a confidential approved list. For items on this approved list, whenever they are purchased by any of these bodies, they are forced by compulsion to buy only local manufactures. Formerly they had a choice. A circular had been issued by the ex-Chief Minister saying preference must be given, but from my experience - from bitter experience - I have learnt that that "preference to be given" remained on paper - no real preference was given. Heads of departments, Sir, have been prejudiced against local manufactures. I have checked certain items of local manufacture and found that they are comparable in quality and price, and that the factories are capable of producing to capacity to meet demand, and there can therefore be no excuse for heads of departments now to say that they will not buy them. If they have any real excuse on any item they can come to me and put their case before me, and if I find that they are justified I will remove it from the approved list. But if not - I will stand no nonsense, and I am sure the Chief Minister is with me in that.

Hear, hear!

They must buy local manufactures in spite of all their likes and dislikes about foreign manufactures. That is a practical step.

The P.A.P. line.

Oh, I am glad, Sir, that the P.A.P. is falling in line with us; the right wing of the P.A.P., Sir, may one day come to the Labour Front; it looks as if we have not much difference. Sir, the Member for Serangoon says the Governor's Speech is filled with pious hopes. That is not true. The Speech is filled with solid facts of what legislation we are going to bring to this House, what we are going to do in this last year of our office. Comparing with past speeches, this may seem to be a fruitful one as the Member for Ponggol-Tampenis pointed out, but as I said, planning had to be undertaken and this is the result of previous planning. I have already given a solid example of what we are doing in the field of encouraging industries. The other one of course is the point-blank statement in the Speech that pioneer industries legislation is being drafted. I can assure this House that that legislation is in the draft now and should be before this House in the course of the next three or four months, I should say - I hope earlier. That legislation would mean, in the layman's language, "tax holidays" - what period and what type of "holidays" I am not allowed to disclose at this moment. Then, Sir, the Member for Serangoon asks, "More home-grown food - what are you doing about that?" Sir, what we have done about it I will tell him. The rate of inoculation of poultry, from 3,000,000 per year in 1955 has gone up to 7,000,000 per year last year, and now the House is going to be asked for a further sum for the Veterinary Department which will make the rate of inoculation go up to 11,000,000 or 12,000,000 per year. That is solid work. It means that the farmer can rest assured that he will not lose large numbers of his stock in the hazards of diseases beyond his control. Then in 1955, Sir, when this Government took over, the poultry production rate was 5,000,000 per year. Last year it was 22,000,000. As I said the day before yesterday in answer to a question, the prices of poultry and eggs have come down by about 30 per cent in the last three years. Pigs - we were importing - 60 per cent we were importing before; today we are exporting. All this, Sir, shows the attention given to growing more food. And on top of that now, Sir, the Rural Development Panel is being set up and that panel will co-ordinate all activities connected with the rural areas - the necessary road-making, assistance to farmers in different forms, and so on. Once that panel gets going, you will see the rural areas receiving much more attention than they have in the past. The whole question is one of finance, Sir; finance plays a very big part; one would like to do many things but one can not do all those things because of lack of finance. Sir, the entrepot trade is not going to remain for ever. That I have told this House time and time again, even though the Member for Telok Ayer might say that he has said it before me. It is true. I can see the clouds looming ahead and I have warned this House many times. I warn the House and I warn the people of Singapore not to rely on the entrepot trade only. It is not going to last. It has lasted you a hundred years, you are lucky; it is not going to last another hundred years, even though civil servants might say, `We have survived the last hundred years and we will continue to survive.' I say that that trend of thought is dwelling in the past. They do not understand what the future is; they cannot accommodate themselves to the developments, political and otherwise, of this area. A suggestion was made, `Why do we not cut down costs by mechanising the Harbour Board?' That is being done. The Harbour Board is being mechanised, and I think the hon. Mr Tan Siak Kew, who is a member of that Board, would know about it; and extensions are being made to the Harbour Board's berthing space. Sir, a suggestion was made to encourage local shipping. Now we have in His Excellency the Governor's Speech a paragraph which says that discussions are going on with neighbouring governments to allow local masters to have bigger scope for operation. In fact these discussions have been going on for more than a year. But I am sorry we cannot rely on ourselves alone in this matter because these ships ply between the Federation of Malaya, Singapore and the Borneo territories, and we have got to get the agreement of all these three governments before we can move in this direction. Another suggestion was that we should try to encourage local shipping - that is locally registered, locally owned ships. Now, Sir, that is not easily possible. Firstly, even if we do, most countries would insist that their cargoes should be carried in their bottoms - their own cargoes - we have no cargoes of our own to carry in our own bottoms. If we say tin and rubber must be carried in our bottoms, the Federation is going to say "in our bottoms, not yours; it is our tin and rubber". And then there is the surprising suggestion from a businessman, Sir, that perhaps - this Government is a bad government; the Member for Telok Ayer says this is a bad government - the next government might consider legislating that all coastal trade should be carried in our ships. What is the length of coast we have, Sir? We are only a tiny island of 225 square miles. Our ships will go round and round the island? We cannot even do that because there is the Causeway. We cannot legislate for our ships to carry coastal trade to the Federation because that is the Federation's coast, not ours. How can you legislate for going into other territories? If you do that and say our ships must carry the trade, they are going to bring in counter legislation. This, Sir, is an example of half-baked political ideas without proper debate, without proper understanding of the problems, and that is what the country is going to fall for hook, line and sinker in the next elections - half-baked politicians with half-baked theories. `Perhaps we could establish trade missions.' Trade missions are a costly business, Sir, If a Minister goes to another country and spends $800 to attend a ministerial conference like the Colombo Plan Conference - in a ministerial conference, Sir, other countries too send ministers - and incidentally we get an advantage out of it by getting something free from Australia, by saving several hundred thousand dollars due to a rice deal with Thailand - he is asked, `Why did you spend $800?' This in spite of the fact that the same hon. Member could go gallivanting round the world as a Member of the Legislative Council of the old days without any responsibility to the people. That is their attitude, Sir - miser-like - shall I say Scrooge-like - I think that is the word.

Order. First, of course, I must discover whether the Minister is using those expressions in relation to a Member of the Assembly. If he is, he will have to withdraw those expressions.

I am sorry, Sir, I meant it as a sort of general charge on people who make such charges.

Do not be excited!

I am sorry, Sir, I have got to say these things. It hurts me as much to say it, but we must face the truth. Sir, the Industrial Promotion Board should not require stringent securities and so on, the Member for Serangoon suggested. But, Sir, we are trustees of public funds; it is not our money. If the I.P.B. feels that a risk is not worth taking, it is up to it. If the money is lent and does not come back, the same hon. Member will say `Why was money lent to so and so the taxpayers' money?' Sir, naturally the Board has got to see that what money it lends is not given merely for the asking. And I strongly support it. These Boards should not be used for political purposes because if they are the Party in power can make sure that it can buy all the votes through these Boards. And the same thing about beehoon, Sir,I say the bee-hoon industry - the way they put forward their proposals - they do not deserve any assistance from the Board, and the Board has now put to them counter-proposals, telling them what to do in order that they can qualify for the loan. Sir, on "vacant land". The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) said that there is a lot of vacant land and that Government should set aside some of it and allow farmers to develop but as everyone knows, Sir, the problem is that once you let anybody occupy land that is set aside for later development for hospitals or schools he is not going to get out when it is wanted back. You give him a contract - everything typed neatly, signed, and so on - which says that he is temporary and no more and when after five years you tell him, "Sorry, we want to build a hospital; will you go?", he will run to the Opposition politicians to put pressure on the Government. That is what is happening here - like the case of the illegal attap huts in Kampong Amber - and then you do not get your hospital, you do not get your school, because the land is not available. The occupant will say, "Put me on another piece of land. Give me compensation." All with the tax-payers' money, mind you, for which the politicians are acting as trustees! Sir, there was a suggestion that more experimental roads should be built. I agree, Sir. More of everything should be done. It is only a matter of finding the money. If we come to this House and raise taxes, there will be a howl, "Why do you raise taxes and why do you need so much money, this and that?" Well, if you are not going to raise taxes, then you cannot get more of everything. It is just simple logic, but of course maybe some Members here are not accustomed to logic. They go more for emotional issues. Sir, "Deep-sea fishing licences were turned down." That was the allegation made by the Member for Serangoon. That is not correct, Sir. These licences have not been turned down. I have got the figures. Sir, when we opened up this deep-sea fishing joint project with the Japanese, the first lot was to be only three licences for approva4l as a pilot scheme. When we found that the scheme was successful, we threw it open to all applicants provided that they complied with certain conditions we laid down. Since then, 16 applications have come in. Out of those 16, when correspondence took place between the Ministry and them, asking them to comply with those conditions, only four showed interest. The rest just backed out. Out of the four, two were approved, one has been refused and one is still under consideration. So not many licences have been refused! These are facts.

Not much progress.

Well, not much progress because out of 16, only four showed interest - 25 per cent. The rest were frivolous applications. The Member suggested, "Let us follow others if the Government has no original ideas." The tax holiday is not something borrowed from the Federation, as the Member suggested. In fact, in my statement to the Assembly on 7th November, 1956, I said this: "Government is investigating the question of making tax concessions to industries whose expansion or establishment it is desired to encourage." That was 7th November, 1956. The fact that we could not get on with it was because income tax is a Pan-Malayan subject and we have got to keep in line with the Federation. Sir, it is not something that we have borrowed from the Federation. Rather it is something that we have brought out ourselves and which is now being adopted on a Pan-Malayan basis. We have an `advice section' in the Ministry which gives advice to all those who ask for it. If anybody is interested in getting advice he can go there and he will be given all the assistance he requires; the Industrial Promotion Board also gives assistance. I personally, Sir, give a lot of assistance and advice to many people who come asking about the possibilities of opening industries. I give hours of my time to that.

A considerable length of time!

It is true. I work at night because I cannot work during the daytime. I bring files home at night and that is a cause of constant quarrel between my wife and myself.

Passing time!

I did not know what the new words "Pl. D.W." which the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) quoted yesterday meant until I heard what he said. "The S.I.T. delays the passing of plans." I admit that there is some delay but we do all we can to help in that and an approach to the Ministry or to the Industrial Promotion Board would solve the headache much quicker. Sir, as for the Member for Farrer Park (Mr A. R. Lazarous), one wonders if he became a Member of the P.A.P. whether he would be in the Left or the Left-Right or the Right-Left or the Left-Left-Right. Perhaps we might even see him bringing in a "hammer" to this House one of these days - if you will permit it, Sir, which I am sure you will not - but he can use it outside. Sir, the nominated Member Mr Tan Siak Kew said with regard to the Industrial Promotion Board, "There is a danger of spoon-feeding industries without ascertaining the bona fides of the enterprises or the sponsors." That is exactly what I say, Sir, that we should stop any spoon-feeding and that is why I tell the Member for Serangoon, Sir, that we should not put political pressure but that we should see whether the industries are capable of establishing themselves if given a helping hand. Sir, the hon. Member also said, "Do not meddle in the entrepot trade." Now, Sir, it is not our intention to meddle in the entrepot trade. In fact, what we want to do is to help the entrepot trade and we have in the past, in many instances, helped the entrepot trade considerably. For instance, Members must have read in this morning's papers that three ships which were detained by the Indonesians for so long have been released. That was as a result of strong representations made by my Ministry. Likewise, in the past, some other ships were detained and again we took the matter up strongly with them. There were also impossible barter trade recommendations or proposals last November and we took it up strongly with the Indonesian Consulate and told them, "This is impossible. You will kill all the trade." In the end we got them to agree to scale down the proposals so that the trade could continue. These things go on behind the scenes, Sir. We do not put loudspeakers outside the Ministry like the City Council does and blare it all out. Neither do we issue bulletins every day like the City Council does, "$10 for the relief fund or this or that." If we do that, Sir, I am sure that a lot of paper would be required and our estimate for stationery will go up. We come to Australian timber duties. There was a proposal to increase import duties in Australia on Malayan timber. There again we made strong representations through Mr Leembruggen who was the Malayan Deputy-Commissioner then, though we do not know the outcome of it yet. The Australian Apple and Board is another example. We been fighting constantly with Australian Government regarding this Board. Copra from the Philippines is a recent example. When supplies from Indonesia were cut off, I took the matter up with the Secretary of State and said, "We must have dollars to buy copra from the Philippines." Then getting his agreement, I took it up again with the Federation because the dollar question is Pan-Malayan. When I was up in Kuala Lumpur "spending public funds" on travelling up there for the E.C.A.F.E. Conference, I took the matter up and got the Minister to agree and there was a joint statement issued by us. There is the case of relaxation of duties when India put into the preferential category what so far had been treated as non-preferential. That was in 1955 when I went up to New Delhi with the ex-Chief Minister (Mr D. S. Marshall) and later on to Bangalore for the E.C.A.F.E. Conference. I took it up personally. These are the things, Sir - there are a lot of things - you cannot do by correspondence. You have got to have personal contact and if Members of the House are going to take a "skinflint" attitude about it, well, then we will not have these benefits. That is all. Rice exports, Sir. "The merchants were in difficulties because the 21-day period of exemption for the export of rice was found to be inadequate." We said, "We will give another 21 days." And so on. In Colombo, payments were stopped by the Ceylon financial authorities for shipments of chillies made by local Indian merchants. I took it up with the representative here and then gave letters of introduction to the Indian Chamber's delegation which went there and as a result we got the money released. These are some of the things, Sir, that we have done. Reduction in copra freight rate, Sir. The Nominated Member Mr Tan Siak Kew will bear me out on this, that I took this matter up with a leading member of the Conference when we were having lunch together and the Ministry then made representations. As a result, there has been an increase in the copra trade lately. There are many other examples I could quote, Sir, but commerce is a subject on which you do not advertise. Secrecy is the essence of trade and commerce and therefore we do not advertise all these things. Sir, I think I have exhausted the formidable list that I had and I have nothing more to say except that I hope the public will take note and give due consideration to all these things. As I said, the future is not bright; in fact, the future is bleak. 11.12 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I quote what dying Horace Greeley exclaimed: "Fame is vapour; popularity an accident; riches take wings. Those who cheer today will curse tomorrow. Only one thing endures - character." Mr Speaker, Sir, character is the only diploma that God gives man. The Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) just left the House thinking that, after he had quoted Hamlet and Macbeth in the past, he would not like to hear what I have to say. The Member for Tanjong Pagar referred to the Straits Times alleging that I, as Chairman of the Attap Dwellers Association, criticised the Government's land resettlement policy. His remarks did not come to me as a surprise, used as I am to the policy of the P.A.P. which delights in hitting below the belt. Sir, I have here with me a petition from members of the Association who have been evacuated from Queenstown to the various resettlement areas in the Colony, it is a lengthy document and to read it here will be to take up the valuable time of this House which has a long agenda in front of it. Any hon. Member who wishes to know the contents of this petition is welcome to read it. This petition was tabled at the extraordinary general meeting of the Attap Dwellers Association held on Sunday at the Singapore Badminton Hall. It was read out by the Hon. Treasurer who later, at the request of the Press, passed it on to them to copy. How the Straits Times came to put the words of this petition into my mouth I do not know. It may have been the enthusiasm of the reporter or for some reason best known to the newspaper. Mr Speaker, Sir, before I sit down, I should like to point out that it is the Party to which the Member for Tanjong Pagar belongs which does not fulfil promises. We can see ample proof of this in the City Council where the employees are in revolt against a Party which claims to be the "champion of the workers". 11.14 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will not indulge myself in the political "isms" of this House. However, I would like, at the risk of repetition, to say a few things about the achievements of the Labour Front especially after the attack by the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) that the Government has done nothing during the past three years. Once the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) told me - he rather seems to be an expert on Marxism - that if you tell a lie often enough the people who listen to that lie will be inclined to believe it. Well, I am not quoting any lie; I am merely quoting facts and figures to show what the Labour Front has done. Perhaps people might forget about these things. Since the Coalition Government came into power, there have been many outstanding achievements which stick out a mile. We have, for instance, Malayanisation in which all the posts of Permanent Secretaries to the various Ministries are now held by local persons who have been appointed irrespective of whether they are members of any political Parties or have any political affiliations or of race. We spent, in 1957, more than $50 million on education - an increase of over 40 per cent over the expenditure for 1956. The Government's readiness to grant financial aid to the Nanyang University, as announced by the Hon. the Chief Minister, is another proof of our sincerity towards Chinese culture and Chinese education. There are many other achievements, such as the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance and the Clerks Employment Ordinance whereby the workers now enjoy limited hours of work, extra pay for overtime and maternity leave for the women workers. There is also the other major achievement in citizenship whereby all aliens who have hitherto not been given the chance or right to take part in the affairs of Government are now given such right both in the City Council and the Government. Trade unions for the first time in the history of Singapore have been given the absolute right to strike. These are but a few of the achievements and I would like the people to know, as I said at the risk of repetition, such worthy achievements of the Labour Front and we will go to the next elections with those achievements in front of us. While hearing the speech of the Member for Farrer Park (Mr A. R. Lazarous), I was rather amused. At one time it sounded to me as like an overture to an application for membership in the P.A.P. At the next moment, I thought it was a censure on the P.A.P. leader (the Member for Tanjong Pagar in this House) and at another moment, I thought that he was a spokesman for the City Council in this Assembly. I am not surprised at all in view of the mental attitude of that Member. Coming to more mundane matters that have been put before the House. Sir, the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng) and the Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) touched on the question of the omission of the Tamil language in the Governor's Speech. Well, the Governor's Speech is only a statement of broad policy. It does not give details. But to set at rest the minds of the hon. Members referred to and especially the minds of the Indian public in the Colony, I give the assurance that, as far as this Government is concerned, Tamil education enjoys equal status with all the other three, namely, Malay, Chinese and English. Now, Tamil teaching in the primary English schools started in 1952. There were then only eight full-time teachers teaching that language in 32 primary English schools. This year, Tamil is taught in 110 schools by 53 full-time teachers; almost all of them being trained either in India or in Malaya. The number of pupils learning Tamil as a subject for five days of the week during school hours is now 5,926. Now, I will give the comparative figures of the number of pupils in the various schools during the period under review. As I said, in 1952, there were only 32 schools teaching Tamil. This year, we have 110. The number of pupils in 1953 was 1,228 with seven teachers. In 1958, we have 5,926 with 53 teachers. In addition, we have Saturday Tamil classes being conducted in several schools. Attendance and progress at these Saturday Tamil classes are very satisfactory indeed, although some parents are reluctant to send their children to Tamil classes held on Saturdays mainly because of transport difficulties or some parents prefer their children to be taught Tamil at home. In 1957 also, a common Tamil language paper was set by the Ministry for Primary VI pupils to assess the progress made in the teaching of Tamil in primary English schools. The paper set was of Grade III standard in Tamil. Out of 343 candidates who sat for that examination in November 1957, 142 were successful. Now, Tamil classes were also conducted for pupils in English secondary schools. They are now being conducted at Beatty School and Raffles Institution and these have carried on since 1956. I have still more figures about Tamil education to prove that the Government has not left out Tamil education at all. It is treated at par with all the other three languages and that is the policy of this Government. The Member for Queenstown also touched on the matter of an architectural course in the Colony. Well, I advise the Member for Queenstown who is not here to go to the Singapore Polytechnic and he will be given the syllabus for an architectural course. We are providing an architectural course in the Singapore Polytechnic and the degrees awarded by the Polytechnic will be recognised. The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) stressed the importance of vocational schools for children. In view of the large number of children in Singapore and the large number who cannot benefit from a secondary education, the Ministry has now in the planning stage an artisan school. Overage pupils or pupils who cannot go to a secondary grammar school or those from Chinese schools who do not have satisfactory academic qualifications will be given an intensive artisan course to fit them to take up a trade after they have passed the examination set by the artisan school. This will be a pilot scheme for a Trade Training Centre which I propose to set up in Singapore in the coming years. Of course, the Trade Training Centre will be a very costly affair and it needs a lot of planning as regards costs and teachers and it will be several years before it comes into existence. Those are the few facts as I have expressed them, as there are indeed very few comments on the work of my Ministry. 11.24 a.m.

Sir, I do not wish to take up the time of the Assembly any longer than is necessary but there are just two points I wish to touch on. The first concerns the matter of law and order and in particular the police. It is my impression that all hon. Members would be agreed on two things: firstly, that the present level of crime and lawlessness in Singapore gives grave cause for concern; secondly, that if this state of affairs is to be successfully tackled there is only one way of doing it and that is through the joint efforts of the police and the public working in co-operation. What hon. Members have concentrated on in this debate and in the debate which we had yesterday on the two Bills which were approved are the shortcomings of the police which they claim to militate against the development of this co-operation. I shall, Sir, be dealing with some of the specific points in a minute but I should like to say at the outset that I have been frankly disappointed that in all the comments that have been made in the course of the debate on this motion as well as on the Bills there has not been one word of credit, one word of commendation or one word of encouragement for a body of men who are faced with as formidable a task as perhaps faces any police force in the world and who by and large as a force are working night and day to the best of their ability and with a considerable measure of success despite the limited co-operation they receive, striving to do their duty by their fellow-citizens of Singapore. Sir, the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) who I am sorry to see is not in his place drew attention to the reference in the Governor's Speech to the morale of the police and I understood him not to understand what was meant. Perhaps I could draw attention to one example which took place recently when a police officer off duty walking along a road saw two gangsters making an attack with acid bombs. He gave chase and single-handed he tackled them despite being attacked himself and burned by a bomb thrown by one of these gangsters and he succeeded in achieving the capture of one of these two men. Sir, if there are shortcomings in the police, we shall certainly do our best - and I speak for the Commissioner on this also - to remedy them. If there are black sheep, we shall do our best to discover them and weed them out. Above all, we shall do our best to break down this barrier between the police and the public and my hon. friend the Member for Seletar (Mr M. P. D. Nair) has already detailed some of the measures we have taken. Sir, it would be idle to pretend that shortcomings do not exist and that there are no black sheep to be found but if you took any other community, any other body of persons in Singapore today, do hon. Members not think that the same position or even worse would be found? Let us at least maintain a sense of proportion in this and let us think how many persons in Singapore outside the police share responsibility for the present state of affairs. Much has been said of secret societies. As a relative newcomer to Singapore, I cannot vie with certain others in my knowledge of these bodies but one thing is very apparent and that is the alarming extent to which these secret societies have extended their tentacles into so many activities in Singapore. If these tentacles have penetrated the police force, as the hon. Member claimed, is that altogether so surprising when it is clear how widely they have penetrated elsewhere? The hon. Member for Changi suggested that it is the deliberate policy to recruit secret society or ex-secret society members into the police force. That, Sir, I emphatically deny. Whatever may have been the position in the past, that is certainly not true today. Moreover, there is no direct recruitment to the C.I.D., as the hon. Member implied. All entrants today are recruited to the uniformed branch of the force, and only after they have completed their training and preliminary service are they considered for service with the C.I.D. There are certainly opportunities for corruption in the C.I.D., but the Commissioner is very alive to these risks and to the advisability of making regular transfers, and there have, in fact, been a number of transfers in that branch recently. One hon. Member suggested that the lack of information from detectives in the C.I.D. was due to their secret society connections. Another hon. Member, however, complains because disciplinary action is taken against those who are not doing their jobs. He claims that this is causing dissatisfaction. It seems to me, Sir, that these two accusations cancel each other out. I was urged by the hon. Member for Changi to recruit more Chinese into the force. My answer to that, Sir, is that we welcome every Chinese recruit we can get. The hon. Member also invited me to make a comparison with the police force in Hongkong. That, Sir, I would find a very invidious task, but I will say this: that I think both forces are confronted with very exceptional and very formidable tasks and that, to the best of their ability, they are tackling those tasks courageously. It may be that Singapore has something to learn from Hongkong. It may also be true that Hongkong has something to learn from Singapore, and it may interest the hon. Member, whom I am glad to see back in his place, to know that when I arrived in Singapore, among those to meet me on the quay was the Commissioner of Police, Hongkong, who was down in Singapore to learn what he could from the Singapore police. In conclusion, Sir, may I reiterate that this problem of lawlessness is one on which we have all got to pull together. If there are faults with the police, we will try to remedy them. If there are faults with the public, let us try and remedy them also, but above all, let us try and approach this problem in a constructive and not a destructive spirit. Sir, the only other matter on which I wish to touch was a remark dropped by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar in the course of his speech to this motion. He will perhaps forgive me if I have forgotten his exact words, but he indicated that if he and his friends won the next election, they intended to govern, and if they received any obstruction from the civil service, then swift retribution would follow. Sir, I hope that all political Parties will always subscribe to what is a fundamental principle in the working of a democratic administration-that the public service must be immune from all forms of political influence, political pressures and political threats. Whichever Party wins the next election and forms a government will inherit a hard-working and an honest and loyal public service. It is the duty of the public service to carry out the policies of the government in power at the time; it is their duty to deal with the day-to-day minutiae of government business within the framework of the policy laid down by the government; and it is also their duty to advise their elected Ministers on the problems that come up and to give that advice to the best of their ability; and I can assure the hon. Member that the present civil service will always subscribe to and carry out those duties. I do, in all earnestness and sincerity, appeal for the maintenance of this principle, that there should be no attempt to undermine the integrity of the civil service, since I feel it would be a sorry day for Singapore if-

Point of order, Sir, I take it the Chief Secretary considers that his remarks apply equally to the civil service of the local government and that they should carry out the policy of the Party which is entrusted with the administration of local government?

If the hon. Member is referring to the City Council, then I certainly agree that the public service is there to carry out the policies of what ever body they are serving.

On a point of clarification, Sir. And that therefore the Chief Secretary would deplore a civil servant of the local government authority saying that the policy of the Mayor-

Order, please. I think this should be put in the form of a question. The hon. Member should not question the Chief Secretary at this stage. Will the Chief Secretary carry on, please?

Sir, I have nothing further to say, but I was dealing with the question of general principle, because it is one on which I feel very strongly and I feel it is in the essential interests of Singapore that the principle I have outlined should be observed.

And by civil servants. 11.39 a.m.

Sir, in the course of an intemperate speech yesterday, the Member for Pasir Panjang claimed that I was in sympathy with him in certain matters. I take this opportunity of saying that, while I am in sympathy with any one who is anxious to reduce costs and save Government money, I am certainly not in sympathy with any one who takes advantage of his privileged position as a Member of this Assembly to make a completely unjustified and uncalled-for attack on officers who, by reason of their employment, are prevented from countering the attack in the manner which it deserves. The accusations of corruption and obstructionism which the hon. Member levelled at officers of the Improvement Trust are completely without foundation and are, in my opinion, unworthy of a Member of this Assembly. The officers of the Trust whom the hon. Member has chosen to calumniate are men of integrity who have worked unselfishly in the interests of the population of Singapore. Their technical skill is of a high order. The buildings which they have erected will stand as a permanent memorial to them. The Government thinks so highly of their services that it is prepared to offer them a full career in the new Housing Authority if they are prepared to accept it. What I am afraid of is that the intemperate attack of the hon. Member may make them doubt the advisability of doing so. Recent events in the City Council must already have given them pause to think. It would be a tragedy if these officers were to leave because it would mean that the building activities of the Trust would virtually cease. To accuse these officers of corruption, "grabbing" (whatever that may mean), and self interest is quite inexcusable. To do so under cover of privilege is worse. At no time has any evidence of corruption or the like ever been adduced against these officers either to the Minister or to the Corrupt Practices Bureau. The hon. Member, who is so free with his general accusations, certainly has never done so. I challenge him now to produce evidence to substantiate his accusations. If, as I suspect, he cannot do so, I call on him to retract at once and offer his apologies to the officers concerned. I also challenge him to give the name of the member of the Board of the Trust who stated that the officers of the Trust were capricious in the movement of the boundary lines of planning zones. If he cannot or will not do so, I call on him to offer his apologies to the Board of Trustees whom he has involved. The hon. Member's accusations of obstructionism are equally unjust. I have been a Member of the Board of Trustees for considerable periods over the past 6 years and have now a fairly intimate knowledge of the workings of the Trust. The Planning Department of the Trust is an efficient body which has worked under considerable difficulties. Planning during that period has been subject to many restrictions, principal amongst which is the preparation of the Master Plan. But the officers of the Planning Department have been invariably helpful to all who wished to develop land and have gone out of their way to assist architects and their clients. There have been delays. These were inevitable when staff was short and working at full stretch. It will interest hon. Members to learn that in 1956 (the last information I have), the Planning Department dealt with 1,347 applications. That is no mean achievement. I have seen or heard no evidence of obstructionism. Admittedly, being busy men and human, the members of the department may possibly have given short shrift to humbugs and people who sought to circumvent the rules. On the contrary, I have been impressed by the trouble which the officers of the Trust, and the Planning Committee, which consists of the Chairman of the Rural Board and 4 unofficials, take over applications. Much time is devoted to explaining the reasons for decisions to applicants, their lawyers and architects, in committee. No plan is rejected except by the Board of Trustees as a whole. I speak from experience when I say that consideration of plans takes up an inordinate amount of the time of the Board. The Board consists of a majority of unofficial members who represent the views of the City Council, the Rural Board and the population as a whole, together with senior officers of the Government and the City Council. On many occasions I have heard the views and feelings of applicants expressed at Board meetings by unofficials. Invariably they have had a fair hearing and on a number of occasions the plans have been referred back for further consideration. In short, Sir, the Planning Department of the Trust works efficiently and fairly and without wilful obstruction of legitimate demands. I call upon the hon. Member to substantiate his accusations to the Board of Trustees, or failing that, to apologise to all concerned. The hon. Member made reference to one-room housing in Hongkong and suggested that we follow the same model here, implying that we have taken no action in this connection. We also have made enquiries in Hongkong and officers of the Trust have visited the schemes there. What the hon. Member failed to make clear was that these one-room flats are for refugees from China and were built as a temporary solution to an extremely urgent problem. They serve their purposes very well in Hongkong but they are not quite suitable for Singapore. The Trust has already designed a rather better one-room flat with kitchen and bathroom accommodation built in. A trial block of these flats will be started in the near future and it is hoped will prove successful. If so, more will be built. Lastly the hon. Member mentioned the P.W.D. and P.W.D. costs. I am not prepared to embark on a discussion of P.W.D. costs at this time. The matter has already been explored by the Estimates Committee and doubtless will be explored further. I am however anxious to do everything possible to reduce costs of buildings generally. The hon. Member took me to a block of flats recently to show me what could be done for prices which he said were considerably below those of the P.W.D. I am neither an architect nor a builder and have no expert knowledge of these matters. In the circumstances, I am reluctant to express an opinion. I am even more reluctant to use the cover of privilege to express opinions which might be misinterpreted or hurt feelings. My views on the design and workmanship of the flats which I saw, by comparison with those constructed by the P.W.D., have been conveyed to the Minister and I shall be prepared to repeat them, if called upon to do so, to the Estimates Committee. I am afraid that it is not a matter of unconditional agreement with the views expressed by the hon. Member. There is another matter on which I should like to touch. In my capacity as Financial Secretary, I am concerned to a certain extent with the credit worthiness of Singapore and consequently the credit worthiness of the City Council. That is my reason for touching on the affairs of the City Council in this debate. The City Council is about to float a loan of $30 million for the further development of its electrical, gas and water undertakings. If it cannot float this loan, these undertakings, and consequently the development of Singapore, must suffer. It has been promised support by the Central Provident Fund but it also hopes to persuade holders of another City Council loan which is about to be redeemed, to convert into the new loan and it hopes to obtain support from other private provident funds, and possibly from members of the public. Quite apart from the present floatation, the City Council will continue to require loan capital in large quantities for some years to come. The City Council will not obtain the funds it requires unless its policies, organisation and method of running its business command the respect and confidence of the subscribing public. It is not for me to attempt to assess in this place the effect which recent events must have had on this confidence. I merely ask, with such sincerity and earnestness as I can command, that the City Council should bear in mind the need to promote confidence in itself in the eyes of the investing public, - and this includes the Board of the Central Provident Fund - if it wishes to obtain the funds for the development which it rightly regards as so important. 11.50 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the course of this debate, the hon. Members for Queenstown and Serangoon and my colleague, the hon. Member for Pasir Panjang, have spoken on those passages of the Governor's Speech concerned with public housing, the new Development and Housing Authority, land clearance and resettlement, and land use and control. We have heard harsh criticisms because the Development and Housing Authority has not been established. Land use and control as envisaged in the Master Plan has been scorned and described as arbitrary. The Singapore Improvement Trust has been accused of obstruction while the integrity of its staff has been disparaged in the most uncalled for manner. The legislation in respect of the new Development and Housing Authority has admittedly taken a longish time, but that has not prevented housing going ahead more rapidly this year. The legislation is in its final draft stages and will come before this House at an early sitting - in about June. Earlier introduction of this legislation has been complicated by the fact that since the new Development and Housing Authority will not have planning functions, as in the case of the present Singapore Improvement Trust, it has also been necessary to provide for the establishment of a new Planning Authority to be charged with planning responsibilities. Two Bills, therefore, will shortly be introduced. Basically, however, it can be said that delay in introducing legislation or creating the new Authority has not in itself impeded progress in the provision of housing. Had a new Authority been created earlier, this would not have helped the situation which depended basically on the resettlement of families before more houses could be built. The most unfortunate single factor impeding the rapid provision of housing so urgently needed for the low income groups of our population has been due to the fact that almost all the urban and suburban sites required for public development have been and are occupied by families who, if evicted, would suffer great hardship. As a consequence, public housing and other development has inevitably been slowed down - and in some cases has come to a stop. It was not until the Government established a Land and Resettlement Authority to overcome this problem by properly providing alternative accommodation, either by rehousing or resettlement, that any headway could be made in the provision of houses for the general public. The Resettlement Department up to date has: Acquired 19 areas for resettlement and allocated farms - altogether 3,870 acres have been so allotted. Developed 16 areas of Crown land amounting to several thousand acres. Mapped and designed a further 12 areas amounting to 4,680 acres. Settled 1,235 old families and 1,032 new families. A further 2,000 vacant lots are now ready for allocation. In the last year, approximately $1,800,000 was used to this end, while a further $2 million is included in the Estimates for this year. As regards public housing, only 1,274 housing units and 70 shops were completed in 1957; whereas 4,815 housing units were completed in the two years 1955 and 1956. Now that the Resettlement Department is succeeding in resettling families, more rapid strides are being made with low cost housing and at the present moment the situation is much more satisfactory in that a further 4,971 housing units and 127 shops are under construction. A further building programme - Programme No. 9 - providing for a further 3,500 ordinary dwellings, 95 cottages and 95 shops will shortly come before the House for financial approval. As may be seen, therefore, despite difficulties, Government has succeeded with resettlement and public housing. In fixing rents, Government has also taken into account the needs of the low income groups in order to bring S.I.T. homes within the reach of ordinary working families. Accordingly, two-room flats either built or are now being built under Programme No. 8 at Kallang, Albert Street, Rochore Road, Bukit Timah Road, New Bridge Road, South Bridge Road, and elsewhere are let at subsidised rents of only $35 per month, although the economic rent for such a flat is more than twice that amount. As a further concession-

Point of information, Sir. May I know from the Minister, Sir, when he refers to a two-room flat which is subsidised by Government at $35 per month, does he really mean two bed-rooms or only one bed-room and one sitting room?

When I say "two-room flats", it means a bed-room and a hall. As I was saying, Sir, as a further concession, rents of only $30 per month are charged for such flats in respect of tenants rehoused as a result of slum clearance. The special needs of Malays are also provided for. Malay settlements are being further developed and with the establishment of the Malay settlement at the 8 milestone West Coast Road in September last year, there are now two Malay settlements in Singapore. The first Malay settlement at Jalan Eunos is being extended by the addition of a further 164 acres to provide accommodation for 700 families. The immediate development of 34 acres to provide accommodation for 186 families has already begun. The lots have been surveyed and 40 lots have been pegged out. This means that allocation can proceed within a week or so. A third Malay settlement at Ayer Gemuroh is also under way. The present Kampong Ayer Gemuroh occupies an area of 21 acres. Plans for the extension of this area to give a total area of 95 acres to provide additional accommodation for 400 families are envisaged. I should now like to reply to criticisms concerning land use and control. As already stated, planning legislation is shortly to be introduced. This legislation, coinciding with the approval of the Master Plan, is designed to implement the Master Plan. A Notice of Approval is about to be gazetted together with information concerning the exhibition of the approved Master Plan, with an explanation of all its provisions. The Master Plan represents the culmination of many years' careful study of all those aspects of life in Singapore which materially influence the use of lands and buildings, and provides a blue print for the future development of the whole island, taking into account, in the light of our rapidly increasing population, our future expanding needs for homes, schools, public services and utilities, new urban and suburban centres, including new towns, improved road communications, industrial expansion - all of which are designed to offer a better future for the people of Singapore. There is nothing arbitrary about the Master Plan. Objectors to any of the provisions of the Master Plan were given the opportunity of having their objections heard at a special Court of Inquiry held in 1956. Hundreds of objections were heard and the Plan has been amended in many ways. Hon. Members will have an opportunity shortly of expressing their views on the final provisions of the Master Plan when the planning legislation comes before this House. Concerning the Singapore Improvement Trust, we have heard accusations of delays and obstruction. Regarding planning approval by the S.I.T., this organisation has also suffered from shortages of staff which in the past may have caused delays in the consideration of plans.

Eight years.

The situation today, however, is much happier than in the past. There is only one plan in the Singapore Improvement Trust which was received prior to the 1st of March, 1958. Every other application received before the 1st of March, 1958, has been dealt with. On an average, the S.I.T. receives about 150 plans each month for consideration. Plans are, in fact, now being dealt with expeditiously. As regards the number of houses or buildings which can be constructed per acre, densities are laid down in the Master Plan and take into account the proper use of land and availability of services etc, over the next 20 years. Clearly proper control to prevent the reversion to slums, to safeguard against haphazard development and to ensure cohesion and use of available services is a fundamental necessity. The provisions of the Master Plan were made public in 1956 and objectors had an opportunity of stating their views, including questions of density. The accusations of corruption in the S.I.T. are more serious. The hon. Member who made these accusations also referred to two specific instances of which he described as futile delays or obstruction. His disappointment in matters in which he was personally concerned can be understood, but an attack on the integrity, of the S.I.T. on such grounds is unwarranted-

That is the police evidence.

Order, please.

It is not only unwarranted, but it is unfair and unethical. In one case a planned roundabout required a building to be set back - this was in the interest of better highways and traffic flow, in the other case, an ancient monument had first to be dispensed with owing to its dilapidated state of repair before new development could proceed. As regards corruption, general accusations without substance are not good enough. The Ministry of Local Government has not received a single specific allegation from the hon. Member concerned. It would be relevant to enquire if he has placed his special knowledge at the disposal of the Commission dealing with corruption or the Corrupt Practices Bureau. Until proof of any general or specific corruption has been established, his accusations stand refuted. Certainly disappointment or the disapproval of development projects which are not in the interest of Singapore does not constitute corruption.

I suspend this sitting to 2.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at seven minutes past twelve o'clock to 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m. The Clerk: Honourable Members, I have to announce the unavoidable absence of Mr Speaker. Whereupon Mr Deputy Speaker took the Chair, pursuant to the Standing Order. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been listening to the debate on the Governor's Speech for three days now. During this debate, this House has heard that the Assistant Ministers have been adding holes to the ship which has already been holed by some other persons. I can assure this House, Sir, that we the Assistant Ministers are sincere and honest to the skipper of the ship who is leading us to the land of prosperity and we will remain together with the skipper whether the ship floats or sinks. We believe in the leader who navigates the ship and we believe that the skipper has gone through all sorts and has succeeded in weathering the storm. Sir, I would like to tell this House, as one of the citizens of Singapore, that I believe in one "ism". The "ism" in which I believe is "realism". For the last 61 years, Sir, I have lived in Singapore. In the old days, we had no Party leaders but what we had were community leaders. These community leaders, when they assembled together, had a sense of believing and trusting each other for the welfare of the country and the people. Today, we are being given the chance of having Party leaders and when we gather under such leadership, we do not have the sense of believing and trusting each other. As regards the criticisms which have been thrown at my Ministry with which I am concerned, they have been fully answered by my Minister. I have got no more to say on the subject. Today, we have a Government which has been elected by the people. If the Opposition thinks about the welfare of the people and the country, they should at least have the sense of telling this House what good the Government has done, but for the past two days and today, we have heard nothing except the criticisms that have been levelled against us. Do you think, Sir, that that is fair after what we have done and what we have gone through? Indeed, we have done it for the sake of the people. This country depends on commerce. We depend on capital. If there is unrest, the money will surely go out from Singapore. We will then be left with nothing and we will see nothing else but frustration. Sir, I have one thing more to say: let us be united for the good of the people and the country. 2.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it surprises me to find so many beautiful promises in the Governor's Speech. It is apparent to the smallest child that these promises cannot be carried out in so short a time that is left for the Government. We heard on Tuesday the P.A.P.'s arrogant boast that they will capture the Government during the next general elections. I for one do not believe that Government will fall into the hands of the P.A.P. So far, they have managed to fool a section of the people. They have misled the workers and the students by shouting slogans like, "Down with colonialism!" Today, in the City Council, the workers have awakened to the truth. They find that the P.A.P. can be more hard-hearted task masters than the colonial officials. Today, the workers have found the truth. Tomorrow, the students will see the light. They now know what the P.A.P. really stands for - a Left-wing organisation dedicated to the destruction of our Island Home. The leaders of the P.A.P. have proved in times of crisis to be shiftless whenever there was action taken against the extremist elements in the P.A.P. Where were the Right-wing leaders of the P.A.P.? Sir, I regret to note that the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) is not here to hear what I have to say, as I have the facts that even the Member for Tanjong Pagar at the time of crisis was having his golf vacation in the Cameron Highlands, far away from the place of disturbances. Sir, the P.A.P. has fooled many people in the past; they cannot fool them any more. Yesterday, I said that I would speak on the incidence of crime. During `Operation Dagger', hundreds of people have been arrested just because they have tattoo marks on their bodies. That does not mean to show that they are members of secret societies. I am not protecting members of secret societies. Despite these arrests, even the Hon. the Chief Secretary (Mr E. B. David) admitted yesterday in this House that crimes have increased. Now the police would be the first to admit that a tattoo mark does not necessarily mean membership of a secret society. Many innocent people have been put in fear just because of `Operation Dagger'. Many in their ignorance have suffered untold hardships by disfiguring themselves just to remove the tattoo marks from their bodies and a few have died after applying acid on these marks. This has shown clearly that the police have been barking up the wrong tree. With your permission, Sir, I would like to read from column 10 of the Governor's Speech: "The Government pledges itself anew to safeguard the welfare of the people of Singapore, to raise their level of living and to use this last Session towards achieving these ends." Sir, can Government tell us how it will carry out this pledge? Will it proscribe the P.A.P. who have saddled the people of Singapore with the threat of strikes in the City Council? Will the leaders of these extremist elements be sent to join the backseat-drivers of the People's Action Party in jail? The people of Singapore would like to know the answers to these questions. Let Government speak. I am also deeply shocked at the speech made by the Hon. the Financial Secretary (Mr T. M. Hart) this morning when he challenged the Member for Pasir Panjang (Mr Wong Foo Nam) about allegations against the Singapore Improvement Trust. I have no self-interest in this question but I would like, with your permission, Sir, to inform the House that on the 28th of March, 1958, I sent in a Question to the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat) to supply monthly figures of applications submitted to the Singapore Improvement Trust for approval under sections 61 and 62 of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance in the years 1956 and 1957 and the figures to show the numbers of applications approved, the numbers of applications received and the numbers of applications approved and outstanding at the end of each month. I have received a letter from the Hon. Mr Speaker who informed me as follows - I quote the third paragraph: "Your Question has been considered by the hon. Mr Speaker and I am directed to inform you that this is inadmissible because it concerns a matter for which the Minister is not responsible." Sir, after these allegations, charges and counter-charges, challenges and challenges, I for one would be most happy if the Government would set up a Commission of Inquiry to investigate into this matter. This is very important and I personally would strongly support such a Commission. 2.43 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a debate on the Governor's Speech which affords an opportunity for Members to criticise the Government and to offer constructive criticisms or suggestions. Several hours have been absorbed by a number of speeches. What have you heard, Sir? A lot of time was taken in chest-thumping and trumpet-blowing for his Party by the leader of the P.A.P. - the reason I suppose is that he has no one else here to blow his Party's trumpet-the usual tirade and dismal warnings of destruction and doom for the Parties which constitute the Government. One would have thought he was addressing the hundreds of eager listeners gathered from those who flock to the City Council galleries. The Government for which he predicts doom has steered courageously - with the welfare of Singapore and its teeming population always at heart - through troubled seas. The passage is like crossing the English Channel. Shortly after leaving calm waters, one meets choppy seas which at times increase with unabated fury, and without a determined man at the helm the ship flounders. The Government has fulfilled its duty and obligation to the people of Singapore under the able and persevering foresight of its helmsman - our Chief Minister - who will hand over his stewardship with the pride and satisfaction that the Government has not failed to govern wisely and achieve much in its short term of office. Bouquets though sparing have been handed to us by some Members on the opposite side. An hon. Member, though an expatriate, who by his very profession and daily experience, knows and feels the pulse of the business and economic world, has offered his commendations - and a Member of the Liberal-Socialists in all honesty has said for the Government, "Give credit where credit is due." But he was immediately contradicted by his Party Member (the Member for Telok Ayer) - of course, any mud-slinging from this hon. Member is understandable. He says that the Government has achieved nothing but when faced with realities of the Government's good work he grudgingly glosses them over with the trite phrase that we are paid to do our duty. In speaking of the Governor's reference to the inevitable merger with the Federation of Malaya, he says that he is tired of its repetition. I wonder if the hon. Member realises how tired every one in this House is of listening to his reiterations that the Government is composed of an elected minority, and how flat that sounds today. Amongst other things, the Member for Telok Ayer inferred that in the field of health, Government has achieved nothing. Surely he is not blind to the fact that the Government has been able to add nearly 2,000 beds in its term of office and, by way of comparison, may I remind him that from 1946 to the end of 1954 at a time when I think he sat in the Legislative Council only 340 beds were added by the previous Government? Of course we were paid to do it! Let me take another example. Government has increased in the rural areas maternity and child welfare centres from 40 to 54 - a provision at the rate of one centre for every 10,000 persons - and this measured by international standards is no mean achievement. The Government has laid stress on two matters of policy calculated to improve the health standards and reduce pressure on hospital beds: health education for which the Health Education Council was formed and the provision of domiciliary nursing facilities. I could enumerate a number of other rapid advances in the Health Ministry: the addition of mobile dispensaries, floating dispensaries for the islanders, and so forth, in keeping with our promise to bring the health services to the people. Also, during our term of office, we have won the coveted Kettering Shield awarded to a Commonwealth country which gives the best infant service. But, of course, to the Member for Telok Ayer, we have achieved nothing. Each elected Member on the Government Front Benches and those Back Benchers who will face the electorate in the next elections can do so fearlessly, and with pride and satisfaction in our achievements. 2.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our Chief Minister in moving this Address to His Excellency remarked that constitutional developments in Singapore were a challenge to the people to make democracy work and if democracy is going to work in Singapore we shall need a higher standard of democratic leadership than the Opposition has so far been able to produce - at least in this debate. It has been a saddening experience for the lovers of democracy to listen to the extraordinary hotch potch, the sayoh rampai or chup-chye dishes they have served of confused and muddled scraps. There is no evidence by and large in the Opposition of any attempt to do any work before this sitting, or even to know the facts. Government has been attacked where it should not have been attacked, where the facts surely and clearly do not justify it. I might even suggest that where we could have been attacked, we have not been attacked. Probably they have not taken the trouble to look for the suitable points of attack. Democracy is not an easy form of government, Mr Deputy Speaker - but the hardest form. In order to succeed in democracy, you must have at least three essentials and one is a fairly high standard of living. We have got that in Singapore. Then we must have an efficient civil service to transmit the political decisions into the field of administration, and thank God we have an efficient civil service in Singapore. The third requirement is the very highest qualities of character in the people and in their leaders because democracy means that you have got to accept unpleasant facts and deal with them and vote if necessary for higher taxes on your own income and that is what people do not like to do. These three essential bases we have got in Singapore but we by no means have them permanently and certainly they could be lost. I shall be saying a word about the civil service later on. We have already had a number of words about our national wealth and how it is exposed to forces outside which cannot be controlled and we need in our leaders - if we are going to have democratic leaders - a capacity for hard work, a sense of responsibility and commonsense which have not been easily found in many of the speeches from the Opposition today. We heard a number of speeches about the City Council and the suggestion from one Member that the City Council is in danger because the P.A.P. were in control. The fact is of course that the PAP, are not in control of the City Council. Nobody is in control; that is where the danger lies. There is no Party which is able to run the City Council. All can have a veto but none can have a policy and that is a very dangerous situation indeed. If it came to be so in this Assembly after the next elections, it would mean disaster for Singapore. Any particular Party may have wrong policies and do great harm but it is better to have even a Party with bad policies ruling the country than to have no rule at all. The tragic breakdown of democracy which has been taking place progressively in France is a clear indication of the danger that we too could run into here if we cannot get our political situation put into order. I do not regard the events in the City Council myself as very significant or menacing. Somebody said in horror how two City Councillors leaving were actually in danger from the excited crowd of people outside and had to be escorted out to their cars, as if it was a new thing; but it is not a new thing. It happened in the old City Council. I think it was over the question of the delimitation of taxis when a couple of City Councillors had to be escorted out to their cars because there was a small crowd outside making hostile gestures at them. Hon. Members have done a great deal of free advertising for the P.A.P. in the course of this debate. The debate has turned far more on the P.A.P. than on any other subject, as though the P.A.P. was the big bad wolf coming to eat them all up. I do not think that the P.A.P. is a big bad wolf and I do not think that it is going to eat us all up either. It is not my job to give publicity to the P.A.P. They are just a Party like any other Party. If they succeed, it is because they work hard and maintain unity. If they fail, it will be because they have stopped working hard and do not maintain unity. I just take one point from the P.A.P. leader (the Member for Tanjong Pagar). He made one remark that the hon. Mr Sutherland had praised the present Government and that this praise was the most damning thing that could be given to the Government because it came from a banker. I do not agree at all. Any Government in Singapore which wishes to succeed in its task must hope for the general approbation and confidence of the banking and trading houses. I have here an interesting magazine called Far East Trade. If the P.A.P. Members would like to borrow it from me, they can see that the world of commerce and finance looks at Communist China from a purely practical point of view. They express no views as to the moral value of the Communist form of government but they are certainly not intimidated because the government is Communist. They consider it purely from the point of view of whether they can effectively do trade with China and that is the sort of Government we want in Singapore. It is when people look at us and say, "Singapore is the place through which and with which we can trade with confidence," that our trade will grow prosperously and that there will not be some ridiculous breakdown which will stop us trading and increasing our profits. This debate has gone on for a considerable time, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I must deal with one or two matters. I am the acting Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing. There have been some attacks on the S.I.T. which have been dealt with already but I feel that I shall be shirking my duty if I did not reply to them in my own way as well. We heard suggestions of things being wrong with the S.I.T. which were based on misinformation - failure to find out what the current facts are - and my hon. colleague the Assistant Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Mr Tan Theng Chiang) gave facts. Although there may have been delays in 1950, 1954 or 1956, the state today is that not one plan has been with the S.I.T. for more than seven weeks, that is to say, since the beginning of March. All other plans have been dealt with. That is the fact but hon. Members of this House are not prepared to deal with the current facts. They prefer to go back far into history and thus create confusion and waste the time of other people. The Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) went so far as to call for a Commission of Inquiry. Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, here is the Report of the Inquiry Commission into Allegations of Corruption against Members of the Legislative Assembly or of the Public Service, or against Members or Employees of the City Council or other Statutory Bodies in Singapore, together with a Statement by the Government. It was appointed in April last year - just a year ago - and the report has been in his hands now for some little time. I do not find his name amongst those who gave evidence to that Commission of Inquiry although presumably he had the facts then. He has not just learned them but he sat back thinking, "Let this Commission pursue its course and find no truth in the allegations. I will ask for another Commission as soon as this one has reported," unless indeed I am wronging him and he is one of the anonymous people who appeared under the tides of "People suffered the high rates of interest preyed by Pawnbrokers of Singapore"-

Not like you.

-or "An Umpire of Justice" or "There is no smoke without a fire". In any case, his evidence was not identifiable if he gave it and was dismissed by the Commissioner as being worthless if he did give it. The Member for Pasir Panjang (Mr Wong Foo Nam) led the attack on the S.I.T. The Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) I think joined in as well and he also attacked the C.I.D.

Sure, Sir.

Now, when a member of the public, particularly an elected representative of the people, has reason to believe that something is wrong with some statutory body or with some Government department, he has a clear and unquestioned duty to bring his suspicions to the notice of those who are responsible for cleaning up whatever is wrong. He is not required to produce proof which could go into a court of law. He is required to say, "I have good reason to believe that this is so and I think that it should be looked into." People have sometimes made allegations about the Public Works Department or other departments to me. When I say, "Yes, good. I will take that up at once. Just give me a date, a subject. Who did this? Why did he do it? When? Where? What did he do?", the answer is, "Oh I do not know. I just know that there is a lot of corruption in the P.W.D." What good is that coffee-shop rumour? In the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing, no allegations have been made whatsoever by the Member for Pasir Panjang.

I did.

They are not on record if they have been made but if, however, he will make them giving some reasonable guide as to who did what, to whom, when and where, then they can be examined. In the Chua Commission which was the proper body sitting for a year, his name does not appear amongst the witnesses nor indeed is the S.I.T. mentioned as far as I recollect by anybody at all. Despite this widespread suspicion alleged against it, no member of the public appears to have alleged against it at all in spite of the publicity given by the Commissioners in an endeavour to get people to come forward. Have these hon. Members made their reports to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau in confidence and secrecy, hiding themselves so that they need not get into trouble? Well, if they have, they can say so. Have they informed the Public Prosecutor? Apparently not. In other words they have conducted themselves in the way that the Elias Commission remarked: "It is unfortunate that neither the Police nor the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau were afforded the opportunity of investigating at the time the rumours said to have been prevalent of corrupt and illegal practices during the Bye-Elections. The result was that the rumours remained rumours, without the searching light of investigation being focussed on them, and they survived and were repeated in the Legislative Assembly, and were repeated to us. We have inquired into them, but in seeking the origin of the rumours we were met on several occasions with the reply that the rumour had been recounted to the witness by a stranger, or had been casually overheard by the witness being discussed between strangers in a bus or other public place." And the time of this House has been taken up with allegations on that level. Allegations were also made against the P.W.D. that there was corruption there. Almost my first task when I was made Minister and reluctantly took my seat in the ministerial chair was to study a file dealing with what appeared to be corrupt practices involving an officer of the P.W.D. and a Member of the present elected Assembly. I went into that as fully as I could and spent a great deal of time on it. In the end, it was impossible to bring anything more than a cloud of suspicion. It was not possible to go any further - no smoke without a fire perhaps but not enough to take any firm action on. The officer concerned has now left the P.W.D. The Assemblyman is still sitting in this Assembly. Without reliable support in the way of evidence, it is not proper that allegations should be made public and people's names brought into disrepute. General allegations without some indication of who did what, when and why mean either that the accuser himself is involved and therefore dare not be specific because he will be implicating himself; or else they mean that he is talking nonsense. It is by no means impossible, in my opinion, that there are or have been in the P.W.D. or S.I.T. officers whose conduct has not been above reproach. It may well be so in any country, in any department, that somebody gets in who should not be there. When he is found out, out he goes. But vague general overall attacks of this sort do not hurt the wrongdoers. What they do hurt is the general public service. They dangerously damage the good and honest officers and they camouflage and conceal any criminals there may be because by casting suspicion on everybody, they completely fail to spotlight and isolate anybody who actually is wrong; and the criminal can sit back and laugh to himself and say, "Ha, ha, that pure man on the next desk is now being accused. Maybe, they cannot catch me." Attacks of this sort do serious damage to morale and in every way tend to encourage and not to discourage corrupt practices. I turn to another allegation which I think I must refute. "The P.W.D. buildings were incredibly (or unbelievably or unimaginably) expensive." This was an allegation which has been made in this Assembly frequently and I think it was at the end of 1956 that I pressed again and again in this Assembly to say, "Let us have this taken up in the Estimates Committee. All right, if you say it is too expensive, let us take it up in the Estimates Committee." Well, the Estimates Committee sat through last year. They had on it the Member for Ponggol-Tampenis (Mr Goh Chew Chua) amongst others who himself was formerly a contractor and should be in a position to know. They had the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) who is well-versed in building problems and who is himself working on very large development projects. The Estimates Committee on page 3 of its Report found that further study should be given to the matter but that as far as they could see, the high cost of the P.W.D. buildings was not solely due to higher standards but might be due to the fact that there was a restricted list of contractors; and they found nothing else. On page 33, one hon. Member tried to compare popular buildings - one-storeyed houses - sold for $30,000 each including land, sanitation, roads and everything complete and he said, "How does that compare with $38,000 for a government bungalow?" And the answer he got from the Director of Public Works was that the houses he was praising were extremely poorly built, "flashy" but badly finished inside and would not last more than a few years before they gave trouble. There was a proposal that we should go and compare buildings erected by the P.W.D. and by private enterprise and I went to have a look at a block of flats built by private enterprise and another one built by the P.W.D. There did not seem very much to choose between them. The one built by the P.W.D. had for its contractor a Member of this Assembly and unfortunately the standard of his work was not very good. There was endless trouble with it. Probably, he would have had the contract taken away from him except that there was great pressure at that time on the P.W.D. to complete the buildings in order to get people out of hotels-

On a point of order. Is it right for a Minister in his speech to make an inference against a Member of this Assembly in connection with his activities outside this Assembly?

It is not a point of order. Carry on, Mr Thomas.

In the case of the privately built block of fiats, all the plaster was off the main staircase. I do not know what had happened for it to fall off; it had come off for some reason. It seemed to be a pretty large undertaking to strip all the plaster off when it could not have been built for many years. In any case, these arguments about whether the P.W.D. flats are a bit too expensive are all relatively minor matters because the main work of the P.W.D. is not building flats. That is the S.I.T.'s job. The main bulk of P.W.D. building is in quite other types - schools and large buildings of that sort. This attack on the P.W.D. concluded with a challenge to a debate in public on the question of P.W.D. costs. I do not know how you can debate in public on P.W.D. costs because it would not be a matter of debate; it is a matter of getting the plans and the bills of quantities and getting them all down and comparing the comparative costs and all the practical details of surveying what actually went into the building and what you got for your money. It could not be debated. It is a matter of arithmetic and calculation. The Estimates Committee is the place where that could be done.

On a point of order, Sir. The Minister for Communications and Works was expressing that the Estimates Committee would be able to go into the extensive cost of the buildings. I submit with apology that the Minister does not know exactly what he is saying. An Estimates Committee could-

Order, please. That is not a point of order. Please carry on, Mr Thomas.

I am sorry that the Member for Farrer Park finds my remarks painful but the Estimates Committee has of course the power to send for persons and papers like other Assembly committees and if they want to go into bills of quantities, they send for them and if they want to have an expert to go into the bills of quantities for them, they can have the expert. I have taken up a little time in dealing with this. I do not want to take up much more time but I think I ought to refer briefly also to the report which I had done on private buildings. Private developers have done a great deal of work in Singapore and it is very essential that there should be ample private development but there is some ground for thinking that a good deal of private development is of an undesirably low standard. The report which I had made and which cost $8,000 is not a report on public buildings. It is a report on the standards at present or which are likely to appear in the future in private building and whether anything should be done to ensure that the standards are maintained; and if something should be done, what should be done. That is the nature of the report which I have got and the suggestion that I was wasting $8,000 on getting the P.W.D. to report on itself is of course meaningless.

3.12 p.m.

Sir, before I reply to the various points raised by the Opposition, may I move a motion under Standing Order 7 (11), That the proceedings on the remaining items of business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 7.

I second it.

The Question is, "That the proceedings on the remaining items of business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 7." As many as are of that opinion, say Aye. Some hon. Members: Aye.

To the contrary, say No.

No.

I think the Ayes have it? The Ayes have it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Standing Order 23 reads: "Notice shall not be dispensed with in the case of a motion or in respect of any other proceeding for which notice is required except with the consent of the Speaker and the general assent of Members present." The "general assent", I take it, is that every Member should agree and there should not be one dissenting voice. There was a precedent in this House where there was a dissenting voice and that motion did not go through. May I have your ruling, please?

May I refer the hon. Member to Standing Order 7 (11) which is a new amendment, of which he may not be aware? Standing Order 7 (11) reads as follows: "A Motion may be made by a Minister, without notice, at any time between 3 p.m. and 3.30 p.m., to the effect that the proceedings of any specified business be exempted from the provisions in this Order...". Is the Member for Queenstown satisfied now?

If that be the case, yes. Resolved, That the proceedings on the remaining items of business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 7.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, this Assembly do stand adjourned to the 11th of June, 1958.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, this Assembly do stand adjourned to the 11th of June, 1958.

Debate resumed. 3.15 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I now rise to reply to the various points raised by Members of the Opposition which have not been covered by my colleagues. Members of the Opposition have attacked the Governor's Speech in that the date of the general elections was not mentioned. We have been accused of being vague on a matter of extreme importance to Members of this Assembly and to the people of Singapore. It is indeed, Sir, a matter for regret that Members of the Opposition do not know what they are talking about as has been evidenced a few minutes ago by the display of ignorance by the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng). Sir, in the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference, it has been made abundantly clear that the date of the general elections, that is the date of coming into effect of the new constitution for the State of Singapore, is dependent on a motion being moved by this Assembly to the Governor saying that the time has come for general elections to take place. The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) while touching on this challenged the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) to table such a motion. The Member for Tanjong Pagar while criticising the vagueness of the Governor's Speech did not say whether he was in favour or not of early elections. All he did was to pound his chest and say, "No matter when it is, we will win." All I can say is, "We shall see." The Member for Tanjong Pagar said that recent events have shattered our confidence. I think he was referring to the results of the City Council elections. If he were, Sir, I think recent events in the City Council have shattered the confidence of the public in the P.A.P.

That is what you are hoping for.

He accused us, with regard to the date of the coming into force of the new constitution whether we introduce compulsory voting or not, that the Government was not going to hold early elections. Sir, surely it is not for the Government to fix a date for the general elections but under agreement reached in London it is for this Assembly. The Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) who is not here, Sir, said that we are a minority Government. Yes, we are. We are proud to be the minority Government that cannot be overthrown because the Opposition do not have the guts to overthrow us. They can at any time table a motion - a vote of no confidence to get us out. Let them do it. All they know is that this Government is brave and courageous enough to do something which they themselves dare not do and which they themselves know that we are doing for the good of the people of Singapore and even my hon. friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar is quite pleased. It was by Government's action that the subversive elements in his Party are now enjoying hospitality in Changi prison.

Thanks to the `Marshall' law. The Chief Minister Had it not been for that, Sir, I think the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) would not have said that the Member for Tanjong Pagar is the Rightist of the Leftist movement. I do not know what that term implies but one thing which I did say and which the public knows is that without the action of my so-called minority Government the, shall we say, "champion of the working class" might be having a large number of backseat drivers still driving and would not be driving himself. In fact, one significant backseat driver is still in Changi prison. I said, Sir, in my speech that this year is indeed a very crucial year. I warned the Members of this Assembly - and in their heart of hearts they believe it is true - and yet they played party politics in this Assembly. I told them, "Please, hon. Members of this Assembly, do realise that the fight ahead of us is a very stiff fight. It is not a fight of the Parties represented in this Assembly at present. It is a fight of democratic forces against Communist forces in Singapore. Are we to be foolish enough to play party politics and allow the security and happiness of the people of this country to be jeopardised?" I appeal to them, "When we go forward to the general elections, let us fight hard, but fight wisely, otherwise the subversive elements with their new fronts - the old fronts having been denied to them by Government action - will do all they can to capture the prize or the fruit that we have all worked so hard to achieve." Quarrel among ourselves if we like - that is democracy - but in the big thing that lies ahead of us never forget that we face the same danger. The security of this new State of Singapore that is to come into being is in jeopardy if we do not wake up in time to meet the threat that is at present mustering all their resources to throw all their forces into the general elections. But I say this (I have been asked to name a date although I need not have to name a date) - the date of the general elections will be dependent on when the Government is satisfied that subversive forces are not going to capture the Government of the new State of Singapore, but we will not go beyond the Rendel Constitution. I say, "Blame me as much as you want but who am I when I have the security and the happiness of the people of Singapore at stake? They are greater than this Government here which is not more concerned with being returned at the next general elections." We would be happy to surrender this Government to any democratic form of Government if they will meet this threat strongly and boldly and not dilly-dally. Sometimes, they are comrades and sometimes they are not comrades. We do not like that, Sir. Come out boldly on your stand and say, "We are for this." We heard from the Member for Tanjong Pagar that the Labour Front Coalition is a sinking ship. I do not know; I have not seen any water leaking in yet. Then he tries to teach us, to teach me particularly, Sir, who have been working hard for the good of the people of Singapore since 1948, how to suck eggs. Then, Sir, he touched on the fire victims, "Ha, let us appeal to the masses. Let us capture their imagination. Let us exploit, shall we say, the sufferings of the people. Let us make this suffering the basis of a grand appeal to the masses." He said, "We the P.A.P. do this and do that. The people poured in the money to help these victims just because the City Hall has now been turned from the so-called colonial building into something that is grand and something that understands the feelings and the aspirations of the people of Singapore." So much so that there is booing and shouting when the City Council sits every time! Sir, in this Assembly as Minister for Labour and Welfare, I say that all political Parties and all sections of the people in times of, shall we say, emergency and distress of this kind, should rise above party politics and help to ameliorate the sufferings of the poor. The people of Singapore rose to the occasion and donated so much money, clothing and goods, and as much of other things. They did all these things not because of the antics in the City Hall, but because today they are the citizens of Singapore and they realise it. It is their responsibility to ameliorate the sufferings of their fellow-citizens not because of what one Party said or what another Party did. I understand that even the Workers Party tried to cash in on the sufferings by selling sweets outside the camp. As usual, the Member for Tanjong Pagar is fond of issuing threats - wonderful! "You want to fight, come on. I am not afraid of you. If you do not do this, watch out!" Sir, we on this side of the House have been doing all we can quietly - without show, without wanting to seek publicity and without having to issue, shall we say, a press release almost every day. We do it quietly. We regain the confidence of the people of Singapore. We regain the confidence of the people outside Singapore and yet just by one silly utterance of a politician in this Assembly, everything is damaged. What heights of irresponsibility! The Member for Farrer Park (Mr A. R. Lazarous) said something about the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I do not know whether he is making an application to join the P.A.P. or to meet the ex-comrades of the P.A.P. - I do not know which. I do not even know whether he has joined the Workers Party. He has said a number of things in this Assembly which puzzle us a bit. The Member for Queenstown and the Member for Telok Ayer criticised that part of the Governor's Speech which deals with trade. They said that this Government must have the assent of the United Kingdom Government before we can enter into any trade agreement. Their attention has been drawn to paragraphs 33, 34 and 36 of the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference. Sir, they approved this Report when we debated the talks in London, and now they do not know what they approved. They say this is all wrong. Very lamentable! I only hope, Sir, that the electorate will open their eyes and know the type of Members they returned to this Assembly. Now on compulsory voting. This matter was brought up at one of the civics courses. I never brought it up, nor did I think of it. But at my Party conference it was decided that if the public wanted compulsory voting, we should accept that and introduce legislation for it. Organisations have written to me. I met them last Saturday and as a result of the discussion I told them that since they wanted compulsory voting, we will introduce legislation. The Government has not yet decided on this, but the Labour Front part of the Coalition Government is committed to introducing legislation. Our coalition partners, the U.M.N.O., are against it, and I respect their views. This is a matter in which we should allow all sections of opinion, even among Ministerial colleagues, to voice. I did not want to touch on this subject, because the Member for Changi has a motion on the Order Paper, but it is clear from the report in last Sunday's papers that the Labour Front has been committed to acceding to the wishes of the organisations concerned. We are not using anything as an excuse to delay the elections. We pointed out that if compulsory voting has to be introduced, it will be necessary to have a few months more in which the electorate can be educated. Compulsory voting, they say, would be a good thing because we will then be able to put an end to so many allegations of corrupt practice at election time. The Report of the Elms Commission also supports compulsory voting and has given reasons why it should be introduced. The People's Action Party and the Liberal-Socialist Party have said that they will see to it that the draft constitution will not contain anything other than what has been agreed in the report. Surely they need not have to suggest that. We went to London as an All-Party delegation. The Government did not and do not propose to claim credit for having brought back the constitution. We said it was an All-Party effort, and because it was an All-Party effort, it is stated in the Governor's Speech that the draft constitution will be settled by the same delegation. There is no sinister motive in bringing the delegation to London. Some people have alleged that we are going there for something else! In a way, of course, I can understand their qualms, especially as they have not yet received copies of the draft constitution. I have not received it too, but I have been assured that copies will reach us at the end of this month, and as soon as copies are received, they will be despatched to the members of the All-Party delegation. The Member for Telok Ayer said he wanted early elections. I say this to him: if he really wants early elections, and as it is already in the Report of the Constitutional Conference in London, he can table a motion. No one is going to prevent him from doing it. He can table it and achieve what he wants, instead of harping at every sitting that we are a minority Government. Sir, as we have a number of motions on the Order Paper to be settled today, I do not think I should take up some more time of hon. Members on the political speeches of Members of the Opposition, but I would like to say this once again: Let us wake up to the facts. Unless we work hard and work well, the people of Singapore are going to suffer if subversive elements capture the government.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, 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.

3.39 p.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $610 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule B contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 5 of 1958. Sir, this motion deals with the creation of the General Executive Service of which mention was made in introducing the new schemes for the General Clerical Service and the General Clerical Assistant Service last year. The Executive Service shall be intermediate in status between the Administrative and the Professional Services on the one hand and the Clerical and lower services on the other. Members of the service will undertake responsibility for day-to-day execution of routine matters over a wide range of subjects. Their duties will include inspection work, the enforcement of laws, the issue of licences and other documents in conformity with regulations, and many other matters where policy is clearly established. As a result, higher graded officers should be freer to consider matters of more than ordinary difficulty, and questions of policy. The schemes of service have been agreed with the representatives of the Staff Side and have been recommended for approval by the Public Service Commission. These schemes provide that candidates with a Higher School Certificate or equivalent qualification will be eligible for admission to the service. For the first three years after its introduction, special provision is made for the entry of serving officers and the Public Service Commission has already advised the selection of 250 of these. A survey has been made of the administrative, executive and clerical work of each department and an establishment of posts for the Executive Service has been drawn up. This is shown in Schedule A attached to the Sessional Paper. In this connection it should be noted that there has been no increase in the total number of posts in the establishment as a result of the creation of the Executive Service. It is purely a matter of conversion. 331 existing posts will be converted into 8 Senior Executive Officer posts, 89 Higher Executive Officer posts and 234 Executive Officer posts. It is not possible to estimate exactly the cost of implementing this scheme from the 1st of January, the date which has been agreed with the Staff Association, but it should be of the order of $6,000, and this can be met from savings. In the circumstances, token votes only are required to give legal sanction to the creation of the posts on the establishment of the Executive Service. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate the advantages, in terms of increased efficiency, of the creation of the Executive Service and give it their support. Sir, I beg to move.

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

3.43 p.m.

The summary is at page 15. The Chairman proceeded to call the title of each head of expenditure- Head Title Supplementary Provision Required $ 2. Judicial 10 (Token) 3. Council of Ministers 10 " 4. Legislature 10 " 6. Audit 10 " 7. Chief Minister 10 8. Chief Secretary 40 " Whereupon Mr Hart rose--

Yes, Mr Financial Secretary?

As a matter of convenience and as we are rather short of time, might I suggest, Sir, that the Question on the Order Paper be put to the House? They are all token votes, required merely to give legal sanction to the creation of the establishment of the Executive Service. I realise this procedure is somewhat irregular, but it would save time and I do not think that any harm would come of it.

I am afraid I can find no provisions in the Standing Orders to allow me to take the total sum without calling the title of each head of expenditure. I will now continue. The Chairman then proceeded to call the remaining titles of the heads of expenditure in Schedule B- Head Title Supplementary Provision Required $ 9. Broadcasting 10 (Token) 10. Chemistry 10 " 11. Defence Services 30 " 12. Film Censorship 10 " 13. Gardens, Botanic 10 " 14. Information Services 10 " 15. Police 10 " 16. Printing Office 10 " 17. Prisons 10 " 18. Registry of Marriages 10 " 19. Statistics 30 " 20. Legal 10 " 21. Official Assignee and Public Trustee 10 " 22. Treasury 10 " 26. Accountant-General 10 " 27. Customs and Excise 10 " 28. Estate Duty and Stamp Office 10 " 29. Income Tax 10 " 30. Ministry of Commerce and Industry 10 " 31. Agricultural 10 " 32. Co-operative Development 10 " 33. Exchange Control 10 " 34. Fisheries 10 " 35. Forest 10 " 36. Imports and Exports Con- trol and Registration 10 " 37. Marine 10 " 38. Marine Surveys 10 " 39. Supplies 10 " 40. Trade Marks Registry 10 " 41. Veterinary 10 " Head Title Supplementary Provision Required $ 42. Ministry of Local Government, Lands, and Housing 10 (Token) 43. Land and District Offices 10 " 44. Survey 10 " 45. Education 10 " 46. Library, Raffles National 10 " 47. Museum, Raffles 10 " 48. Medical and Health 10 " 49. Ministry of Labour and Welfare 10 " 50. Immigration and Passport 10 " 51. Labour 10 " 52. Social Welfare 30 " 53. Ministry of Communica- tions and Works 10 " 54. Civil Aviation 20 " 55. Meterological Services 10 " 57. Public Works 10 " ------ Total to be voted 610 ------ The sums stated for the Heads stated above ordered to stand part of Schedule B. The sum of $610 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in Schedule B ordered to stand part of the motion. Motion and Schedule reported, without amendment. Question on the Motion put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $610 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule B contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 5 of 1958.

3.52 p.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $871,940 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 6 of 1958. Sir, as soon as the elections to the District Councils have been held in the middle of this year, three District Councils will replace the present Rural Board and will be entirely responsible for the provision and maintenance of local government services in their own districts. This will involve the division of existing staff, equipment and votes of the Rural Board between the three District Councils and all necessary arrangements to this end have already been made, so that the District Councils can assume full responsibility as soon as they take office. It will, however, also involve the provision of additional staff, funds and equipment. Hon. Members have always been aware of, and have expressed their willingness to accept, the fact that the development of local government by the replacement of the Rural Board by District Councils would, at least in the early stages of the scheme, result in increased expenditure. The additional staff, funds and equipment which will be required in 1958 are shown in the Schedule attached to the Paper. On page 2 is set out a list of the new posts which will be required to enable the District Councils to function properly. Appendices A, B and C on pages 3 and 4 indicate the additional funds for recurrent expenditure, daily paid wages and equipment which will be required. The requirements for additional staff and equipment have been examined with great care in the Treasury, and I can assure hon. Members that they have been reduced to the minimum which we consider essential for the task in hand. There has been no 'build-up' or extravagance in the compilation of the estimates. The funds now sought will be added to the existing Rural Board votes and apportioned in due course between the Councils along with these votes. Provision has been made for 9 months, but quite obviously the total sum thus provided will not be required. On the other hand, it is desired to recruit staff as soon as possible, so that they can be trained and experienced in their duties by the time the new Councils are set up. I can assure hon. Members that any savings which may eventuate will not be used for other purposes without the authority of the Legislature. Next year, Sir, each District Council will have its own estimates on what might be termed Rural Board lines. Sir, I beg to move.

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

3.55 p.m.

The summary is at page 5. Head 43- The sum of $539,790 for Head 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 43- The sum of $332,150 for Head D 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sum of $871,940 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the motion. Motion and Schedule reported, without amendment. Question on the Motion put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $871,940 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 6 of 1958.

3.59 p.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $3,150,024 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 9 of 1958. Sir, this is a fairly substantial message. It involves a supplementary vote of over $2 million for the Ordinary Estimates and $1.7 million for the Development Estimates. These may seem fairly large sums for one message but it must be remembered that there has been no sitting of the Assembly since 8th January and that the work of Government must go on. Full explanations of all the items are given in the message and my colleagues and I will be happy to amplify these explanations if this is necessary. I should, however, like to draw attention to one or two items of outstanding importance. In connection with item 5, Sir, hon. Members will note with much regret that Dr Benham's leave of absence from Chatham House expires in May. We have been singularly fortunate in having had the services of such a distinguished economist as Dr Benham for the past eighteen months, and I am sure I will be speaking for all the Members of this House when I say how sorry we are that his secondment cannot be extended. Items 6 to 19 make provision for the establishment of a Rural Development Panel. Government has been concerned for some time that the activities of the Government and other bodies in connection with the development of rural areas has not been co-ordinated to the extent which they might have been. This has not been due to any neglect on the part of the authorities concerned but has resulted from the fact that there has been a great expansion of development activity in the rural areas over the past two years, and that attention has until now been entirely concentrated on launching individual schemes. The question has recently been considered by the Economic Committee of the Council of Ministers and it has been decided that the best way to achieve the required degree of co-ordination is to set up a development panel with an official entitled Rural Development Commissioner as the executive officer of the Panel. The task of this Panel will be to plan and co-ordinate development in the rural areas. There will be a close liaison between the Rural Board and, later, the District Councils, so that functions of the various bodies do not overlap. Later when plans have been worked out in detail, the Assembly will be asked to vote such additional sums as may be required. In this connection, however, an assurance can be given that no money will be wasted on schemes which have not been considered in all their implications. We have seen elsewhere the way money can be wasted as a result of misdirected enthusiasm. In addition, it is proposed to establish a close liaison between the Government and the farming communities by the introduction of a small band of field development or liaison officers who, after training in the Land Office, and with the Veterinary, Agriculture and Fisheries Departments, will live among the farmers, pass on the advice of the experts and inform Government of the needs of the various communities. Items 33 to 51, Sir, concern items required for stepping up of the war against tobacco smugglers. The proximity of the Indonesian islands around Singapore encourages smuggling, and we have evidence that certain of the ports in these islands are being used as bases for smuggling operations. Again, the great developments which have taken place recently in outboard motors have given the smugglers far more efficient means of running contraband than they have ever had before. The increase in tobacco duty has given added incentive to the smugglers, who are now prepared to run great risks since the rewards of success are so great. The matter is one of great importance since the valuable tobacco revenue is in danger. It is difficult to say just how much is being lost at the present time but from information at my disposal I estimate that it is about $2 million a year despite all the efforts of the Customs Department. Steps are and must be taken to contain, and eventually to eliminate, smuggling. It is not a short-term problem; it is long-term. The incentive to smuggle will always be there as long as duty is imposed in Singapore. As a result, the policy of the preventive branch of the Customs Department has been revised. All available men are deployed on anti-smuggling patrols. Ship-building programmes have been amended to provide faster small craft Use has been made of captured craft, which is a dangerous and not very satisfactory expedient. Now we wish to carry the matter further and to obtain funds to build further small craft which are essential for close pursuit in shallow waters, and for the staff and equipment necessary to step up the campaign. At a later date I shall probably come forward with a proposal to divert funds already voted for a large launch, for the construction of still more launches of the Kilat class and also a radar station on a strategic island to control all the approaches to Singapore. I trust that hon. Members will support all these proposals which I regard as essential to the successful prosecution of the war against smugglers. At the same time I should like to take this opportunity to pay a further tribute to the excellent work which the Customs officers are doing night in and night out in all weathers, in conditions of extreme discomfort and sometimes of considerable personal danger. If any hon. Member would like to see the Department at work, I shall be happy to arrange it. It is a rewarding experience to see local Customs officers planning each night's operations and carrying them out with great success. Item 68 deals with a project to which publicity has already been given by the Ministry of Education. It represented a long-sighted policy the immediate aim of which is to give the opportunity for a secondary education to many of those who have failed to gain admission to secondary schools. I have no doubt that my Hon. Friend the Minister will be only too willing to elaborate on the details of the scheme if required to do so. Item 69 describes in some detail the arrangements for the campaign for the gradual elimination of tuberculosis which is planned by the Government. The scheme is based on proposals thought out by the Ministry of Health, and examined and approved by Sir Harry Wunderley, the great authority on tuberculosis as a public health problem; Due, in the main to a recommendation of Sir, Harry Wunderley, we have been fortunate to obtain the promise of generous assistance under the Colombo Plan from the Australian Government, whose interest in Singapore is well known and manifested in many ways. Item 93 seeks funds for the accelerated implementation of Government's road programme for the rural areas. I think that my Hon. Friend the Minister for Communications and Works, who is acting for the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, will wish to speak on this item. Sir, I beg to move.

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

4.07 p.m.

The summary is at page 33. Head 7- The sum of $78,945 for Head 7 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 8- The sum of $105,652 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 11- The sum of $298,751 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 25- Question proposed, "That the sum of $39,000 for Head 25 stand part of the Schedule."

Sir, Head 25 item 27 indicates a grant of $3,000 to the Badminton Association of Malaya in connection with the preparations for the Thomas Cup Championship which will be held in Singapore next June. Sir, I have looked up the old Estimates to see whether, for the old Thomas Cup Competition, this Government made contributions to the Singapore Badminton Association. I was unable to discover any grant having been made to them. Why is it that we are being asked to give a grant this time when they were able in past years, quite rightly and properly, to carry on without a Government grant?

It is indeed a fact, Sir, that hitherto no grant has been given to the Badminton Association of Malaya in connection with the Thomas Cup trials. We did make a contribution after the first Thomas Cup expedition to England. The Association finished up with a deficit on the trip. It was shared between the Governments of the Federation of Malaya and of Singapore. In this particular case, we received an application from the President of the Badminton Association of Malaya. He informed us that the training programme would cost a considerable sum which he had to bear from his private purse in previous years. He appealed to both Governments to make some contribution towards the expense. After consultation with the Federation Government, we each decided to make a contribution of $3,000.

Is it really suggested that we should pay as much as the Federation? Just as a matter of principle, should we bear half the cost?

Sir, the amount is really so small that I think we can afford to make a token payment of $3,000, exactly the same as the Federation payment, without worrying too much about the question of more apportionment.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $39,000 for Head 25 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 27- The sum of $492,332 for Head 27 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 29- The sum of $12,604 for Head 29 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 30- The sum of $86,610 for Head 30 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 37- The sum of $5,668 for Head 37 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 41- The sum of $86,196 for Head 41 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 45- The sum of $378,370 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 48- The sum of $342,345 for Head 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 52- The sum of $10,000 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 57- The sum of $20 for Head 57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 15- The sum of $123,030 for Head 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 17- The sum of $331 for Head 17 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 43- The sum of $14,670 for Head 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 46- The sum of $40,428 for Head 46 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 56- The sum of $20,801 for Head 56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D11- The sum of $514,648 for Head D11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D15- The sum of $10 for Head D15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D43- The sum of $957,430 for Head D43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D45- The sum of $144,646 for Head D45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D48- The sum of $12,000 for Head D48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D56- The sum of $40,097 for Head D56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D59- The sum of $20,000 for Head D59 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D55- The sum of $27,000 for Head D55 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D61- The sum of $72,000 for Head D61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sum of $3,150,024 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the motion. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question on the Motion put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $3,150,024 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 9 of 1958.

4.17 p.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $3,954,450 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 10 of 1958. This, Sir, is the annual schedule of revotes under the Development Estimates. The need for a supplement in each case is explained in page 3 and subsequent pages of the message. Each case is an adjustment of the sum provided in 1958 in the light of expenditure in 1957. In no case has there been any change in the nature of cost of the project, nor will any supplement result in the estimated cost approved by the Assembly being exceeded. Sir, I beg to move.

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

4.18 p.m.

The summary is at page 7. Head D2- The sum of $28,950 for Head D2 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D9- The sum of $15,080 for Head D9 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D11- The sum of $36,742 for Head D11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D15- The sum of $98,882 for Head D15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D17- The sum of $18,589 for Head D17 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D27- The sum of $5,572 for Head D27 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D41- The sum of $480,246 for Head D41 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D45- The sum of $55,518 for Head D45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D48- The sum of $2,340,219 for Head D48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D52- The sum of $6,000 for Head D52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D54- The sum of $48,112 for Head D54 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D56- The sum of $101,704 for Head D56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 57- The sum of $101,366 for Head D57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D59- The sum of $54,304 for Head D59 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D60- The sum of $169,216 for Head D60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D61- The sum of $393,950 for Head D61 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sum of $3,954,450 for the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the motion. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question on the Motion put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $3,954,450 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 10 of 1958.

4.23 p.m. The following motion stood in the name of Mr Lim Cher Kheng- That this Assembly holds the view that, with the introduction of Singapore Citizenship by this Assembly in its effort to secure the loyalty of the people to this country, Singapore citizens have a bounden duty to vote at elections held under the provisions of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance (Chapter 53) to ensure that the Legislative Assembly is fully representative of the electorate; and calls upon the Government to introduce legislation to provide for compulsory voting in Legislative Assembly elections.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the reply from the Hon. the Chief Minister to the debate on the Governor's Speech clearly indicated that the Government is in favour of compulsory voting. I take this to indicate also that the Government will soon introduce legislation in connection with-

Point of order, Sir; the hon. Member has not moved his motion.

The Hon. The Minister is very quick, Sir. - certain necessary provisos and make this compulsory voting more workable. Therefore I do not propose to take up more time of this House just to debate this "hot" motion. Sir, I beg to withdraw the motion standing in my name.

The motion is therefore not before the House.

4.26 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, which reads: "That this Assembly views with very grave concern and alarm the repeated allegations of ill-treatment, by means of electric wires and cold freezing treatments, of some persons detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, by some officials of the Singapore Police Force at the Central Police Station, and, in view of the very serious nature of these allegations, is of the opinion that a Public Inquiry Commission, headed by a High Court Judge with two or more independent and impartial members of high standing and having public confidence and respect, be set up forthwith to inquire into and report on the truth or otherwise of these allegations." Sir, in moving my motion, it brings my memory back to the old days of the Japanese regime. During the Japanese regime, everyone trembled at the word Kempetai; that word was a very dangerous one during the Japanese time. Today, we are supposed to live in a world of freedom, and Singapore is considered the most peaceful country in the East. But, Sir, the Government, under the guise of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, has made the people fear it more than they feared the Kempetai during the Japanese regime, because of the powers given to the police under this Ordinance. Under this Ordinance the people are frightened to death to criticise either the Government or the police. How can then a person develop his personality under arbitrary detention without open trial? What is worse, apart from this, is that torture is practised by the police on detained persons. Every country or society must enact laws to protect itself from criminals and other evil-doers; and in order that such laws of the country are complied with and maintained, Government has got to introduce legislation to safeguard the interests of all shades of people, be they coloured or uncoloured. Such powers as arrest, search or detention are given to the police, and as long as these powers are properly exercised, they are the safeguards of freedom and human rights. Sir, daily we experience or hear of many cases of abuses of power by some officials of the police force. It was only yesterday when two Bills were introduced that we hear Members of this Assembly criticise the abuses, or are afraid that the powers given to the police may be abused. If such powers given to the police are abused, then arbitrary rule takes place. It leads to the hater Gestapo or Kempetai rule and then the country becomes a police state. Like the Japanese rule, Sir, false confessions are put on through Kempetai methods and the Kempetai methods are nothing but torture. During peace-time, a man can be sent to prison for the crimes that he has committed in the past. But the Government cannot detain any person for imaginary offences of the future that the Government expects him to commit. In Singapore, Sir, there is no civil war; there is no national war. So we consider ourselves to be lucky to live in a world of paradise. Apart from how lucky we may be, Sir, we have the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, which is in fact forced on us and passed by this Assembly. Under this Ordinance, if the Governor in Council is satisfied that a person is acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the country, the Chief Secretary shall make an order for the detention of that person for any period, but not exceeding two years. Such wide powers given by the Government cannot be carried out by the Chief Secretary alone. He is a single man and he cannot carry out such orders single-handed. So the Chief Secretary then relies upon the police force and calls upon the police force for the enforcement of these rules, orders or instructions issued by him under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. Under this Ordinance, Sir, the rules, orders or instructions made by him are not even published in the Government Gazette for the information of the public. Whatever is passed here or whatever the Government does is published in the Government Gazette, and that is what the Government Gazette is for - for the information of the public. But such things are not published in the Government Gazette. So, Sir, the handing over of this blank cheque by the Chief Secretary has in some instances resulted in very, very grave abuses of the law. Take the case of Lim Chin Joo, Goh Boon Toh, Tan Bok Teng and Tan Juat Seng. I understand that the grievances or complaints of these four detainees were circulated to the majority of, if not to all the Members of this Assembly. And with the complaints I understand that a medical report by a private practitioner was attached. These complaints of torture, Sir, are very, very grave abuses of the law and a threat to our very existence. Police officers engaged in the detention of offenders should not be allowed to discard the detention skill, if they have any, and try to use more easy and tempting measures of torture to make people confess and so obtain the clues that they want. I am not a lawyer, Sir, but I am told by some legal friends that the law of evidence of the courts provides that a confession made by an accused person whilst in the custody of the police cannot be admissible in a court of law. The object of this law, Sir, is to safeguard the accused person from being subject to abuse by police officers for extortion and oppression to get the information required. I have known quite a lot of cases where the police often extort confessions, by undue influence of torture and oppression. To prevent such abuses, this law was enacted. To me, I cannot see how torture can be used to obtain confessions. Are we, Sir, going back to the old Japanese regime, when we feared the word Kempetai? As I said earlier just now, Sir, when I introduced this motion my memory brings me back to the old, old days - 1942 to 1945. Now it appears to me, Sir, that people, instead of fearing the word Kempetai, fear the word P.P.S.O. - the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. However, Sir, even in this Ordinance I cannot find the word "torture" at all. I have gone through it and there is not a single word which says torture. Therefore, Sir, how is it possible that brutal methods, as alleged, have found their way into the administrative system? If the allegations are true, then there is no doubt of the inevitable collapse and destruction of our administrative machinery. Whatever we may say, Sir, the vital issue before us today is not of the torture. It is whether these allegations are true or not, whether they are in fact true or not. In the case of Lim Chin Joo, Sir, I understand he is the brother of a Member of this Assembly who is now, I think, in Changi Gaol with him. The allegations were made by Lim Chin Joo on oath before a Commissioner of Oaths, and I think that they should be accepted. I understand, Sir, that a few days after he had sworn to his complaint, he was removed to Changi Gaol. I presume that it was only after his complaint that he was transferred to Changi Gaol. Otherwise he might be confined in the Central Police Station lock-up for more torture. It will be observed, Sir, that this detainee was confined in the Central Police Station for about five-and-a-half months in all. Soon after his arrest he was kept in the Central Police Station for 48 days. The Chief Secretary said yesterday that a man cannot be detained for more than six weeks, which is only 42 days and not 48 days. During this period he was not questioned at all. If the police did not intend to question him, why did the police confine him in that Central Police Station lock-up for 48 days? The Chief Secretary told us yesterday, while introducing the two amending Bills, that people are detained there for interrogation purposes. Then why was Lim Chin Joo not questioned or interrogated at all? Furthermore, Sir, this appears to me a gross disregard and misuse of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. Not satisfied with this initial confinement of 48 days, he was again removed to the Central Police Station on 15th November last year from Changi Prison. There he was kept until the 11th or 12th of last month-it was only last month, Sir - a period from 15th November until that date is roughly about four months, to be precise, 116 days. Why, Sir, when the Chief Secretary said a person can only be confined for six weeks, was this detainee confined in the first instance for 48 days?

Order. May I remind the hon. Member for Queenstown to confine his speech to facts more relevant to the motion, which appears to be allegations of treatment by means of electric wires and cold-freezing treatment?

I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am just introducing my subject to point out how the police confine detainees or persons in the Central Police Station for torture. When it comes to a certain stage or when it comes to the right time, I have documents with me which refer to torture and freezing treatment. The total period during which this detainee was confined in the Central Police Station was, in the first instance, as I said, 48 days. The second instance was 116 days, making a total of 164 days, which is roughly five-and-a-half months. This discloses a shockingly long period for carrying out investigations. In the normal course of events, the police cannot detain a person for more than 24 hours unless ordered by a court of law. Under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, section 17 (3), a detainee can be confined in a police lock-up for about 16 days, 24 hours in the first instance and another 24 hours in the second instance, and then after investigation if the Chief Secretary is not satisfied, another 14 days. I will read the relevant section: "Section 17 (3). No person shall be detained under the provisions of this section f or a period exceeding twenty-four hours except with the authority of a police officer of or above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police or for a period of 48 hours in all:"- which means a detainee can only be confined for 48 hours- "Provided that if an officer of or above the rank of Superintendent of Police is satisfied that the necessary enquiries cannot be completed within the aforesaid period of 48 hours he may authorise the further detention of such person for an additional period not exceeding fourteen days and shall on giving such authorisation forthwith report the circumstances to the Commissioner of Police." Sir, under this section a detainee can only be allowed to be confined for 16 days, but the Chief Secretary told us it is six weeks. I do not know how he gets his six weeks. From this section, Sir, you can now note that, as I just said, it is for 48 hours in the first place, then another 14 days. When he was originally arrested on 22nd August, 1957, he was confined in the Central Police Station lock-up for about 48 days, then for four months, making a total of five-and-a-half months.

Order. I feel obliged to remind the hon. Member for Queenstown that the wording of his motion reads as follows: "That this Assembly views with very grave concern and alarm the repeated allegations of ill-treatment, by means of electric wires and cold-freezing treatments." All we have heard so far have been certain sections of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, nothing touching upon the wording of the motion. May I once again, therefore, ask the Member for Queenstown to confine his speech to the wording of his motion?

Again I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My motion is closely related to this Ordinance, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. It refers to four detainees who were arrested under this Ordinance, and I think in introducing my motion I should bring the preliminary in - what this Ordinance is and how those detainees were arrested under it. Unless I quote the section under this Ordinance, there is no indication of how the detainees were arrested and why they were arrested. That is why I have got to quote this Ordinance before I come to the actual torture. Sir, as I said, he was confined there for five-and-a-half months. Where then is the legal and moral justification for this detainee to be confined in the Central Police Station for nearly five-and-a-half months? Is this not abuse of the application of section 17 (3) of the Ordinance? The only conclusion is that the Chief Secretary or the police force took the law into their own hands. I am under the impression that the Chief Secretary may no doubt seek his legal justification under section 12 of this Ordinance. For information, I will read section 12 now, Sir: "12.-

Point of order, Sir; may I enquire what provisions or how the provisions of the Ordinance relating to removals from Malaya are relevant to the motion now before this House?

I have already reminded the Member for Queenstown that what he has been speaking on - referring to sections of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance - does not appear to me so far to be relevant to the wording of the motion. I once more ask him to confine his speech to matters relevant to the motion.

Sir, as I have said, this is closely related to the Ordinance but since it is your ruling that I should confine myself to the wording of the motion, I will now come to the "torture" part of it. Sir, as I said earlier, the majority of the Members of this Assembly have received complaints from Mr Lim Chin Joo. To those have not, I will read extracts of the affidavit filed by Mr Lim Chin Joo and signed in the presence of the Commissioner of Oaths, and this is where the "torture" part comes in: "On or about the 15th day of November, 1957, I was removed to the Central Police Station lockup. On the following day the 16th of November, 1957, I was ordered to leave my cell and was taken to Room No. 6 (the interrogation room). I was ordered to stand in front of a fully opened air-conditioner and to place both my hands on the said plant. At this time, I was with a bare body from waist upwards. It was extremely cold and it was beyond my endurance. Shortly afterwards, cold water was brought in and sprinkled over my back and front chest. This form of torture"- Now, the word "torture" is there - "lasted for about 20 minutes." [Interruption.]

Order, please.

"Soon after, I was handcuffed and my hands were placed behind me and fastened to a chair. Thereafter, electric wires were applied all over my body including my private parts - in the medical term "glans penis". At this time, I was blindfolded with a piece of cloth and I was unable to see the perpetrators of this electric shock treatment. The cold torture as stated in paragraph 4 herein [which in fact is paragraph 2 as I have just read] was repeated to be followed by the same electric shock torture. These two forms of torture were alternately perpetrated on me. I was blindfolded whenever the electric shock tortures were applied on me. In all, I was subject to the cold torture twice and the electric shock torture was applied four times on the same day and these alternate forms of torture lasted for about two hours. On the 18th day of November, 1957, some five to six persons entered my room. I was slapped a few times by some of them. I was ordered to take off my shirt in front of the air-conditioner and cold water was brought in. It was sprinkled on my body and poured on my head. This cold torture lasted for about 15 minutes. I reported the torture inflicted on me to the prison doctor when he came on his rounds on the same day. On or about the 20th day of November, 1957, my father came on his weekly visit and I reported the aforesaid tortures to him and told my father to report this matter to my solicitor. After my father had left, I was taken into the interrogation room by a police officer and was ordered to stand in front of the air-conditioner without a shirt for about 15 minutes. Then I was taken to my cell. On the same day, at about 2 p.m., I was again asked to come out from my cell by a police official. I was ordered to stand before the air-conditioner. About five persons were present at this time. I stood before the fully opened air-conditioner for about 10 minutes. I was told that my former solicitor wished to interview me. I was taken back to the C.I.D. interview room. There I lodged a complaint to my solicitor and also reported the tortures to a private medical practitioner who was also present in the C.I.D. interview room at this time. Exhibit marked `A' is a copy of the medical report made by the private medical practitioner. The exhibits marked `B' and `C' are copies of letters sent by my former solicitor to the Director of Special Branch and to the Chief Minister of Singapore." This is what Mr Lim Chin Joo has filed in an affidavit in the presence of the Commissioner of Oaths. Sir, the most agonising and monstrous part of the allegations, as I have just read out, was the electric current applied, amongst other parts of his body, on his private parts. Is that fair, Sir? Members can refer to the doctor's report, copies of which, as I said, have been circulated to quite a number of Members. I would like to read the medical report but some of the medical terms are not familiar to me but for the information of Members, I will say that the report was made out by Dr Lee Siew Choh (L.M.S.). International Dispensary Limited, 4-6 Hill Street, Singapore, 6, Tel. No. 36550: "Medical Report of Mr Lim Chin Joo, Date, 20.11.57 at 2.40 p.m., Place, C.I.D., Complained that he was shocked with electric current - wire attached to battery - on 16.10.57 at about 10 am. Examination, amongst a number of items, No. 6-glans penis". This is the medical report to which I have just referred. Is it not, Sir, inhuman and most barbaric that this form of torture was practised on a detainee? I understand from an expert scientist that current treatment is more receptive if applied after a certain degree of coldness. This I believe is the reason why Lim Chin Joo was given the electric shock treatment after the cold treatment. As soon as practical, this detainee reported, the tortures inflicted on him to the prison doctor when he came on his rounds, as I have just read out. Then he complained again to his father and then from his father to his lawyer. After his lawyer, a private doctor was then summoned. Now in one of the letters sent by Mr Lim Chin Joo's lawyer dated 27th November, 1957 addressed to the Director, Special Branch, C.I.D., it quotes all these things. It quotes that Lim Chin Joo did not wish to proceed with an identification parade asked for earlier. The Hon. the Chief Secretary may like to know why this detainee refused to proceed with the identification parade. How could, Sir, a man identify any person when he was blindfolded (as I just read out) at the time when he was tortured? There are many other reasons. In the first instance, he may still be under police custody and is afraid that if he really identifies the assailants concerned, he may be subjected to more tortures. Apart from this, the investigation into these allegations was carried out by the police officers themselves who are, in fact, an interested party. Could an interested party carry out an impartial investigation especially when their own reputation is at stake? This again may be one of the factors. Again, it will seen, Sir, from paragraph 5 of Mr Lim Chin Joo's complaint, that he was blindfolded. Is it possible, may I stress again, for a man who is blindfolded and cannot see anything to identify anybody? Hon. Members will be surprised to know that in the case of Mr Goh Boon Toh, it is entirely different. I understand that he asked for an identification parade but in asking for this identification parade it was refused by the police. Now, Sir, in view of this, you may say in one case that the man refused to identify but in this case it is just the opposite. Mr Goh Boon Toh asked for an identification parade but the police refused him. Would it serve any purpose, Sir, for a man to ask for an identification parade when it is refused? I understand that Tan Bok Teng and Tan Juat Seng, another two of the detainees, had an identification parade and in fact identified three of their assailants. What action has been taken by the Government? Nothing at all! So would it serve any purpose of having an identification parade of the police officers themselves when action is not taken against those identified? Sir, the only way now to restore the confidence of the people is to ascertain the truth or otherwise of these allegations through an independent Tribunal. As I said, you cannot say whether they are true or not. So the vital issue that is facing us is whether they are true or not and if we want to be sincere about wanting to know whether they are true or not, let us throw it open to a public Commission of Inquiry. When the facts come up, it is then up to that Commission to say whether they are true or not. We have before us complaints of torture by four detainees - a barbaric form of torture, I may say. How can every one who is considered an honourable Member in this House ignore such complaints? All these complaints are of a very, very grave nature. Can we ignore such complaints? In the case of Goh Boon Toh, I understand that at the time when he was tortured, he was suffering from T.B. Whether this allegation again is true or not, I do not know but now when a man is suffering from T.B. and is subjected to electric and cold freezing torture, is this not barbaric? Is this fair, may I ask the Government? We have here a society that is called the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Are these detained people to be treated far worse than animals? So the policy of the Government as regards the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is just nothing but a window-dressing. We might as well close down that society if human beings are treated far worse than animals. We have read, Sir, of cruelty to dogs in the local press when the Russians sent a dog into outer space in their Sputnik II. It received the widest of publicity and, if my memory serves me right, Sir, the President of the Canine Welfare Association who is now a City Councillor immediately sent a cable to Russia protesting against the cruelty to the dog concerned. Is there no one in Singapore who can champion the cause of human beings at least? Sir, in the case of Goh Boon Toh, he did not complain of electric torture because he was not subjected to it. His complaint was only of the cold treatment. Again for the information of those who have not received copies, I will read extracts of his complaint. This is not as long as the previous one: "We are instructed that during interrogation, one of the Special Branch officials whom the said detainee could identify hit him several times on his head and another official placed his index finger around the region of the throat and pressed his finger hard for about six to seven minutes. At this stage, he could hardly breathe.". Was the police officer trying to choke and kill him? It is better to kill him outright rather than to allow him suffer such torture. "The next day interrogation commenced at about 9 am, and was conducted by the same officials as the previous day together with another new officer. One of the interrogation officers was alleged to have told the said detainee, "I am going to put you to talk"- which means that he was trying to force it on him. "I am going to put you to talk and unless you talk, I will put you into that freezing cold chamber." Is this not oppression? Is this not using force? What else can we call it? "Soon after the police officer's threat of a freezingly cold plant he asked the detainee to embrace the said extremely cold plant. The detainee was again ordered to take off his shirt but was allowed to have his trousers on." Lucky enough! "He was bare from his waist upwards. While the detainee was embracing the cold plant, another officer poured cold water on his back. This prison torture in the cold room lasted for about one hour. While this prison operation was in process, two officers who were standing on each side of the detainee pressed their fingers on both sides of his ribs for some time." This time they were not choking him. They were trying to dig between his ribs! "The detainee complained to us that the cold was humanly unbearable and this coupled with the continuous pressing on the sides of the ribs made the detainee to lose consciousness. He was unconscious after such treatment." Sir, in the case of the two detainees, Tan Bok Teng and Tan Juat Seng, their complaints of torture have also aroused the politicians in the United Kingdom, it is rather surprising how the United Kingdom came to know about it. Questions were tabled in the House of Commons by Mr Awberry, who I understand is a Member of Parliament and belongs to the Labour Party, in connection with the tortures experienced by these two detainees. Such Members of Parliament, are, in fact, socialists. I would like to quote, Sir, from the Hansard of the House of Commons of 30th January, 1958, column 510: "SINGAPORE Detainees (Inquiry) Mr Awberry asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under whose auspices the recent inquiry into the allegations of ill-treatment by Tan Juat Seng and Tan Bok Teng was held; against whom the allegations were made; how many members composed the committee of inquiry; and how many of them were members of the police department of Singapore. Mr Profumo: The inquiry into the allegations by these detainees that they had been ill-treated by members of the Singapore police was ordered by the Commissioner of Police [which means the Commissioner of Police ordering a Commission of Inquiry and using his own department with his own reputation at stake]. It was conducted by the head of the administration section of the special branch of the Singapore Police, and its results were considered by the Commissioner of Police, the Attorney-General, the Chief Minister and the Governor, who all endorsed its conclusion that the allegations were not substantiated." How could the Commissioner of Police order an inquiry within his own department and, what is more worse, the Special Branch of the police force, when they themselves were the persons who arrested the detainees? Are they prepared to give a report to the Commissioner of Police or to the House of Commons that they committed such tortures? Mr Awberry: Is the Minister telling us that the people who are accused were the people who acted as judges in this case?" That is what Mr Awberry asked. Is it not a fair question? "If so, is he aware that not only have we to do justice but to show clearly that justice is being done, and that that cannot be done if the accused are the people who are to act as judges in the case." That means the judges are the accused persons or the accused persons are the judges. What purpose does that serve then? [Interruption.]

Order, please.

As I said, Mr Awberry is a socialist and it has not only interested Mr Awberry but it has also interested quite a number of trade union organisations in the United Kingdom. A letter of protest signed by the Chairman of the Movement for Colonial Freedom, London Area Council - that is what we are asking for, colonial freedom - together with endorsements by 19 trade union organisations in the United Kingdom was sent to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Rt. Hon. Mr Alan Lennox-Boyd. Now, Sir, if this has not aroused any interest, why then should 19 trade union organisations send a letter of protest to the Secretary of State? I will read that letter of protest if Members will permit me. It is from the Movement for Colonial Freedom, London Area Council, written to the Rt. Hon. Mr Alan Lennox-Boyd (the Secretary of State for the Colonies), Great Smith, S.W.1., dated 20th Feb ruary, 1958: "Sir. We protest against the refusal of the Singapore authorities to hold an inquiry into allegations of torture carried out by police officials in that Colony. The Secretary of State for the Colonies and Parliament in the United Kingdom holds the ultimate responsibility for affairs in Singapore and we therefore request you to initiate an impartial inquiry into allegations that the police tortured two detainees Tan Bok Teng and Tan Juat Seng during last September. In connection with this request, we would draw your attention to Article V of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as laid down in the Charter of the United Nations which states, `No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.' Further we wish to place on record our whole-hearted opposition to the use of emergency power whether in Singapore or in any other colonial territory. We request a fair public trial or immediate release of all detainees and an end to all oppressive legislation such as that which permits detention and banishment without trial and the suppression of trade unions and other organisations." This letter is supported by 19 union organisations. It would take too long for me to read their names out. Sir, if these cases of torture have aroused the United Kingdom Government and the trade union movement in the United Kingdom, what has the governing Party here done? The governing Party - the Labour Front - claims to be a socialist Party. What has it done to look into the interests of these four detainees about their complaints of torture? Again, Sir, what have the Liberal-Socialists done, or is the word "Socialists" only attached to the name of that Party? Why call yourselves socialists when you do not have that socialist policy? Again, Sir, what has the leader of the P.A.P. done? The P.A.P. is in fact-

He happens to be the lawyer who acted for the persons.

Oh, good, we can get better information then.

He knows more about it than you do.

P.A.P. is considered a Leftist Party. A Leftist Party, I think, is a socialist Party. I do not know whether that is correct or not and if that is so, what has the P.A.P. done? Apart from these so-called socialist Parties, what has the trade union movement in Singapore done? Nothing at all. This is a matter which is of very grave concern. Apart from the socialist Parties here, the trade union movement which claims to champion the cause of workers has also done nothing. I can only hope, Sir, that all the trade unions in Singapore together with the so-called socialist Parties will rally round this cause because these are startling allegations. To those of us who have lived through the four years of Japanese or Kempetai rule, this reminds us of similar ill-treatment by the Japanese warlords. As I said earlier, Sir, whether all these allegations are true or otherwise, I feel that I am not competent to say so. I am not a lawyer; neither do I know the actual facts of the cases. What I have now quoted are all on paper and from these papers, I make up my case. I consider it my duty that I should table this motion and bring the matter before this House. Sir, if these allegations are untrue, then it is all the more necessary that Government should hold this Commission of Inquiry forthwith to tell the world and the people of Singapore that all these allegations are, in fact, untrue. It is far more necessary if they are untrue. If they are true, then keep quiet. It is no use, Sir, just refuting and refuting on paper that they are not true. As I said, if you are not prepared to hold that Commission of Inquiry, that will clearly indicate that those allegations are, to a certain extent, true and that that is the reason why you are not prepared to hold the Commission of Inquiry. The Commission of Inquiry which I am asking for should be an independent one - not consisting again of police officers or Commissioners of Police or anybody attached to the Special Branch. Only when this Commission of Inquiry is held and the facts and report given, will we then be able to decide and say whether these allegations are true or not. In the name of humanity and social justice, I hope that all Members in this House will give me their fullest support in adopting my motion and whilst I ask for the adoption of this motion I would like to add that the terms of reference be extended so that such Inquiry will also be able to hear evidence from those persons arrested by detectives and brought to police stations or to the C.I.D. I have heard many cases where persons have been brought in for no reason and assaulted by detectives or police officers. Again whether this is true or not, I have not seen for myself but there are numerous complaints and when we do have this Commission of Inquiry, I hope that the terms of reference would also include such cases. I beg to move, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion. The mover of the motion has put the case clearly in every detail with dates, facts and figures. I do not think that I have more to add except one point. There were accusations levelled against the police force even in this Assembly that they are an inefficient lot, but at least in the detention camp they are doing an excellent job. Question proposed. 5.14 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown who moved this motion had a considerable amount to say about the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. I do not want to follow him on that but I would only say that my Hon, friend the Chief Minister has already given ample grounds for the existence of that Ordinance and its provisions. I will however, if you will bear with me, Sir, refer to two points regarding which I think the hon. Member was under a mis-apprehension. The first was his reference to the right to detain a person after his arrest for a maximum period of 16 days. That is correct but that is the right of the police to hold the man for up to 16 days without a detention order having been made. He also stated, Sir, that I had replied to a Question yesterday to the effect that no detainees had been kept for questioning for a period longer than six weeks. I am afraid he must have misheard me on that because I did inform him that in a number of cases, they had been detained for a longer period. In the particular case to which he referred, the main reason why the period was prolonged to that extent was because a complaint was made and inquiries had to be conducted into the complaint before anything further could be done. Sir, the hon. Member finished his introductory speech by saying that he was not competent to say whether these allegations were true or false but the whole of his speech was based on the assumption that they were true and the picture he drew was one which I think must have stirred the emotions of everybody but it has validity only if there are grounds for thinking that these allegations are true and therefore, Sir, I do submit to the House that this motion stands or falls by the question of whether or not these allegations have any substance. Sir, a full inquiry was conducted into each of the allegations made in these four cases and I propose to detail to hon. Members the results of these investigations but before I do so, I would like to make one or two preliminary observations. Firstly, Sir, this motion does constitute a very grave reflection not only on the police but also on all the other officers including the Attorney-General and the Chief Minister who have been associated with accepting or rejecting the results of these investigations. It is therefore a matter of great public importance that this Assembly should address itself to the subject of this motion quite objectively and impartially and not allow its judgment to be in any way swayed by emotion. The second observation I should like to make, Sir, is that these allegations are made against individual police officers, those whose duty it has been to question the detainees on the dates when it is alleged that these malpractices took place. Neither in the allegations nor elsewhere is there any evidence associating any other police officers with the behaviour alleged and any attempt to extend the accusations to hold any particular section of the force responsible can only be a matter of inference and I suggest that hon. Members should reflect very carefully before considering that any such inference is justified. I would like, thirdly, Sir, to refer to the procedure followed in investigating these complaints. It has been suggested by the hon. Member that there is something improper and in itself a cause for disquiet that the investigation into these complaints has been conducted by police officers. This suggestion, Sir, is, in my view, wholly misconceived. Wherever and whenever complaints or allegations are made that a crime has been committed, whether the person accused is a member of the public or a member of the police force, it is the duty of the police to investigate the complaint. That is one of their functions and there is no other organisation charged with that duty. The investigating officer takes statements from all the persons concerned and from any others who might have knowledge of the fact. These statements and his report are, in appropriate cases, forwarded to the Attorney-General who then decides in his capacity as Public Prosecutor whether a charge should be brought against any person. If the complaint concerns the behaviour of a member of the police force and it appears from the investigation that there has been a breach of discipline, then it is the duty of the Commissioner to decide whether disciplinary proceedings should be initiated. This is the procedure which was followed in investigating these complaints and whatever hon. Members may feel regarding the substance - the truth or falsehood of the complaints - I do ask them to put out of their minds any suggestion that there was something abnormal or sinister about the procedure adopted. Sir, in detailing the results of these investigations, I shall be referring to the Government Medical Officer and I should like to explain now that the Medical Officer is specifically charged with the duty of seeing every detainee who is temporarily confined in the Central Police Station every working day. Wherever he may be when the Medical Officer makes his rounds, he is seen by the Medical Officer. This arrangement has been made not only to ensure that the health of the detainees is properly looked after but also to guard against any malpractices of the type alleged. Sir, I would now like to deal in detail with the four cases in which these allegations have been made. Two of these were brought to the notice of the Hon. the Chief Minister by a letter from a firm of lawyers dated 25th September last year. In the first case, it was alleged that while being questioned on 18th September - that was a week previously - the detainee had been tied up and punched, that the police officers concerned administered some tablets and that he had complained of the assault to the Medical Officer when he saw him the following day. The Medical Officer confirmed that the complaint of assault had been made to him that day and on examining the detainee he had found three minor contusions. This finding had been reported the same day to the Assistant Superintendent in charge who questioned the detainee on how he had acquired these contusions to which the reply was that they had resulted from a bout of horseplay with a fellow-detainee. On 26th September, the day after the lawyer wrote, a private practitioner was brought in by the lawyer to examine both detainees. In the case of the first detainee, he reported finding a few abrasions on the left forearm and right wrist. In the course of the investigations, a statement was taken from this detainee in which he said that he had also been assaulted on 22nd August - that was the previous month - and that he had on that occasion been subjected to electric shocks. He was in fact examined by the Medical Officer on 23rd August - that is the day following this first alleged assault - and the Medical Officer had found no trace of any injury of any kind and it is also to be noted that neither in his complaint to the Medical Officer on 19th September nor in his complaint to his lawyer on 23rd September did he make any mention of this alleged electric treatment unless the lawyer did not see fit to pass it on. This, Sir, seems a very strange omission. Following the lawyer's complaint, a statement was taken from the second detainee concerned. In this, he alleged that he had been subjected to assault and electric shock on six occasions. One of these was alleged to have been 29th August and he made a complaint to the Medical Officer the following day. The Medical Officer examined him and again found no signs of any injury to support the allegation. When he was examined by a private practitioner on 26th September - that is about a month later and subsequent to the further alleged assault on 19th September - the doctor reported that some small healing scabs were found on various parts of his body. It was alleged in his complaint to his lawyer that this assault had taken place on 19th September. The Medical Officer has testified that on that day he visited this detainee while he was being questioned and that he noticed nothing abnormal. He added in his statement that if anyone were in pain or fear he was sure that he would be able to detect it from his expression and would at once question him. At an identification parade, the detainee picked out certain police officers whom he alleged had assaulted him. These were among the officers who had questioned him but they emphatically denied the allegations of assault. In the third case, the detainee alleged that on 16th November, he was made to take his shirt off and stand over an air-conditioner while cold water was poured down his back. He also alleged that he was subjected to electric shock. Two days later, he complained to the Medical Officer who found a number of scratches on different parts of his body. The Medical Officer reported the matter and the senior officer thereupon interviewed the detainee the same day and asked him if he had been assaulted to which he replied, "No". On 20th November - that is two days later - his lawyer arranged for him to be examined by a private practitioner. The report made by the latter - and this is the report to which the hon. Member referred - stated that tiny linear scab marks were visible on a number of parts of his body. The following day, he was examined by two specialists at the Department of Pathology in the presence of his own private doctor who confirmed the findings of the private doctor. They also reported that the nail of his left little finger showed an irregular free margin about 1½ millimetres long while the nails on all the other fingers were cut down to the base. Their conclusions in regard to the lesions - that is the scab marks - were that they were deliberately inflicted but that they could not exclude the possibility either that they were caused in the manner alleged or that they were self-inflicted. Two days later, the lawyers wrote that they wished to lay a formal complaint and asked for an identification parade. Despite what the hon. Member said in regard to Lim Chin Joo and his inability to identify the persons responsible, his lawyers were instructed to ask for an identification parade. This parade was arranged three days later. Just before it was to be held, the detainee said he did not wish to proceed with the matter and was not prepared to attend the parade. He was then asked whether he would attend the parade in order to assist the police inquiry. He declined to do so and the following day his lawyers wrote confirming that they had been instructed not to proceed with the matter for the time being adding that if further assaults took place he would wish to proceed on this complaint also. The complaint in the fourth case was made in a letter from the detainee's lawyers dated 25th November. In this it was alleged that on 5th November while this detainee was being questioned he had been assaulted and that on 6th November - the following day - he was made to stand over the air-conditioning plant while cold water was poured down his back and extreme pressure was applied to his ribs. It was further alleged in the letter that he lost consciousness and that a doctor was called in who gave him four tablets to relieve pain. In a subsequent statement, the detainee somewhat modified this story by stating that he did not lose consciousness. He also stated that it was immediately after he had had cold water poured down his back that he was instructed to sit down, to put on his shirt and to leave the room. He stated that he did so and met the Medical Officer in the passage outside. I mention this point specifically because the Medical Officer has testified that when he examined him his skin was absolutely dry and so were his clothes. It is inconceivable that they could have dried off in such a short space of time. The Medical Officer's evidence in this case is this; that he made his usual rounds on this day and visited this detainee in the interrogation room. He did not meet him in the passage. He says that he saw nothing abnormal in the room. The detainee was fully clothed and fully conscious sitting on a chair. He noticed however symptoms in the detainee which pointed to tuberculosis and he gave orders for him to be brought to his examination room. There he examined him alone; no one else was in the room. The detainee made no complaint of any assault or ill-treatment. As a result of his examination, the Medical Officer ascertained that he had a history of tuberculosis and had previously attended the Tan Tock Seng Hospital for treatment. The Medical Officer then sent him to hospital to be X-rayed but before doing so gave him four sulphatriad tablets to protect him against secondary infection of the lungs. This is the origin of the story of the tablets to relieve pain. The Medical Officer also stated that he found no marks on his body such as would have been apparent if his ribs had been constricted in the manner alleged. The detainee was subsequently asked why he made no complaint of ill-treatment to the Medical Officer at that time or later to the Medical Officer at Changi where he was transferred two days later. He said that he was afraid to complain to the Medical Officer at that time because the door of the room was ajar and there was a police officer within earshot. The statement that the door was open is specifically contradicted both by the officer who conducted him to the room and by the Medical Officer who states that he himself shut the door for the very purpose that the detainee should not be inhibited from talking freely to him. In reply to the question why he had not complained to the Medical Officer at Changi, the detainee said that he did make a complaint. This statement is denied by the Medical Officer concerned. Those, Sir, are the salient facts in the four cases in which these allegations have been made. In every case, the police officers concerned categorically deny that any such ill-treatment took place. I should also add that while they are being questioned, constant visits are made to the room by senior officers at irregular intervals and they have never observed any treatment of the nature alleged. These cases were, as I have explained, very fully investigated and the results of the investigations were submitted to the Attorney-General who decided that there were no grounds for proceeding on the complaints. The question naturally poses itself: if these allegations are unfounded, why were they made? The answer, Sir, is I suggest to be found in the activities with which these persons have been associated. They have every incentive to try and discredit the police who are striving to counter the subversive activities of themselves and those working with them. They also have every incentive to avoid being questioned on these activities and to hinder the police in carrying out their tasks by bringing them into disrepute. They had in fact ample opportunity to concert the stories they would tell and those stories might have carried more weight had it not been for the wise precaution taken to have a Medical Officer visiting these detainees daily and whose evidence has largely brought out discrepancies in the statements made. I would like, Sir, again to appeal to hon. Members to consider this motion in an objective and impartial spirit unclouded by emotion or prejudice and I do not think I can conclude better than by quoting the comments made by the Medical Officer concerned. I may say that he is no longer in Government service; he is now in private practice but I have his permission to quote from his statement. He says: "From my observations of the conditions here, I would think that the allegations are wholly unfounded, malicious and with strong intent to damage the good name of the police force. Indirectly, it is an insult to me as a doctor in his own rights." 5.36 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was one of the solicitors in the major case cited by the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng). In fact, I think I know the whole story better than the Member for Queenstown can ever know from the carefully prepared brief that he read.

Birds of the same feather.

Sir, the position briefly is this. On a certain day in November, the father of a detainee came to see me at one o'clock when I returned during the luncheon hour. He informed me that his son, whom he saw at 11 o'clock that morning, had been assaulted and had complained to him of it. I got in touch with the Director of the Special Branch and informed him that I wished to interview my client with a private medical practitioner whom the father was arranging for. At half past two that afternoon, I interviewed my client together with the medical practitioner. The report as the Member for Queenstown read was the report which the medical practitioner gave to me. I took a full statement myself of the alleged assault, and I immediately wrote to the Director of Special Branch informing him of this, with a copy to the Bar Committee, and another copy to the Chief Minister. I considered it an extremely grave and a very serious charge and one which should be pursued to the very end. I therefore, on instructions, asked for an identification parade in order that five of the police officers who could have been identified, should be identified and proceedings taken against them. Three days later, the identification parade was arranged. I went round to the Central Police Station at half past four, and there I received instructions that my client did not wish to proceed with the identification parade. I explained the position very carefully to my client, including the implications which may be drawn by a judge, or by any Tribunal, if he refused to go on with the identification parade. It ended with written instructions to me which I took to protect myself, to say that he did not wish to proceed. Subsequently, Sir, I was asked, not in my capacity as a lawyer, but in my capacity as an Assemblyman, to move this subject in this Assembly. Sir, the democratic system is open to political propaganda, and is open in some eases to abuse. But, after my experience in that case, I had not the slightest intention of being a party to something which I did not believe was right and proper. I am not afraid to tell the Member for Queenstown that, although he may think that he will get a lot of political credit out of this - be is a very unwise man for many reasons, not least of all the fact that in his heart of hearts he knows jolly well that this is a thoroughly dishonest motion. I say this openly and publicly, that if I had got those five police officers identified, I would have prosecuted them to a conviction, and got them out of the police force, and have had the Government hold an inquiry into the whole of the Special Branch. But I will not be a party to something which I did not believe was true. When instructions given me were subsequently countermanded at the last moment, it was my duty as an advocate and solicitor, and as an officer of the Court, not to be a party to some smear which I did not believe to be right and proper. Now, Sir, that is the reason why I did not wish to bring this matter up for debate, but I would ask the Government to consider carefully that although a Commission could be a platform for further propaganda, the Government should also consider that they could clarify this position, and have the Inquiry to go into the facts or otherwise of the allegations, and clear the officers concerned. There are pros and cons, but on balance, my view is that there is more to be gained by a properly conducted Inquiry - to ascertain the facts, not for the purpose of propaganda - than by just throwing out the application for an Inquiry. In my submission, an experienced judge would be able, not only to ascertain the facts, but also to see that there is no character assassination of police officers if that is what the Government is afraid of-in the course of the Inquiry, without proof being brought. The judicial process is not one which can be easily perverted and, if the Government wishes to dismiss these allegations completely, then the proper thing to do would be to have this Inquiry, and have the report tabled in this House for subsequent debate. Now, I speak from experience in regard to only one case. I do not know the other three cases, and I am therefore not in a position either to confirm or deny the allegations made. The proper tribunal for that should be a judicial one. If the complainants chose not to bring it before a court, then a quasi-judicial Tribunal might serve the purpose of completely dispelling any disquiet which may have been caused by the dissemination of these allegations. 5.45 p.m.

May it please you, Sir, I, together with my hon. friend the Chief Minister, am, in the eyes of the hon. Member for Queenstown, apparently one of the accused, but I am not here to defend myself. The person who is fortunately quite beyond any criticism is the Hon. the Chief Secretary, who has given the facts to this House as they have been established by the machinery that is proper to establish those facts. The hon. Member for Queenstown, in moving this motion, ended by telling us that he does not know the facts and that he is not competent to say whether what he alleges is true or false. The Chief Secretary is competent and he has given the House the facts. But I should like to say to the Member for Tanjong Pagar a word about the action he has taken. I would like to say how much I appreciate the attitude he took. He has quite properly given the lie to, as he says, only one case; but he has done that. The Member for Queenstown does not appear to have made any enquiry himself before putting before this House a motion that he admits may be true or may be false - he does not know; he has not enquired. Apparently he has not even bothered to find out. Now, having had irrefutable evidence that one of these four allegations is false from the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar and having heard the facts given by the completely disinterested Chief Secretary who was not even in Singapore or responsible for the police force at the time, there can, to my mind, be no question of the view this House will take when it comes to decide what should be done with this motion. But in case Members are considering the very proper remarks of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar about the merits of the judicial process, may I just say that the judicial process is not one that should be abused by being invoked in cases that are quite transparently unworthy of credence. I am aware of the value of those processes and I have to act quasi-judicially in arriving at decisions I make as Public Prosecutor. But I do say that in this case - first, there is clearly no call for any enquiry; second, that at this length of time it is extremely doubtful whether any useful purpose would be served, particularly as it is now, I think, obvious that whatever complaints or whatever grievances these four people may now consider themselves to be suffering from, it is extremely unlikely that, they having had these months to prepare, a judicial enquiry would be more than a platform of the type that the Member for Tanjong Pagar so deprecates. Finally my third reason for suggesting that no judicial enquiry is called for is that to have one when the facts have been so plainly established would be an abuse of the process and quite patently a waste of its time. 5.53 p.m.

Sir, I am surprised that this motion was filed in the name of the Member for Queenstown and not in the name of the Member for Tanjong Pagar. When the Member for Queenstown laments in the name of human rights that the Labour Front is quiet, the Liberal-Socialists are also quiet, the P.A.P. are also quiet, the trade union leaders are also quiet, and only he champions it, I find that he has plunged into the whole matter without seeing exactly where the way leads. If it is publicity that he wants, probably he may have a small amount of it - but if he is facing realities and acting sanely, then to bring a matter of this nature to this Assembly needs real and careful investigation. I have also been given a copy of the complaints that he read out at length to this House. In fact, I have not wanted to initiate any move at all, because if there is any move that is going to be initiated, it should be the leader of the Party one of whose members is under detention. If the leader of the People's Action Party has found no fault, or has found it unnecessary to move a motion of that type, then I think anybody else moving it and not knowing the facts as well as he did would be just wasting the time of everybody in this Assembly. 5.55 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the motion that has been moved by the hon. Member for Queenstown confirms the view which I formed when I spoke on the Governor's Speech. I said that the subversive elements in Singapore are now doing their best to seek new fronts, as the old fronts have been lost to them, by finding stooges from among persons who are prepared to prostitute themselves for their own ends; and this, I am sorry to say, Sir, leads one to think that perhaps what I said two days ago is being proved this afternoon. The hon. Member came here saying that he does not know the facts of the case, and then he presented them in such a way as if he is the one and only champion in Singapore of subversive elements. He said that not one organisation - neither the P.A.P., the Labour Front, the Liberal-Socialists nor the trade unions - in Singapore has raised a finger in protest or has championed this particular cause. I am happy to hear, Sir, that in Singapore there are a large number of organisations and individuals who can no longer be hood-winked by subversive forces. I was indeed touched by the speech of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. I listened to him with respect and with admiration - his is indeed a very sober and responsible speech. I would have liked to agree to his suggestion that perhaps it might be better in the interests of the Government that an enquiry should be held into this, but, as has been stated by the Attorney-General, because of the lapse of time, the appointment of such a commission would not help at all but would just be playing into the hands of these subversive elements, whose one and only desire is to make their voices heard. Let us drown their voices with louder, stronger and healthier voices among the democratic forces of Singapore. The Government, Sir, is against the motion. 5.59 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the emotional feeling which the Member for Queenstown brought to this matter is one for which I have great sympathy. I recollect a case not so very long ago, before this Government came into power, when a man jumped from a window of the interrogation Room and killed himself. I wrote to all the newspapers and a lot of other people saying that this was rather a doubtful procedure and ought to be investigated. When I became a Minister, the matter was still close to my heart and I spoke to the then Chief Minister, Mr David Marshall, and pressed on him the need that he should satisfy himself most fully that there was no fear that torture might be used in interrogating detainees. He shared my views and subsequently he told me that he had been into the matter very thoroughly, by personal visits, by inspections, by ascertaining regulations, by finding out exactly what the procedures were, and he assured me that he was absolutely certain that there was no reason whatsoever to suppose that the sort of method which the Member for Queenstown has brought before us was, in fact, employed or likely to be employed or could be employed safely without a certainty of detection in a not very long space of time. I just mention this very briefly because I feel that the former Chief Minister's views on this sort of thing are well known and that he at that time had fully assented to the view that the allegations of torture that were made then as well as now were unfounded. 6.00 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think most Members sitting in this House are aware that I had practised 27 years in the courts of this colony and I have had my fair share of criminal practice. In the course of my practice I never hesitated to condemn the police when I felt condemnation necessary, and I had never hesitated to commend the police when I felt that commendation was due. I extend a fraternal hand, as a member of the Bar, to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar for upholding the high traditions of the profession which he and I have chosen. When he realises that any allegation made is dishonest, and the motion which is now brought up is dishonest, he has the courage to say so. That is the tradition in which we have been brought up. I would never hesitate to act, even as a Minister today, if I find malpractices in the police force. I would fight any of them, the Chief Minister included, if I felt it necessary. I have gone through the whole of the papers in this case and I am fully satisfied that there is no truth in any of these allegations; furthermore it would be a positive waste of time to have judicial officers sitting in a court of inquiry. 6.02 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am glad that the Chief Secretary has given the Government's view on this issue. Every case has two sides to it. I gave my side and he gave his side, it is now up to us to decide whether we should or should not have a commission of inquiry. It is not up to us to decide whether the allegations are true or not. I am rather surprised that this issue has worked up the emotions of the Minister for Health. As I have emphasised again and again, whether these allegations are true or false, let us leave them in the hands of the commission of inquiry, and not let us - 25 elected representatives, three colonial officials and four nominated Members - decide whether they are true or not. The facts can only be in the hands of the Government and not Members of the Opposition. So we cannot decide whether they are true or not. It is only the Government who can say whether they are true or not, but it is their story. Let the story of the opposite side come into the hands of the commission of inquiry. Answering the Chief Secretary that when I move this motion it was on the assumption that the allegations are true, I again emphasise that I never assumed that they are true. What I did say was that after reading the papers sent to me. I felt it my duty, in the name of humanity and social justice, to see that something should be done. It is not a question of whether I believe or disbelieve those allegations are true. If they are true, then it is bad; and if they are untrue, then it is far worse because the Government have just committed themselves when they said they are not prepared to set up this commission of inquiry. If it is the Government's story - and they have the complete facts - that the allegations are untrue, why then are they not prepared to set up this commission and hold an inquiry? There must be something that is true. The Chief Secretary said that the police are the proper authority to carry out the investigations. I appreciate that, because the police force is established to carry out investigations and not just to sit idle; but the point is this, Sir, that in these particular cases the police themselves are the interested party. The Member for Changi yesterday or the day before yesterday rightly pointed out that the Commissioner of Police relies on his Assistant or Deputy Commissioner of Police. The latter in turn relies on the Superintendents of Police who rely on the Deputy or Assistant Superintendents of Police who rely on the Chief Inspectors who rely on the Staff Sergeants who rely on the privates. Can the Commissioner of Police, who directs the Special Branch, who themselves are the persons who have detained these people, can he or the Attorney-General or the Chief Minister expect to have a proper, unbiased and unprejudiced report? Some hon. Members: Yes.

The Chief Secretary said that the investigations were carried out very carefully. I again appreciate that, but in view of the gravity of these allegations, are they to be treated in the normal way as other types of allegations? If so, I appreciate the procedure mentioned by the Chief Secretary. These allegations have caused world interest. They have aroused the interest of a Member of Parliament. They have aroused the interest of trade unions in foreign countries. Such allegations are very grave. Is the Chief Secretary prepared to say that the procedure applicable to minor offences be adopted in this case? Is that the proper way? The Chief Secretary also admitted that at one time two detainees identified three police officers, but these three police officers denied the allegations of torture. Are the Government prepared to accept the denial of these police officers? If the Government are prepared to do so, why not they then accept the allegations that they are true? Just the word of three police officers-

Never from subversive forces; never, not as long as I live.

Well, these three police officers were identified and they denied the allegations of torture to the Commissioner of Police, and yet the Commissioner of Police is prepared to accept their word. If the Commissioner is prepared to accept their word, it is their word against another's. Why not then leave it to the commission of inquiry, rather than beat about the bush? Again, in one of the medical reports, the Chief Secretary said that the medical officer said that there was a possibility that the injuries were caused as stated in the allegations. Now the medical officer-

Point of clarification, Sir. What I actually said was that the two medical specialists stated in their report that they could not exclude the possibility of the injuries being caused as alleged or being self-inflicted.

I am much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker. Now, as the Chief Secretary has admitted, the medical report could not exclude the possibility of one or the other - that the injuries might have been caused as alleged, or self-inflicted, which means that there is a doubt. So the medical officer himself cannot say one way or the other. There is a possibility of one or the other. The Chief Secretary again said that at one time he was asked why a complaint was not lodged - that refers to Lim Chin Joo. I think - and Lim Chin Joo said he had not lodged a complaint because he was afraid of the presence of a police officer. That clearly indicates what I have said in my speech - that whilst a detainee is under the supervision and detention of the police, he is afraid to submit any complaints, and the presence of a police officer outside his-

Point of clarification, Sir, The statement to which the hon. Member is referring and which I made was in connection with the last case I dealt with - that was Goh - and he was asked why he had not complained to the medical officer when he was alone with him, not in the presence of a police officer.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not say that he was in the presence of a police officer. I said that because a police officer was around somewhere -[Interruption.]

Order, please.

Not here, but in prison, and I hope that the Chief Minister will not take this House to be a prison when he looked around, taking all of us as detainees. [Interruption.]

Order. May I remind strangers in the Gallery that the Speaker, by virtue of the powers conferred upon him by Standing Order 75, rules that strangers in the Gallery are not allowed to create any disturbance whatsoever? Carry on, Mr Lee.

I am happy that the Chief Secretary has asked Members of this House to treat this motion with an unbiased mind. I think this is a most reasonable statement - that we should not be prejudiced by the Government's story or by the statements or affidavits which have been circulated to us. The Member for Tanjong Pagar said that he represented the first detainee and he brought him down for an identification parade. But when the detainee went to where all the police officers were assembled for an identification parade, this detainee did not want an identification parade.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think, when we are dealing with facts of this nature, we should be careful not only in quoting but also in being quoted. I would like to remind the Member for Queenstown that what I said was that I did not attend an identification parade, I was about to attend an identification parade when I received instructions to the contrary. The parade was ready in the next room, but I never went to the parade.

Thank you for the clarification. I have said earlier in my speech that this detainee was blindfolded at the time he was tortured. Again I gave a number of reasons why he refused to have an identification parade - fear of further torture under police detention or confinement - and again the police are themselves in fact an interested party. So that is the reason why this detainee instructed his solicitor that he was prepared to go without an identification parade. This is not very important, Sir, but the important issue which the Member for Tanjong Pagar brought up is that this motion is a dishonest motion. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I filed this motion not for glory, not for gain, and not for publicity. I do not want glory because I do not need glory. For gain, I am not a lawyer and if I do take this case up, I will not be paid. As for publicity, I know quite a number of newspapers do not give me publicity. It is up to the Press not to give me publicity, but publicity to the torture of the four detainees is more important than personal publicity. The hon. Member said that he disbelieved the facts as contained in the allegations. Whether he disbelieves them or not, each has his own opinion. But what I am happy to note is that he believes in one thing - and that is that a commission of inquiry be set up. I am happy that the Member for Tanjong Pagar agrees with me on this particular issue, if not on the whole motion. Sir, he believes it, but the Government say they are not prepared to set up a commission. Again I may say that it is just a refutation of the allegations, and the Government are not prepared. The Chief Minister has a lot of respect for the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Why not give him that respect about his belief that a commission should be set up? Sir, the Attorney-General said that before I brought this motion to the Assembly I should have made enquiries about the facts, and that when I ended my speech I confessed or admitted that I was not competent to say whether the allegations were false or true. Sir, to obtain information or make enquiries from the Government, I have to go through a lot of red tape. As an elected representative of this Assembly, I feel it is my duty, once a case has been brought to my notice, to bring it to the notice of this Assembly, whether the allegations in the case are true or not, and let it decide. Whether I have made investigations to ascertain if there is truth in the allegations, I wish to say once again that this issue has aroused the interest of foreigners, and if it has done that, why should it not arouse the interest of the people of Singapore and their elected representatives? The trade union movement in the United Kingdom, as I have said, has submitted a very strong protest. If the allegations are not true, I doubt whether the trade union movement there would have sent in that protest. The Member for Serangoon is surprised that the leader of the P.A.P. has not filed in this motion and it has now come in the name of the Member for Queenstown. An hon. Member: Yourself.

Quite so! It is! There is no surprise, Sir. Why should there be surprise? Is it necessary that I should belong to a Party, or these detainees or members of the public should belong to a Party, to bring their cases to this Assembly? I, for one, as an elected representative, do represent the people, irrespective of what Party or what colour they belong to. As long as I have a case which I feel should be taken up in the name of justice, I do so. I act accordingly: I do not play party politics. The Chief Minister says that there are stooges in Singapore and that the subversive elements are now trying to find a new front. Sir, does he classify any elected representative or public spirited man to be a stooge if he is prepared to represent a case to this Assembly? If so, this is not the only time that a motion is filed. This is not the only time that a Member of this House has represented cases to this Assembly and, that being so, those who have brought cases or motions to this Assembly are nothing but stooges. Mr Awberry, a Member of the House of Commons and a Member of the British Labour Party, asked a question regarding this case in the House. Is he then a stooge? If we are stooges, then he should be classified as a stooge. If Members of this House are stooges, then Members of the House of Commons must also definitely be stooges. The way I look at it, Sir, after hearing the Government's story and the speech made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who has definite facts about the case, there appears to me to be some doubt as to whether the allegations are true or not. In a court of law, the magistrate always gives the benefit of the doubt to the accused. I, Sir, representing the cases, am considered to be the accused, and I feel that there is some doubt about them; so let us clear that doubt. The doubt is a very big one. Let us set up a commission of inquiry to clear it up. It is now one word against another. The Government said, "No, the allegations are true." On the Opposition Benches, one or two Members have supported me - the Member for Tanjong Pagar is supporting me to a small extent; he thinks the allegations may or may not be true. So let us set up this commission of inquiry. I hope the Government will change their minds and set it up so as to clear the reputation of the Government and the police force. Question put. The House divided: Ayes, 4; Noes, 19; Abstention, 1. Ayes. Abstention. Goh Chew Chua. Lim, R. C. H. Lazarous, A. R. Lee Choon Eng. Lee Kuan Yew. Noes. Absent. Braga, A. J. Abdul Hamid bin Chew Swee Kee. Haji Jumat. David, E. B. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Goh Tong Liang. Ede, John. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy, R. Jumabhoy. J. M. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Choon Mong. Lim Ching Siong. Lim Yew Hock. Seah Peng Chuan. Mak Pak Shee. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Shanks, E. P. Soh Ghee Soon. Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Siak Kew. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam. Motion accordingly negatived. 6.30 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move the motion standing in my name, namely, That this House deplores the unreasonable and obstructive attitude of the Singapore Habour Board in refusing to accept and implement the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry set up by the Minister for Labour and Welfare on the 16th day of July, 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S 7 of 1957. Sir, on the 6th of September last year there was tabled in this House a Sessional Paper setting out the Report of the Court of Inquiry into the trade dispute at the Singapore Harbour Board. The House will remember that this Court of inquiry was set up as a consequence of a motion which I moved urging the Minister for Labour and Welfare to set up a commission of inquiry to investigate a go-slow then in being at the Singapore Harbour Board. It is now seven months since the findings and the recommendations of the Court were published, and it is a matter for regret that I have to move this motion to draw the attention of the House to the fact that a quasi-government body had chosen to flout the findings and recommendations of the Court of Inquiry when they were not to its liking. Sir, I would like to give a short historical outline of the beginnings of the dispute before I deal with the findings. The House will remember that in May and June of last year there was a great deal of unrest in the Singapore Harbour Board which was triggered off when a go-slow was called as a result of the confiscation of the pass of the General Secretary of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association. But as was clearly brought out at the Court of Inquiry, the causes of the go-slow went much deeper than that. During the hearings of the Court, certain recommendations were made for an interim settlement to hold the position while the Court enquired into the facts. It is a matter for regret that on each and every occasion the Singapore Harbour Board chose somehow or the other to circumvent these recommendations for an interim settlement. Far from the position becoming clearer and more resolved, it has now reached the point today where there is open victimisation of any worker who is associated with the Union, that is the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association. Yesterday, the Member for Serangoon indicated that he thought the Singapore Harbour Board is a very important organ of the Singapore Government. He thought that it was imperative that the livelihood of Singapore should be looked after, and I am quite sure he will agree with me that it is a matter of paramount importance that industrial peace and harmony should be maintained between the labour force and the Singapore Harbour Board. Sir, after a sitting of about two weeks the Court of Inquiry made these findings - these appear at page 7 of Sessional Paper No. S 7 of 1957: "Industrial Relations 9.-

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion. It is a shame that a public corporation like the Singapore Harbour Board should set such a bad example in employer-employee relationships. We all agree, Sir, that the port of Singapore is Singapore's rice bowl. It is important that industrial peace and harmony should prevail. Here we have a shameful example of how a semi-government employer has chosen to flout the findings and recommendations of a court of inquiry because they were not in favour of the Singapore Harbour Board and not to its liking. Sir, if we allow this to pass unchallenged and let the Singapore Harbour Board get away with it, the Government have only themselves to blame. And if next time a big strike takes place and a court of inquiry is set up to solve the dispute, the union can refuse to accept the findings and the recommendations of the court, because it is not in the union's favour. Sir, we must condemn the Singapore Harbour Board for refusing to implement the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry. If after condemnation they still refuse to implement them, the Government must take action against the Singapore Harbour Board and compel them to do what is right. Question proposed. 7.01 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move to amend the motion, To leave out "deplores the unreasonable and obstructive attitude of the Singapore Harbour Board in refusing" and insert "urges the Singapore Harbour Board". Amendment handed in. Sir, before the coming on the scene of politicians, we seldom had strikes. At that time probably we heard from ex-Chief Ministers, Chief Ministers and politicians that the workers were exploited and that Singapore was built on their blood and sweat. However, there was one good thing - there was harmony. At least there was a measure of trust between employers and employees. And I think at that time too, employers looked after their employees and it was an unwritten law that it was their duty to look after them. Times have changed. Workers must be given a better deal and indeed they should be given a better deal. And we have trade unions coming on the scene. If we have trade unions and people who are working members looking after their own affairs, I believe that things could still go on very smoothly and employer-employee relationships could still be good. But when we have people who are not connected with unions coming in, sometimes with good intentions for wanting to help employees, but more often than not coming in with the idea of creating chaos and gaining publicity for themselves, we then meet with a great deal of trouble. Sometimes we find that there need not be a great deal of dispute. It could easily be talked over and the matter settled amicably, but when somebody is fanning the fire of hatred and another is infusing into the other party distrust we then get big troubles being cooked up, and we come to the stage where the employer will not trust the employee and the employee will regard the employer as his enemy. Indeed, Sir, it seems that if one can down the other, then one has scored a point; then one will have gained something. On the face of it, it does look like this. But I would like everybody concerned to know that such action can only bring disadvantages to both sides. I have said in the debate on the Governor's Speech that the Singapore Harbour Board is a very important institution in Singapore. We depend a great deal on it for our trade and our livelihood. But because of its many disputes, because of its many troubles, trade is shifting away from Singapore. The employer may fight the employee, the employee may fight back, and soon we have trade going away to other lands. I ask the people of Singapore, especially the people concerned, as to whether they have any advantage when trade should dwindle to such a small amount, that no matter how great their earnings are per day, they will bring a very small packet home every month. Or ask the employer, no matter how much they can squeeze out of the employee, if there is no business to be done, then you find that there will be no income when you tally up the total for the year. I ask, Sir, that employees and employers, for the good of Singapore, for the good of everybody in Singapore, should try and understand one another, should try and see that there should be less disputes and more harmonious working. However, with many politicians who are interested parties coming on the scene, such may not be the case all the time, and we may have to face a large number of strikes and labour unrest in future. This must be avoided. One way of avoiding such a case would be to appoint a court of inquiry to find out things. And I would say that in many cases the best way to settle a dispute would be not to leave it to the employer and the employee, both thinking that they are right, but to leave it to independent people, independent and impartial people who have no axes to grind. And I think courts of inquiry should be established; arbitration courts should be established. And I believe that one day we must have compulsory arbitration with a panel of people agreed to by employers and employees alike, and they will sit to arbitrate. And I would say that whatever their decision should be, both sides should agree to their decision. This is a case where the matter has been brought up to a court. The court has set out its findings, the court has made its recommendations. It consists of people trusted by all sides and I think that it would be wrong for any party not to accept the recommendations of such a court. I think that the Singapore Harbour Board, as a quasi-Government institution, as a good employer, should accept the decisions of the Court. I, however, Sir, made the amendment because I believe that this is the first case that has come to this Assembly that recommendations of a court of inquiry have not been fully accepted. We would like to urge the Harbour Board to accept those recommendations. It will create a good precedent for other employers and employees to follow if we have courts of arbitration or enquiry appointed at a later date. Sir, I move that this House urges the Singapore Harbour Board to accept and implement the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry set up by the Minister for Labour and Welfare on 16th July, 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper S 7 of 1957. 7.13 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I second the amendment and reserve the right to speak at a later stage.

The original Question was, "That this House deplores the unreasonable and obstructive attitude of the Singapore Harbour Board in refusing to accept and implement the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry set up by the Minister for Labour and Welfare on the 16th day of July, 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S 7 of 1957." Since which an amendment has been proposed, To leave out "deplores the unreasonable and obstructive attitude of the Singapore Harbour Board in refusing" and insert "urges the Singapore Harbour Board". Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." 7.14 p.m.

Sir, on rising to speak on this amendment, I would like to say that the Government is not against the amendment because it only refers to "urging" the Singapore Harbour Board to implement the, according to the wording, recommendations and findings of the Court of Inquiry. Sir, it seems very difficult for me to stand here as Minister for Labour and Welfare to speak on a motion in such a way that I do not take sides with the employers or the employees. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar and representatives of the Union have seen me many a time, and I have, too, seen the Harbour Board many a time, and so far what has been achieved is the re-employment of - I do not know the exact number - some 200 people, and only 10 from the ordinary labour force and 12 lascars have not yet been re-employed. This is a small number but my information is that the 10 labourers were not re-employed because they had not presented themselves for re-employment. I do not know whether that is correct or not. I do not wish to take sides but I would assure this House that if this amended motion is accepted, it would assist me as Minister for Labour and Welfare to present the case more forcibly to the Singapore Harbour Board and I hope that with the views of this House made known to them, they will take due note and re-employ the persons who have so far not been re-employed.

What about the 12 lascars?

I said all the persons not re-employed. There is one point, Sir. The Member for Tanjong Pagar did touch on the question of the secret ballot. That is not a recommendation of the Court. It is a suggestion of the Court - a suggestion that I have been considering. I find it difficult due to conditions in Singapore to agree to introduce a system of secret balloting on recognition. This is a system that has been adopted in America at a time when they had two big organisations - the C.I.O. and the A.F. of L. When workers who were not organised wished to be organised, the government machinery was set in motion to ascertain from the workers in the factory their views as to which particular organisation they would wish to represent them but under the present laws in Singapore any seven men can form a union and after forming one any seven men can demand a secret ballot and may upset well-established and older established unions. I do not think this question of introducing secret balloting to ascertain whether a union should be recognised or not under the present circumstances would be feasible and advisable.

Sir, I would be loath to miss the opportunity to get complete unanimity on the amendment, but I would very much like to add the following words to the amended motion so as to give some teeth to it. I was considering that the motion should be amended to read, "That this House urges the Government to compel the Singapore Harbour Board to accept and to implement.'. Now, Sir, I see nothing wrong in compelling somebody to do what is right. In fact, it is the duty of the Government to see that where commonsense and reasonableness do not prevail, then compulsion begins. However, I have not been able to obtain the support of the other Parties to this and I am therefore left in a position either to accept the amendment, or to lose my motion by default. On the balance, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am inclined to accept the amendment but on this very clear understanding, that if by the next sitting of this House, these findings have not been accepted and implemented, then the other Parties in this House will join me in asking the Government to take more drastic action to see that the findings and recommendations are accepted. I understand from the leader of the Liberal-Socialist Party that his Party would be very much in favour of that, should, after a reasonable period has elapsed, the Singapore Harbour Board and its new chairman and the old Chief Minister still be in the same position vis-a-vis the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association and its 12 "un-re-engaged" lascars and ten workers still suspended. Now, Sir, I cannot accept the Hon. the Chief Minister's view that it is just a suggestion of the Court of Inquiry that there should be a ballot. The actual words are: "We would suggest that such evidence be collected in the form of a secret ballot.". But in the context of the chapter under which this sentence appears, it is a clear finding and recommendation of the Court. It says here, paragraph 9 - Industrial Relations - Administrative Practices - The Issue of Recognition - and under "The Issue of Recognition", it is stated that it should be resolved by evidence "collected in the form of a secret ballot by members whose names appear on the membership cards of the SHBWU and the SHBSA." This is not a suggestion, particularly where one of the members of that Tribunal represented the shipping interests of Singapore, namely Mr D. W. Holder. This is a unanimous recommendation. There was no dissenting voice even from Mr Holder who represented the shipping interests and who is interested in the Singapore Harbour Board and its smooth operation more than any other businessman in Singapore. Now, I would urge the Hon. the Chief Minister, before he commits himself to a statement of high policy on very short reflection that he is unable to accept this, to re-consider the matter and in particular to seek the advice of his Trades Union Congress as to whether or not this is good trade union practice. The Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association has taken the matter up with the Singapore Trades Union Congress and the Trades Union Congress, I am quite sure, will be able to assist and guide the Hon. the Chief Minister in arriving at the correct decision, namely, that the matter should be resolved by the free will of the members. One cannot have eight or nine unions each with the minimum number of members (seven). In the evidence of the Court of Inquiry, some of the committee members themselves were in default with their subscriptions. They are bogus empty unions and the sooner a sense of proportion and reality is established in employer/employee relationship between the Singapore Harbour Board and the union, the better it is for the smooth operation and development of the port.

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

Division, Sir.

Clear the lobbies. The House divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, Nil; Abstention, 1. Ayes. Noes. Braga, A. J. Nil Chew Swee Kee. Goh Chew Chua. Abstention. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lim, R. C. H. Lazarous, A. R. Lee Choon Eng. Absent. Lee Kuan Yew. Abdul Hamid bin Lim Choon Mong. Haji Jumat. Lim Yew Hock. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Mak Pak Shee. David, E. B. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Ede, John. Abdul Hamid. Goh Tong Liang. Nair, M. P. D. Hart, T. M. Soh Ghee Soon. Jumabhoy, R. Tan Theng Chiang. Lim Cher Kheng. Tan, William. Lim Ching Siong. Thomas, Francis. Lim Koon Teck. Seah Peng Chuan. Shanks, E. P. Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Siak Kew. Wong Foo Nam. Amendment accordingly agreed to. Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House urges the Singapore Harbour Board to accept and implement the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry set up by the Minister for Labour and Welfare on the 16th day of July, 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S 7 of 1957.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[The Chief Minister]. Adjourned accordingly at Thirty-three minutes past Seven o'clock p.m. to 11th June, 1958.