Hansard, 1958-06-11

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (3) (i) of section 47 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from meetings of the Assembly: Mr Chew Swee Kee (Whampoa) - from 8th May to 2nd June, 1958. Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar) - from 9th to 11th June, 1958. The Chief Minister (Dr Lim Yew Hock) - from 11th to 17th June, 1958.

I have to inform hon. Members that pursuant to the resolution of this Assembly passed on the 24th April, 1958, I duly sent an Address to His Excellency the Governor as an expression of the thanks of this Assembly for His Excellency's speech delivered on Wednesday, the 9th of April, 1958. I have received a reply from His Excellency dated the 26th April, 1958, thanking me for my letter.

I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor dated the 28th April, 1958, informing me that His Excellency, in accordance with the provisions of section 62 (2) of the Singapore Colony Orders in Council, 1955 and 1956, had that day assented to the following Bills: (i) Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Penal Code (Amendment) Bill; (iii) Singapore Citizenship (Amendment No. 2) Bill.

asked the Chief Minister if the Government will consider introducing amending legislation to enable seamen and students abroad, who are eligible voters, to vote by proxy in Legislative Assembly, City Council and District Council Elections.

No, Sir.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare what progress he has made in his examination of the possibility of introducing new legislation whereby private employment agencies can be effectively regulated and controlled.

An Employment Agency Bill is now in its final stage of preparation and it is intended that this will be introduced at the next sitting of the Assembly.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare if he will state what assistance the Government has provided for the quadruplet of Che Markanah binte Ahmat, apart from the monthly allowance of $30 from the Silver Jubilee Fund for a period of six months.

I would like to know where the hon. Member got his information from because it is incorrect that any monthly allowance of $30 was made to the lady in question from the Silver Jubilee Fund. After the birth of the quadruplets on 23rd December, 1957, a single grant of $40 was made from Government funds to Inche Kasban bin Sabet, the father of the quadruplets.

Sir, is the Government going to help this poor lady in the maintenance of the quadruplets?

As the public assistance scheme does not provide for the payment of monthly allowances to persons in full-time employment, no further assistance can be made to Inche Kasban's family.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare if he is aware that no grounds for refusals are given by the Controller of Immigration to sponsors of applicants for entry into the Colony; and if he will direct the Controller of Immigration to furnish grounds in future.

The Controller of Immigration is empowered to refuse any application for an entry permit if he is satisfied that the applicant is a prohibited immigrant. Where he has refused entry to any person he shall if so requested by such person inform him of the class of prohibited immigrant of which in the opinion of the Controller he is a member - and this has always been complied with.

Sir, is the Minister aware that a sponsor has to wait sometimes three years for the result of his application and that after the result has been given no reason for the refusal is stated?

I am not aware of that.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare whether the Government will consider waiving the visa fees charged by the Immigration Department in respect of newly registered Singapore citizens applying for travel documents.

No, Sir. Until the amendment to the British Nationality Act of 1948 is made which will give Singapore citizenship international status, visas are required for newly registered Singapore citizens. When the amendment to the British Nationality Act is made, Singapore passports will be issued to newly registered citizens and visas will then no longer be required.

Is the Minister aware that under the Fees Ordinance the Government has the power to waive visa fees in respect of re-entry permits submitted by these residents?

I am quite aware of that and this question will be considered when the amendment is made to the British Nationality Act.

When is the amendment expected?

I am not a prophet.

Is it not the duty of the Government to press for the amendment in order to give all the facilities to the people of Singapore?

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Lee Kuan Yew- 6. To ask the Chief Secretary when a review of the order of detention under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, of Mr Jek Yuen Thong is to be made; and whether, for that review, there will be made available to the Reviewing Officer for his consideration the written statement which has been submitted by or on behalf of Mr Jek Yuen Thong to the Appeal Tribunal.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew. There being no response-

Mr. Soh Ghee Soon.

asked the Chief Secretary to state which political party or parties held a public Legislative Assembly by-election meeting in Tank Road on 24th June, 1957.

None, Sir, so far as I am aware of.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he has received a copy of a letter from the General Secretary of the Singapore Peasants' Union regarding the alleged ill-treatment in the Remand Prison of Tan Hong Piew, detained under the Banishment Ordinance; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Yes, Sir, I have received a copy of the letter in question and in view of the wide circulation it has been given by the Union, I welcome the opportunity to make a statement. It is alleged in the letter dated 8th May that since his arrest on 30th April this blind man had been locked in a cell by himself for the night at 4 p.m. each day and that he had been denied any solid food. The facts are that on his committal to the Remand Prison on 30th April, this man was immediately admitted to a ward in the Prison hospital. This ward contained some 15 other patients and is provided with modern latrine and washing facilities in an adjoining alcove. Hospital orderlies are on duty night and day to attend to the needs of the patients and there is a resident medical officer close at hand. On admission to the hospital, this man was found to be suffering from pyelitis and on the doctors orders he has been given three extra meals a day in addition to the normal diet. This extra food includes two eggs a day.

asked the Chief Secretary, with reference to the Report of the Committee on Hindu Marriage Registration (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 37 of 1957), whether, and when, the Government will introduce legislation for the registration of Hindu marriages.

Sir, the Government does not propose at present to introduce such legislation.

Sir, can the Chief Secretary tell us why the Government does not propose to introduce such legislation?

Sir, this is a matter in which we consider it necessary to keep in line with the Federation Government and I understand that they have recently appointed a committee to examine the necessity for enacting legislation of this kind.

Sir, is the Government going to wait until the findings of that Committee of the Federation Government are published?

I have already said, Sir, that this is a matter in which we think it is necessary to keep in line with the Federation Government, otherwise any legislation we enact here could clearly be stultified.

asked the Financial Secretary, in view of the comments made on a recent case heard in the High Court under section 9 (1) of the Exchange Control Ordinance (Cap. 216), whether he will consider introducing amending legislation or take any other steps to exclude payments of moneys in which the Colony has no interest at all from the scope of the said section 9 (1).

No, Sir, It is still considered essential as an effective check on evasion that the existing provision should be retained. It will be appreciated that section 9 of the Ordinance does not impose an absolute prohibition on acts preparatory to the making of payments outside the Colony for the credit of persons resident outside the scheduled territories. It only makes such an act an offence if the permission of the Controller is not obtained but such permission is readily given if the Controller is satisfied that there will not be a loss of foreign exchange.

asked the Financial Secretary how many applications have been made to the Controller of Foreign Exchange for permission to do any of the acts referred to in section 9 (1) of the Exchange Control Ordinance (Cap. 216) since the commencement of the Ordinance up to a latest convenient date; in how many cases has permission been granted; and whether he will state what is the policy and what are the principles adopted in the granting or refusal of such permission.

Sir, I regret that it has not been considered practicable, having regard to the other commitments of the limited staff of the Controller's office, to search through the 11,000 files which have been opened during the past four years to obtain the information requested. The number of applications of the kind to which the hon. Member refers has amounted to many hundreds. It can safely be said that almost all the applications covered transactions which did not involve foreign currency loss under any section of the Ordinance and in such cases the applications were approved. The basis on which an application is judged is whether or not, in all the circumstances involved, the transaction will entail a direct loss of foreign currency or an indirect loss by omitting to bring to the scheduled territories foreign currency earned overseas. Where on complete disclosure of all the details of a transaction the Controller is satisfied that there would be no direct or indirect loss of foreign exchange, the application is granted.

asked the Financial Secretary if he is aware that Singapore firms, which import American goods through Hong Kong, usually arrange through banks in Singapore for the purchase of the necessary American currency in Hong Kong; and whether this procedure is sanctioned by the Controller of Foreign Exchange, and how.

No, Sir, I am not aware of this practice. It is not sanctioned by the Controller.

asked the Financial Secretary if he is aware that in the Colony's trade with Indonesia and Hong Kong it has been impossible for merchants to avoid contravening section 9 (1) of the Exchange Control Ordinance (Cap. 216); and whether he will consider introducing amending legislation or take any other steps to narrow the scope of the said section 9 (1), in particular in regard to preparatory acts done in relation to trade with non-sterling areas.

I am not aware that it is impossible for merchants trading with Indonesia and Hong Kong to avoid contravening section 9 (1) of the Ordinance. They can always ask the Controller for the necessary permission.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether, and when, the Government will take over the Veterinary Department of the City Council.

In the White Paper on the Report of the Committee on Local Government No. Cmd. 30 of 1956, Government indicated its acceptance in principle that certain services should be the responsibility of Government. These services include not only all veterinary services but also, for example, personal health services and the registration of births, marriages and deaths. The transfer of the veterinary services cannot be considered in isolation but must be taken together with the transfer of other services. This involves the solution of problems such as those concerning the terms and conditions of transfers of the staff involved and compensation for property and other assets. These matters are being discussed with the City Council. When agreement has been reached, the transfers will be effected.

asked the Minister for Education-

Sir, the answers to the two points raised by the Member for Bukit Panjang are: (a) registration of children for admission to grant-in-aid vernacular schools is carried out independently by the principals concerned; and (b) the reason for not including this registration simultaneously with that for English schools is to give grant-in-aid vernacular schools as much liberty as possible in the matter.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry what is the total amount of family remittances sent to Communist China from Singapore from 1st April, 1957, to 31st March, 1958.

Sir, the total amount of money recorded by the Exchange Control Department as having been remitted from Singapore to China during the period 1st April, 1957, to 31st March, 1958, in respect of family remittances was $16,822,867. Current figures in respect of family remittances are released to the Director of Information Services monthly and appear regularly in the press.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister agree with me that for every dollar sent to the relatives of these people in Communist China legally, probably three dollars went through the backdoor?

That is a matter of opinion. The hon. Member asked me whether I agree or not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has given the figure as over $16 million. Does not the Minister consider that the outflow of $16 million a year will be a serious drain on the economy of this country?

Again, it is a matter of opinion but if the hon. Member has any information as to illegal transactions involving remittances to China which have not come to the knowledge of the Exchange Control Department, I will be glad to have the information from the Member.

Will the Minister please tell the House whether all this can be due to our stringent and rigid immigration laws?

Sir, this question is not in the control of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

"to amend the Light Dues Ordinance, 1957 (No. 6 of 1957)", presented by the Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 16th July, 1958, and to be printed.

"to amend the Quarantine and Prevention of Disease Ordinance (Chapter 147 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 16th July, 1958, and to be printed.

"to amend the Singapore Sailors' Institute Incorporation Ordinance (Chapter 321 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 16th July, 1958, and to be printed.

"to amend the Local Government Ordinance, 1957 (No. 24 of 1957)", presented by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 16th July, 1958, and to be printed.

"To wind up the Indian Immigration Fund constituted under the Labour Ordinance (Chapter 69 of the 1936 Edition) and to provide for the disposal of its assets", presented by the Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga(on behalf of the Minister for Labour and Welfare, Dr Lim Yew Hock)); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 16th July, 1958, and to be printed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That leave be given to introduce a Bill to incorporate the Secretary of the Synod of the Diocese of Singapore. Sir, the purpose of the Bill is to give powers to the Secretary to act as Trustee of the Synod particularly in respect of conveyancing of land.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That leave be given to introduce a Bill to incorporate the Secretary of the Synod of the Diocese of Singapore.

Who is prepared to introduce the Bill?

I am, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to incorporate the Secretary of the Synod of the Diocese of Singapore." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

16th of July, Sir.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.21 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with this Bill. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, as explained in the statement at the end of the Bill, this is primarily a consolidating measure. At present, the Police Force is administered and organised in accordance with the provisions of the Police Force Ordinance, 1941, read together with the Singapore Police Force Ordinance, 1949, and it is clearly time that we had a single up-to-date statute regulating the Force. This Bill, Sir, is based not only on the 1941 and 1949 Ordinances but also borrows or adapts certain provisions from the Federation of Malaya Police Ordinance, 1952. Details are set out in the comparative table at the end of the Bill. The main innovation in the Bill is in clause 21 which provides for the establishment of one or more Police associations to be operated and administered in accordance with Police regulations. It is intended that these associations should form the medium through which members of the Force can bring to notice any grievances regarding their pay or conditions of service and can seek satisfactory remedies through appropriate forms of negotiating machinery. Since the Police is a disciplined Force, this machinery cannot appropriately take the ordinary form of a trade union with the right to strike in support of demands. The provision of associations on these lines accords with the practice in force both in the Federation of Malaya and in the United Kingdom. Since this Bill was published, Sir, certain representations have been made by the inspectorate in regard to the provisions of clause 20 and clause 28 of the Bill which provide for the discharge or dismissal of inspectors. These representations can properly be considered at the Committee stage of the Bill when those clauses are considered and it is my intention to move that the Bill should be committed to a Select Committee. Representations have also been received regarding the period of time allowed for appeal under clauses 27 and 28 of the Bill and it will be my intention at the Committee stage to move that the ten days provided in the Bill should be changed to 30 days. Sir, there are certain other amendments to the Bill to be moved at the Committee stage of which I have given notice but these are mostly of a formal nature and do not affect the substantive provisions of the Bill. The only one on which I would like to comment at this stage is clause 51 of the Bill which deals with the administration of intestate estates. As the clause is at present drafted, it is doubtful whether the Deputy Commissioner will have powers to deal with money as well as with goods and chattels. To clarify the position, it is proposed to substitute the expression "movable property" for "goods and chattels" and to redraft the clause accordingly. Sir, I do not think I need say any more at this stage and I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and five Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. (Mr David).

Order for Second Reading read. 10.26 a.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Committee on Local Government appointed in July 1955 recommended amongst other things that the safety and amenity aspects of the control of places of public entertainment, both temporary and permanent, should be administered by the local authorities, the moral aspect by the police and the welfare aspect by the Social Welfare Department. The Government agreed with these recommendations in the White Paper on Government policy relating to local government. The Local Government Bill, 1957, which has been passed by the Legislative Assembly, makes enabling provision for local authorities to make bylaws now for the control, regulation and supervision by registration, licensing or otherwise of places used for real performances, theatres, wayangs, concerts and other public exhibitions and enter tainments. A considerable part of the Theatres Ordinance (Cap. 229) which assigned some of this responsibility to the police consequently becomes obsolete and fit for repeal. In addition, other provisions of the same Ordinance have become out of date through changes in the social life of the community since it was enacted in 1909. It is timely therefore to repeal the whole of the Theatres Ordinance and to replace it by a new Ordinance directed to the regulation of public entertainments in general. This Bill has accordingly been framed so as to require that the Licensing Authority constituted under it should have regard primarily to the nature of public entertainments for which licences are sought; while also concerned that these are held only in places suitable to their nature, the Licensing Authority is permitted to presume the suitability of buildings and other premises to the extent to which this has been certified by a local government authority. This Bill, Sir, which repeals the present Theatres Ordinance and the Billiards Ordinance which is equally out of date and will no longer be necessary if this Bill is enacted, is based on the following considerations and requirements: the interest of the State in controlling entertainments to which the public has access is fourfold - to preserve peace and good order: to prevent moral, social and political degeneracy: to prevent physical injury and suffering whether to performers or to audiences: to secure revenue sufficient at least to offset the expense of control; the definition of "public entertainment" which should be as clear as possible and comprehensive enough to take account of the much greater range of popular amusements available nowadays so that loopholes in the system of control could be prevented as much as possible; the statutory exemptions of some kinds of public entertainment because their sponsorship and circumstances adequately guarantee the State's interest being safeguarded; the exemption from control either wholly or in part of other kinds of "public entertainment" the nature of which cannot readily be perverted to ends contrary to the State's interest; the introduction of a system of licensing of "public entertainment" which provides for the identification of all persons on whom lies the onus of compliance with the conditions of licences; the declaration in advance of the precise nature of the entertainment; approval of the place in which it is intended to provide entertainment; the refusal and cancellation of licences; the suspension of licences on reasonable suspicion that they will be abused or will result in breaches of the peace or injury or suffering to animals or performers or members of the audience; recourse to expert opinion in cases of doubt whether an entertainment should be licensed or not; the collection of fees. Sir, it is the intention of the Government that after the Second Reading of this important Bill, it should be committed to a Select Committee. I do not propose therefore to go into great detail at this juncture. Hon. Members will also have read the explanatory statement at the end of the Bill. I would like however to dwell at this stage on some of the more important clauses and implications of this Bill. The definition of "public entertainment" under the 14 headings is intended to be absolutely comprehensive of all existing and all probable forms of public entertainment, without any implication as to the inherent desirability or otherwise of the particular types of public entertainment mentioned. The final part of the definition excludes absolutely from the operation of the Ordinance certain categories of public entertainment associated with the State, official, religious, business and political occasions, it is considered not only necessary for the avoidance of embarrassment and administrative congestion, but also essential to preserve freedom of association for those categories to be statutorily exempted from the application of this Bill. As I have already indicated above, it is contemplated that other exemptions will also be granted and clause 15 of the Bill gives the Minister unfettered discretion to make orders for this purpose. Hon. Members will wish to be made aware of the provisions of clause 10 (2) of the Bill which will enable the Licensing Officer to prohibit at his discretion the admission of children under the age of sixteen years to the licensed public entertainment. There is ample occasion in Singapore today for the use of every available means of protecting the younger generation from bad influence in the field of public entertainment. The onus of responsibility for seeing that this prohibition is carried out will fall on the licensee of the public entertainment. This would apply even to cinemas. If this Bill is passed, classification of films as suitable or unsuitable for children to see could be made under the Cinematograph Films Ordinance. The Licensing Officer under this Bill could then impose on the licensees of cinemas that one of the conditions of a licence should be that no children under the age of sixteen years should be admitted to see films classified as unsuitable for children by the Film Censor. This provision, Sir, is a very important one and it is my intention to ask the Select Committee to examine the implications of this provision in particular. Clauses 13 and 14 deal, as the explanatory statement shows, with the refusal, cancellation and suspension of licences. The clauses are straightforward and are in keeping with the main considerations and requirements on which, as I stated earlier, the Bill is based. Clause 19 is for the resolution of doubt whether any entertainment was "public" or not. Attempts to rebut changes under the Bill on the grounds that entertainments were not "public" must be anticipated. In placing the onus of proof on the person alleging that the entertainment is not "public", regard has been given to the circumstance that such doubt will be material only when an offence under the Ordinance has prima facie been committed, and to the extensive exemptions allowed for statutorily and expected to be conferred by the Minister under the Bill. Sir, another important clause is clause 22 which introduces a provision long sought by the Licensing Authority under the Theatres Ordinance to allow effective recourse to the best available expert advice in determining whether a particular public entertainment, especially if of the nature of a professional sporting contest, for example, boxing or wrestling contests, should be licensed or not. The clause provides that "it shall be sufficient reason for refusing" to license such an entertainment if the expert advice given is that it should be refused but final discretion is given to the Licensing Officer whether he wishes to act in accordance with the advice he has received. Sir, as I have indicated earlier, I do not propose to go into matters of detail which could of course be dealt with in the ordinary way in Committee but it is the Government's intention after its Second Reading to have the Bill committed to a Select Committee. I am confident, Sir, that the purpose of this Bill and the principles on which it is based will commend itself to hon. Members and that they will give it its Second Reading. Question proposed. 10.37 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we welcome this Bill as a reasonable and sensible measure to improve on an outdated Theatres Ordinance enacted nearly 40 years ago. We also welcome the decision to send the Bill to a Select Committee. Now that all entertainments from tiddly-winks to coconut-shies in a fun-fair are brought within its scope, it is clearly necessary to give it closer examination before it becomes law and I hope very much that the proprietors and sponsors of all the multifarious forms of entertainment available in this modern age in Singapore will come forward before the Select Committee to give evidence so that this Bill is not only comprehensive but as fair as possible to all concerned. Speaking for myself, I am acquainted with some forms of entertainment - some professional and some amateur - and I would therefore like to touch on a few points which will require careful consideration. First of all, there is the question as to whether public entertainment should be controlled by a Licensing Officer and assistants as provided by the Bill or by a Licensing Board. The advantages of a Licensing Board would be that the approval of entertainments or their disapproval could be carried out according to reliably and reasonably fixed standards which would vary very little from place to place in the island. The system at present is that an entertainment has to be approved by the officer in charge of the police station in the area in which the entertainment is to be held. The result is that a more liberal interpretation of what may be shown can differ in one district than in another. Let me take perhaps the somewhat obvious example - striptease acts and shows of that nature. I know of establishments where the police definitely do not permit any form of striptease - in our opinion, on this side of the House, quite rightly too. I also know of one or two establishments operating in the city at present where striptease acts are being presented night after night. In other words, Sir, different standards are being followed in different areas by different police stations. I sometimes look at the Chinese newspapers. I cannot read Chinese unfortunately, but I do not have to know the language to understand the pictures advertising places of entertainment and some of these leave nothing to the imagination. The question today arises as to whether Government permits or does not permit striptease acts. In theory, it claims that it does not, but in practice, it winks the other eye. In this very youthful community which is Singapore today, striptease acts and nude shows should surely not be permitted. There are plenty of other forms of entertainment for our population and for our tourists. I would like the Government to come out with a definite declaration as to where they stand in this matter and what their policy is. It is not for them to say that it is a police matter; the Government control the police. I hope that the Hon. the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary will make the position clear during his reply. My argument therefore is, Sir, that a Licensing Board would have an advantage over Licensing Officers as they would be in a better position to maintain consistent standards of what should or should not constitute "public" entertainment and to interpret regulations laid down by the Government. On the other hand, a Board, it is true, would present disadvantages: the main one being the speed with which licences could be obtained. A Board cannot remain in continual session whereas a Licensing Officer is or should be permanently available. Often, licences are needed at a moment's notice nor should they be denied a promoter at a moment's notice if reasonably possible. The possibilities of combining the system of both a Board and Licensing Officers are worth considering: a Board to see that consistent standards of licensing are carried out in the more difficult categories of entertainment and Licensing Officers empowered to authorise at short notice the routine forms of entertainment. I next come to clause 14 regarding the cancellation or suspension of a licence. Clause 11, in certain circumstances, goes with it. An aggrieved person whose licence is cancelled or suspended "may, within fourteen days of the service on him of the grounds of such cancellation or suspension, appeal in writing to the Minister, whose decision thereon shall be final. Where the Minister decides to restore a licence, he may impose such conditions as he thinks fit." Sir, I think the procedure laid down here needs to be examined extremely carefully. Cancellation of a licence in certain cases may involve forfeiture of security under clause 11. If the Minister is to hear the appeal, I feel the aggrieved party should be given the opportunity to appear in person or with his lawyer and witnesses and evidence on oath should be taken, the Licensing Officer and his witnesses to support the cancellation of the licence and the forfeiture of the security, the licensee and his witnesses to show cause why the licence should not be cancelled and the security forfeited. Unless evidence is given on oath, I fear witnesses may take advantage and issue false reports or statements to the Licensing Officer or to the Minister. The licensee should also be given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses who give evidence for the Licensing Officer. I would be inclined to go even further. I would question whether, in fact, it is right for the Minister to hear appeals against the cancellation of licences. Why not appoint a district judge, civil or criminal, to hear such appeals? To compare sections 416 and 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is, for example, sub-section (1) which reads: "Whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of a court that any bond taken under this Code has been forfeited, the court shall record the grounds of such proof and may summon before it any person bound by such bond and call upon him to pay the penaliy thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid." Section 417 reads: "All orders made under section 416 by any Magistrate's Court or District Court shall be appealable." Either some such procedure should be followed or it should be made much clearer in the Bill or in Rules published under the Bill as to what procedure the Minister will adopt when considering the appeal of an aggrieved person. My next point is this. Under clause 8 of the existing Ordinance, police officers not under the rank of sergeants may enter premises to see that the conditions of a licence are being observed. In the Bill before us, clause 16 reads: "Any Licensing Officer or police officer may enter any place where a licensed public entertainment is being provided with a view to ascertaining whether the conditions of the licence and the provisions of this Ordinance are being complied with." This, in our opinion, is going too far. We think that the qualification not below the rank of inspector would be reasonable. Lastly, I would refer to the very difficult point already touched on by my hon. Friend opposite which will need careful consideration in Select Committee, that is, the proposal under clause 10 (2) which prescribes that children under the age of sixteen years shall not be admitted to certain forms of entertainment. The theory of it is an admirable one and I would not quarrel with it, but the practical application of it is quite another matter. On whom is the onus to be placed of preventing admission: the promoter of the entertainment whose only recourse will be to demand the production of identity cards from the majority of his would-be patrons - if identity cards can be accepted as evidence of age; or the parents or guardians who should in fact be responsible? "X" films for adults only are approved in the United Kingdom and I know cinema proprietors have great difficulty in deciding whether a child is above or below the prescribed age. In this multi-racial community, I would challenge the Hon. the Assistant Minister, if 100 children aged either 15 or 16 years were ranged up in front of him, to place them in the right category from looking at them. And should the dividing line be 16? Why not 15 or 17? How did the Government arrive at this figure? These are some of the questions which, we will agree in this House I think, need further and very careful consideration and I would say, in all honesty, that on most of them, I have an open mind. But the basis of a Bill of this kind is not in the clauses of the Bill itself but in the machinery and the rules which the Government advances to make them work. That is the vital responsibility of the Government of the day rather than of this Assembly. 10.50 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill is most welcome. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, I think that this Bill seeks to control the "Funland" operators of juke-boxes and pin-tables. This is far long overdue and it has taken the Government six years to consider the introduction of this Bill. However, it is better late than never. The shops in which these pin-tables or juke-boxes are operated do not only disturb or annoy the neighbours but they also at the same time encourage the proper trading shops to change their businesses and set themselves up as "Funland" operators. Most of the shops which find that business is slackening nowadays prefer to close down their businesses and set themselves up as "Funland" or "Gayland" operators. Some of these Funland operators of "games", as they are called, are in fact encouraging gambling within their premises, like a certain case that was decided in court recently. In principle, the Bill is good but there are some clauses in this Bill which can be subject to abuse, for example, the clause which gives powers to only one single man - a Licensing Officer. The discretion of one single man is apt to be abused by either the Licensing Officer himself or any of his junior officers who investigate before a licence is considered. I also know that there is another clause in this Bill which allows appeals to the Minister but whatever appeals are made to the Minister, they are always considered on the recommendation of the Licensing Officer. When an application for a licence is made to the Licensing Officer, he sends out his investigators or junior officers to investigate and make a report. The report is submitted to the Licensing Officer and he makes his decision. Should the appeal against the refusal of granting a licence come before the Minister, the Minister has to base his discretion on the report from the Licensing Officer and his junior officers. So it is rather difficult for the Minister to decide favourably and he will then have to stand by his Licensing Officer. Furthermore, Sir, the powers vested in one single man will also encourage corruption. Members of this Assembly and the City Council have promised that they will wipe out corruption. The passing of this Bill at any time today or after its Second Reading will certainly make us a party to the encouragement of corruption. What is there, Sir, to prevent the Licensing Officer from being tempted into corruption? He can try his very best to make the granting of an application for a licence as difficult as possible. Naturally, when an applicant submits an application, he wants it to be approved and if difficulties arise, there is no other alternative than to seek the backdoor source - and I am quite sure that the Government know what that backdoor source is. On the other hand, Sir, if the Licensing Officer is a friend of one applicant and is not friendly to another applicant he could certainly show more favours to his friend than to the other man. Is this fair, Sir? I will quote an instance. Mr A is the Licensing Officer and Mr B is friendly to him. Mr B submits his application and it is approved but Mr C may have his application turned down by Mr A through the influence of Mr B, although his shop may be very near to that of Mr B. Is this fair to one and all? I do not think that this is so. Sir, in the case of licences for hotels and bars, I understand that the authority is vested in a Board of Licensing Justices comprising a Chairman and a few members of the Justices of the Peace. Even restaurants or eating-houses, which is a matter for the City Council, are also considered by the Health Committee of the City Council. Though the Health Officer has a good say in it, he has got to submit his report to the Health Committee and the Health Committee after deciding on the application has to submit it to the full Board or Council for confirmation. So you can see very well in this case that it is not one man who makes his decision but a number of persons forming a Board or a Committee. Sir, this is a new piece of legislation and I fully agree with the Member for Tanglin (Mr John Ede) that there are advantages and disadvantages in a Board of Licensing Justices when compared with a Licensing Officer. There may be cases where immediate attention is needed such as small shows, and so on. Well, in those cases, they can then be decided by the Licensing Officer but where these juke-boxes or pin-tables are concerned, there is no necessity for a rush or urgent case-sitting. It can certainly be referred to a Board of Licensing Justices. We should consider the applications in the same way as those for bars, hotels, restaurants, coffee-shops or eating-houses. I think that Government should specify certain categories which can be considered by the Licensing Officer and certain categories by the Board of Licensing Justices because, if you classify or band the whole thing into one, it will be rather difficult for the Licensing Officer or the Board of Justices to make decisions. As the Member for Tanglin rightly pointed out, we should have two separate bodies and I am quite sure that the Government could specify certain categories in this Bill for each body. I am glad that the Government is going to send this Bill to Select Committee as we have got to take public opinion. The Member for Tanglin him self is a man who is closely connected with entertainment professionally and as an amateur and I am quite sure that he would like to give his views to the Select Committee. There may be juke box or pin-table operators who also want to give their views. We should not be accused of rushing through or forcing upon the people a Bill of this nature. So I welcome the statement that this Bill is to be referred to Select Committee. 10.55 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not intend to speak on this Bill and I have not much opinion either way on the matters that were raised by the two Members of the Opposition. However, there was one matter that was raised by both of them and that was the question of abuse of certain powers given to one man: maybe he is an official or when it comes to an appeal it is the Minister. Sir, the question raises an issue on principle and that is that in the present-day life, there are thousands of matters, Sir, which require to be regulated in order that relations between citizen and citizen of the State and also between the citizen and the State are properly conducted, and also that the obligations of the citizen to the State are properly carried out. Now, in every-day life today, there are hundreds of matters which require approval from some authority or other and therefore the question does arise as to who should be responsible for giving the necessary approval for all these small things, like hawkers' licences - in this case, the licences given by the Licensing Officer - and also who should be responsible for refusal to grant such licences or who should be responsible for revoking such licences and where the appeal should lie. Normally, in a democratic society, Sir, one is very chary of giving away to individuals powers which could be exercised by the individual unfairly and could be abused. In a totalitarian society and in communist countries, of course, there is no question of abuse of powers because all the powers are vested with certain individuals and nobody dares to query as to the rights and wrongs of decisions of those individuals because, if they do, well they get locked up. There are hundreds of matters that arise every day which require approvals and disapprovals, but the question arises: how far should those persons who make the laws of the country go in order to create machinery which would be the machinery responsible for granting such approvals; whether the Legislature should want in every case that approvals and disapprovals and appeals should go to a tribunal or a court or a judge and if that is so, Sir, how far can such machinery be workable when thousands of petty cases are concerned? That is a question that the Legislature has got to think about. If the Legislature thinks that every case should go to a very high authority because injustice or abuse might take place, well then the State will have to set up a very complex judiciary machinery, which means that the State will have to incur heavy expenditure. If the Legislature thinks that these matters are not big enough to go to such a high level and that the official and, in cases of appeal, the Minister, could be competent to decide and could decide, shall we say, in most cases impartially - because after all human nature has got certain failings - well then, I think the Legislature should say, "Right, we draw the limit here and beyond this, we think individuals should be responsible." I think that is a question which Members will have to consider carefully because it means involving the State in a lot of expenditure later. 11 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome this Bill being committed to a Select Committee. I am not talking from the point of view of entertainment in the form of strip-tease shows, cinemas or other kinds of shows; but I am drawing the attention of all sports organisations and youth clubs to the definition of "public entertainment" under clause 2 (i). We know that Government intends to control public entertainment for the benefit and protection of the people, to see that what is good is shown to them; but I certainly feel that it is also the duty of the Government not to retard healthy activities which come under this definition. If this Bill should go through, then all forms of activities indulged in by sports organisations, youth clubs, and even cultural associations will have to come under this definition. No matter what they do, they will have to seek permission to get a licence. Under clause 15 the Minister doubtless may by order exempt them from obtaining a licence, but until such promises are incorporated into the law, all organisations which run sporting contests such as boxing matches and football matches to which the public have access will have to come for a licence. The tournaments which the youth clubs run among themselves are, according to this definition, public entertainment, and if we are going to put difficulties in their way, then we will be retarding their healthy growth. I hope that the Select Committee, when they come to consider this Bill, will take this into consideration. I also hope that the lectures, talks, debates, plays and concerts staged by such organisations solely for the purpose of adding to the knowledge of the members and their friends should also come under the category to be exempted from this provision of the law, or else we may, on the one hand, protect the public from undesirable shows but, on the other hand, retard the growth of healthy and useful activities. 11.02 a.m.

Mr Nair, in reply?

Yes, Sir, I think the main argument against having a Licensing Board is the question of time in coming to a decision. The definition of "public entertainment" is so wide that it is necessary to come to a decision quickly, and the formality and delays incurred by a Licensing Board would, in my opinion, make it unsuitable. The same argument also applies to an Appeals Board. Here again the argument is that the formality and delays of an Appeals Board would be unsuitable to deal with public entertainment. We did consider having a board for licensing entertainments, but we felt that in the interests of both the Government and the applicants for a licence, the system as suggested in the Bill would be more satisfactory. Sir, the question of cancellation and the forfeiture of bond has been raised by the Member for Tanglin. It is not desirable in the interests of implementing this Bill that we should invite lawyers, etc, to appear before the Minister when appeals are heard, but there is nothing to stop the Minister from calling the applicant should he require further information to be placed before him before a final decision is taken. In regard to the standards of shows like strip-tease, as mentioned by the hon. Member, I do not think there will be much difficulty, Sir, because we have to make rules. We could either put something into the rules or the Government could have some sort of policy which could be applied in the case of applications for shows. I do not think we have had many complaints about this in the past and I hope that in the event of this Bill being implemented there will not be many complaints regarding the standardisation of these shows. Sir, the question of the powers of the police under clauses 16 and 17 has been raised. We gave very careful consideration to this question and we came to the conclusion that it is not right to mention in this Bill that the powers of the police should be restricted to the rank of an inspector. It may well be that at the time of the commission of an offence, namely, the violation of any conditions, a police constable is on duty and therefore no action can be taken until a police inspector arrives; and it is not easy, Sir, to have so many inspectors supervising these shows. But, however, if at any time it is found that a police constable or any other police officer has been so foolish as to act, I can assure the hon. Member that appropriate action will be taken against him for his action. Sir, the question of admission of children under the age of 16 has been raised and, as I have mentioned earlier in my speech, the specific reason for committing this Bill to a Select Committee is to discuss the matter in more detail. Sir, the Member for Serangoon has mentioned youth club activities. In my speech earlier on, I have specifically mentioned that exemption from control, either in whole or in part, of other kinds of public entertainment the nature of which cannot be readily perverted to ends contrary to the state interests will be made. It is the Government's policy, Sir, to exempt all normal healthy activities of the community - schools, youth clubs, athletic associations and so on - and I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no restriction at all on any entertainment which is of a healthy nature and beneficial to the community. Here again, under clause 15 the Minister has unfettered discretion, and I am sure he will use it in the best interests of the community. Sir, I do not think I have anything more to say except to mention that all the main points raised by hon. Members will be duly considered in Select Committee.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. (Mr Nair).

Order for Second Reading read. 11.08 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's consent to proceed with this Bill and move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Government has for some time considered the minimum standards of health, safety and welfare of workers in factories, and a factory is the place where workmen spend the greater part of their lives. Up to now the standards of safety have been laid down in the Machinery Ordinance (Chapter 223), which was brought into operation in 1921, and amended by Ordinances No. 11 of 1931, No. 34 of 1935, No. 14 of 1937, No. 33 of 1952, No. 37 of 1952, and No. 4 of 1954. That Ordinance provides for the inspection of boilers, engines and other machinery and the re gulation, control and working of such machinery. It has however no provision relating to electric or portable machinery. The Protection of Workers Ordinance (Chapter 152), amended by Ordinance No. 37 of 1952, provided for protection against disease and accidents of workers engaged in dangerous occupations, but it has never been implemented. Neither of these two Ordinances is really suitable for present-day conditions. It is considered, therefore, that they should be repealed and the Factories Bill introduced to make working conditions in factories in Singapore conform with internationally recognised standards as laid down by the Inter-rational Labour Organisation. It must be realised that in passing such a Bill we are looking after the interests of more than 120,000 persons, who represent about one-quarter of the total population who are gainfully employed. This Bill is primarily based on the United Kingdom legislation which follows closely the International Labour Organisation's convention and recommendations. It is necessary in a legislation of this magnitude to have some modification to suit local conditions. This has been done in consultation with the Singapore Labour Advisory Board, the City Council and representatives of consulting engineers. Representatives of the armed services are in agreement with the proposed application of the provisions of the Bill to their establishment, as sub-clause (4) of clause 73 has been incorporated at their request. The main purpose of this Bill is to set down the minimum standards of health, safety and welfare of workers in factories. The operation of the Bill will involve Government in an expenditure of the order of $146,000 per annum of which $59,000 is largely made up of the salaries of extra staff which, together with the present staff in the Factories Inspectorate of the Labour Department, will be needed to implement the provisions of the Bill. To a large extent, however, this is offset by an anticipated revenue of $98,000 per annum. The interpretation of the expression "factory" covers premises in which manual labour is used for a wide number of purposes. The remaining parts cover provisions for health, safety, welfare, administration and penalties for offences against any provisions of the Bill. The explanatory statements briefly cover the purposes of the various clauses. As it is proposed, Sir, should this motion be carried, to submit the Bill to a Select Committee, it is hardly necessary for me to go through it in detail. I now move that the Bill be read a Second time. Question proposed. 11.13 a.m.

Mr Speaker. Sir, while we welcome the introduction of the Factories Bill, I must draw attention to the large number of premises or trades which will come within the definition of "factory". We must always remember that in Singapore there are niany small traders who have a little place where they earn a living for themselves and their families. In many such places you will probably find that the workmen consist of members of the family and maybe one or two more other workers. I refer to the premises as defined in clause 6 (1) (a). Sir, tailor shops and dress shops, whether they are big or small, come within this category. Sundries shops - they do a bit of packing of articles to be sold - will also come under this category. Even fishermen repairing their nets seem to come within this definition. If this Bill is going to cover such a wide range of trades, I believe it is not going to encourage people to expand their business or try to earn a living. What people hate most, I think, especially the small people, is to have a health officer coming along and poking his nose into their houses and saying, "Look, you may be carrying on a business on your own, but this is under the definition of `factory' and you must not have this done here or that done there. Also, you do not have a sufficient amount of safeguards." These pinpricks should be removed. We all know that health, safety and welfare are very important factors, but I certainly feel that we must not overdo it. This is the East and it has to learn. We are adapting a great deal of things from the West, but until we progress to a certain standard where we can be compared with the West, it should be our duty to encourage the small businessmen to expand their business and help them along. If this Bill has this in view, I am for it, but if it is going to be another source of nuisance for the people of Singapore, then I think we will have to fight it out in the Select Comniittee to see that small businessmen are allowed to carry on their business without interference from the Nosy Parkers. 11.17 a.m.

Sir, on a broad principle, there is not very much in this Bill that we can quarrel with. It is properly the concern of Government that factory conditions are such that the workers' health and safety should be properly protected. But we must remember that Government is at the same time trying to encourage industry, and therefore care must be taken to see that the small industries especially are not too much affected, and that not much hardship is involved in the implementation of the regulations of the Bill. The cost to the small industries would increase if they have to observe these regulations, and there are some regulations where they cannot even afford to put up the capital in order to comply with them. I think it is clearly the intention of the Government to exempt certain small industries from these hardships. I notice that clause 6 (4) says: "No premises shall be deemed to be a factory in which less than six persons are employed ...". Therefore, the figure that will come within the scope of this Bill is six. Imagine a small business employing six persons of mixed sexes - male and female. Under the Bill it will have to provide items like separate sanitation, washing facilities and so forth, as laid down in clauses 17 and 51. In a small business there might easily be no space for these facilities, and even if there were, these could easily cost quite a few thousand dollars in order to qualify for the meaning of "proper separate accommodation". I think the solution is that until we can clear the major portion of our slums in Singapore, the average working place is still a better place from the health point of view than the congested cubicles in which the major portion of the workers have to live, and we certainly will be depriving the worker of a job if there is no common sense balance struck between the conditions existing here and the conditions as envisaged in the Bill. I do not know whether the Government has taken a careful survey of the small industries and the number of people employed in each of them, but in order to avoid possible hardships to these industries which the Government is trying to encourage, I would strongly urge that the number to be exempted from the interpretation of "factory" should be 12 instead of 5. 11.22 a.m.

Mr Minister, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the sole intention of this Bill is to protect cottage industries and the workers who work there. As was pointed out by the hon. Member who spoke last, clause 6 (4) says: "No premises shall be deemed to be a factory in which less than six persons are employed or in which no mechanical power, steam boiler, steam container, steam receiver, cast iron underfired vulcaniser, air receiver, refrigerating plant pressure receiver, or gas plant is used, or in which no highly inflammable or noxious substance is manipulated, used or created." That in itself indicates Government's intention to protect the small industries. With regard to clause 17, Sir, which again was raised by the last speaker, it says: "Sufficient and suitable sanitary conveniences for the persons employed in the factory shall be provided, . . . such conveniences shall afford proper separate accommodation for persons of each sex." If the latter is objectionable, it can be taken up by the Select Committee. All the points which have been brought up by the two speakers will no doubt be considered by the Select Committee. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. (Mr Braga).

Order for Second Reading read. 11.24 a.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, under the existing provisions of the Betting Ordinance the police can make an entry and search only upon the authority of a warrant signed by a Justice of the Peace after the submission of written information on oath and after further enquiry which the Justice of the Peace may deem to be necessary has been conducted. Speedy police investigation and the apprehension of those breaking the law are often impossible when such investigation has to be preceded by the contacting of a Justice of the Peace, the laying of information before him and the formal issue of the necessary warrant. Secondly, those giving information are often unwilling to appear and repeat their information before a stranger in the person of the Justice. Finally, the time involved in arranging for depositions to be sworn before a Justice of the Peace adds to the delay in initiating action against those breaking the law. Sir, owing to the frequent necessity of obtaining such warrants to search premises without delay, the practice arose some years ago, following that in the United Kingdom, of appointing police officers as Justices of the Peace. This practice is open to objection and has in fact been stopped now for some time past, since the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions and the exercise of executive functions should properly be kept separate and distinct, and because it is undesirable that a police officer issuing search warrants on his own information or that of some other person closely associated with him should appear to be exercising a judicial discretion in doing so. Nevertheless, Sir, it is highly desirable that police investigations should begin immediately on receipt of information concerning the commission or intended commission of a crime, and the purpose of clauses 2 and 3 of this amending Bill, and of the two further Bills of which I shall be moving the Second Reading immediately, is to remedy this present position and to grant police officers not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police the necessary authority to issue written authorisation for entry and search of premises upon written information with which they are satisfied and after any further investigation they deem to be necessary. Finally, Sir, I should point out that these amendments do not confer any indiscriminate right of entry and search on the police. Warrants to search or written authority to search are still a prerequisite to the entry into premises and such warrants can only be issued by a Justice of the Peace, and the written authority by senior police officers, that is, Assistant Superintendents and above. I should add that the powers now suggested have always been vested in the police under the equivalent legislation in the Federation of Malaya.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 11.30 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this is a further measure to strengthen the hands of the police in controlling the activities of gangsters and members of secret societies. Amongst the activities of secret societies, the organisation of gambling holds an important place, and not only do members of secret societies organise gambling for their own profit, but through the operation of their methods of extortion, they prey upon all those who make their living from gambling. Common gaming houses are, in fact, common resorts for gangsters, robbers and thieves who are prone to gambling and often find the wherewithal for their gambling through their criminal activities. For the rest, Sir, the reasons which I gave in moving the amendments to the Betting Ordinance a few minutes ago hold good in respect of the amendments to this Ordinance too. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 11.34 a.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill is complementary to the Bill which the Assembly has just approved and is designed to enable the police to take immediate action when they receive information that members of a secret society are holding a meeting, without the necessity of having to swear out the information before a Justice of the Peace in order to obtain a search warrant. The reasons which I have put forward for moving the previous amending Bills hold good in respect of this one also, and I accordingly beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 11.37 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In Schedule A to the Criminal Procedure Code, there are summarised the various maximum punishments provided by the Penal Code. At its last sitting this Assembly passed a Bill which has now become the Penal Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 1958, which made various amendments to punishments that can be imposed for various offences, and it is necessary now to amend this Schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code to correct those portions which have become inaccurate. This Bill is purely complementary to the Penal Code (Amendment) Ordinance recently enacted. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 11.40 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's consent to proceed with this Bill. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the main purpose of this Bill is to provide for the creation of a statutory board which will be called the Southern Islands Local Council for the local government administration of the group of islands to the south and south-west of the Island of Singapore, described in the First Schedule to the Bill, which are at present administered by the Rural Board. As hon. Members will be aware, the McNeice Committee on Local Government in its Report recommended that, on the reorganisation of the local government system in Singapore, the administration of these islands should be the responsibility of the central govern ment under the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing. This recommendation was accepted by the Government, as is stated in the White Paper on Government Policy, Sessional Paper Cmd. No. 30 of 1956. This Local Council will have a simple constitution consisting of the District Officer (Islands), as Chairman with a number of elected ketuas and three other persons to be appointed. It is the intention that there will be nine ketuas to be elected in accordance with the division of these islands into nine groups, each group constituting an electoral division, with the population of each more or less evenly distributed among the groups. Provision is made for the election of ketuas by ballot, each electoral division returning one candidate to the Board. The franchise will be extended to all residents in the islands who are of full age and capacity and have been resident there for five years and are able to speak either English, Malay, Tamil or any of the Chinese dialects commonly used and understood by the people on the islands. The three appointed members will be unofficials who will be chosen from prominent residents living in these islands. The Local Council, as the local authority for the Southern Islands, will be multilingual and its proceedings may be conducted in English, Malay, Tamil or any commonly understood Chinese dialect. It will be given powers to carry out works for the improvement of communications, the promotion of sanitation and cleanliness and the abatement of nuisances. General powers will also be given to the Council to make by-laws for good local government administration, and it will be noted, Sir, from clause 16 (3) of the Bill that these powers are quite wide. The Local Council will have further powers to levy rates on properties and collect other taxes and fees, and the deficit between revenue and expenditure will be met by annual contributions from the Government on the same lines as government contributions to the present Rural Board. The implementation of the Bill will ensure that these islands will receive, through their elected representatives sitting on the Local Council, a more adequate and closer attention in regard to the needs and the provision of amenities, as these islands, by reason of their detachment from the mainland and the poverty in which the islanders are living, present special problems. The creation of this Local Council will meet a long-felt need to better the living conditions of the people living in the Southern Islands. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 11.48 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill proposes to amend section 58 of the principal Ordinance for the purpose of providing adequate penalties for offences committed by co-operative insurance societies. There is now a co-operative insurance society called the Malayan Co-operative Insurance Society functioning in Singapore. The penalties provided for by section 58 of the principal Ordinance, which are a fine not exceeding $50 for any offence against the Ordinance, are obviously inadequate for offences relating to insurance business. It is therefore proposed by this amending Bill to increase the penalties to bring them into line with those provided for in the Life Assurance Companies Ordinance. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr J. M. Jumabhoy.] 11.50 a.m.

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

Sir, I beg leave to ask for dispensation under Standing Order 23 in order to move some minor amendments to this clause. The amendments are, in page 1, lines 16 and 18, to leave out "of" and insert "not exceeding".

As hon. Members know, two days' notice of amendments is required unless notice shall be dispensed with under Standing Order 23. Have I the assent of hon. Members that dispensation should be given? Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr Minister, you can proceed.

Sir, I move, In page 1, line 16, to leave out "of" and insert "not exceeding". Amendment agreed to. Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 18, to leave out "of" and insert "not exceeding".-[Mr J. M. Jumabhoy]. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.52 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill is designed to make provision for co-operative societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Ordinance to carry on life assurance business. Clause 2 provides for the supervision of such societies by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies instead of by the Registrar of Companies. Clause 3 seeks to exempt co-operative insurance societies from complying with sections 12 and 19 to 22 of the Life Assurance Companies Ordinance. Having regard to the fact that the Co-operative Societies Ordinance already provides for stringent measures relating to audit and the dissolution of all co-operative societies, it is considered unnecessary to apply the provisions of section 12 and sections 19 to 22 of the Life Assurance Companies Ordinance to co-operative societies carrying on life assurance business. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 11.55 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the consent ot His Excellency the Governor to proceed with this Bill, and move "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill, Sir, deals with a large number of amendments to the Merchant Shipping Ordinance. Some of these amendments are required to bring our Ordinance into line with its Federation counterpart. Others are required to meet changed conditions today. The nature of the amendments is such that none of them should arouse any controversy. As each amendment is explained in the Explanatory Note appended to the Bill, I will now deal with only the more salient features. Section 12 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance exempts fishing boats exclusively employed in fishing on the Colony and Federation coasts from the provisions of Part II of the Ordinance which relates to master mariners and seamen and which includes the manning scales of vessels. Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to extend this exemption to in clude vessels solely transporting fish, vessels towing nibong poles for fishing stakes, and vessels engaged in the repair of fishing stakes. At the same time, it removes the restriction of the area of exemption which is now limited to the Colony and Federation coasts. Clause 5 raises from 10 tons to 25 tons the minimum tonnage of vessels required to be manned by third-class engine-drivers and gives the Minister power to exempt vessels from this requirement. Clause 11 transfers from a Court of Inquiry to the Minister the power to deal with a local certificate of competency, the holder of which has been convicted of a criminal offence connected with his work. To assist the Minister in dealing expeditiously with collisions between harbour craft, this clause enables the Minister to deal with certificates of competency of helmsmen, steersmen and engine-drivers, thereby avoiding the complicated procedure of a Court of Inquiry in minor cases such as these. Clause 29 enables a Court of Investigation convened in Singapore to cancel or suspend local certificates of competency issued in the Federation of Malaya or in Sarawak. This has been agreed to with the Governments concerned. Ships owned by foreign states are exempted under the Ordinance from the payment of Sunday labour fees. This exemption was originally intended to apply to ships of war, but certain states now run merchant vessels. Clauses 41 and 46 qualify the existing exemption to make the state-owned merchant vessels liable to pay Sunday labour fees while leaving the other state-owned vessels exempt. There is a provision in the Singapore Port Rules, 1957, which prohibits the discharge of oil into the waters of the port. Clause 44 extends this prohibition to all the waters of the Colony and will ,assist in dealing with complaints that bathing beaches, marine life and coastal flora and fauna have been adversely affected by, the discharge of oil from vessels in Colony waters. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Committee Wednesday, 16th July, 1958.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.59 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with this Bill. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this amending Bill and the three following Bills are primarily necessitated by a reorganisation of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, which is in turn largely consequent upon the Federation of Malaya becoming independent. Certain appointments the holders of which are vested with statutory functions under these laws have now been abolished, and it is necessary to transfer the functions to the holders of the appro priate appointments. This Bill is a short and formal measure, Sir, and there is little to add to the explanation given in the Bill. Following the reorganisation to which I have referred, the appointments of Air Officer Commanding, R.A.F. Malaya, and Air Officer Commanding, R.A.F. Singapore, have been abolished, and this Bill therefore seeks to transfer to the appropriate officers the authority previously exer cised by the two Air Officers Commanding. Sir, I beg to move. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr David.] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 12.02 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with this Bill. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As I have already indicated, Sir, in moving the Military Maneuvers (Amendment) Bill, the main purpose of this Bill is also to recognise the change in organisation of both the R.A.F. in the Far East and the Malayan Auxiliary Air Force as a consequence of the independence of the Federation of Malaya. Formerly the Commander of the Auxiliary Air Force as a whole was appointed jointly by the Governor and the High Commissioner in the Federation, the Ordinance providing that the person so appointed, if he were not the Air Officer Commanding, R.A.F. Malaya in person, should be under his orders. Since the Federation became independent, the appointment of Air Officer Commanding, Malaya, has been abolished and a joint Commander is therefore no longer appropriate. The Bill accordingly seeks to provide for the appointment by the Governor of a Commander of the Singapore section only who will exercise, in regard to the Singapore section, the powers formerly exercised by the Air Officer Commanding. The opportunity has also been taken to make certain further amendments to the Ordinance. The first of these is that the Bill seeks to provide for a Reserve of Airmen in addition to the existing Reserve of Officers. Previously the functions of the Malayan Auxiliary Air Force were primarily concerned with flying, and it is perhaps for that reason that the Ordinance originally provided only for a Reserve of Officers. The primary role has now however changed to the provision of fighter control units whose members undergo lengthy and scientific training and whose task is to man radar reporting stations in the event of war or threat of war. It is therefore desirable that trained members of such units should be available in a reserve, more especially since of all the local forces it is the fighter control unit which would almost certainly be required to be mobilised in an emergency at the shortest possible notice. Secondly, the Bill seeks to give recognition to the new status of Singapore citizenship by making Singapore citizens eligible to join the force. Thirdly, the Bill seeks to clarify a provision in the Ordinance regarding the payment of pensions and gratuities to widows and families of members who die from injuries as well as from wounds received in the course of service. Since the Ordinance was amended to permit members of the Auxiliary Air Force to be used on internal security duties, this clarification is particularly desirable. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr David.] Bill considered in Committee. 12.06 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 15-

Sir, I ask for dispensation under Standing Order 23 to introduce a purely formal amendment to clause 15 of which notice has not been given, the object of the amendment being to delete the reference to the Air Officer Commanding in the marginal note to the original section of the principal Ordinance.

It is not strictly necessary to move an amendment to a marginal note. That could be done as a matter of course.

In that case, I will not move. Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 12.14 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with this Bill. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this is the third of the amending Bills required to reflect changes made in the Service organisations as a consequence of the independence of the Federation of Malaya. Certain functions under the parent Ordinance are vested in the Flag Officer, Malayan Area, an appointment which has now been abolished, the functions of the post having been taken over by the Commander-in-Chief, Far East. This Bill accordingly seeks to give legal recognition to this transfer of functions. Here again, Sir, opportunity has been taken to make certain further amendments to the Ordinance. Firstly, the Bill also recognises the new status of Singapore citizenship. Secondly, the Bill seeks to give effect to a promise made by the Government at the time when the M.R.N.V.R. Ordinance was amended last year to enable volunteers to be used on internal security duties. Clause 8 of the Bill seeks to provide for the award of pensions or gratuities to volunteers wounded or injured in the course of their service, including service on internal security duties, and also for the payment of pensions or gratuities to the widows and families of such members who are killed or who die of wounds received in the course of, or from an illness directly attributable to, their service as such members. This clause brings the M.R.N.V.R. into line with the other volunteer forces. The opportunity has also been taken in the Bill to make various minor amendments to the Ordinance in order to clarify, and in some cases to amplify, its provisions. These are set out in the Explanatory Statement to which I do not think I need add. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Committee Wednesday, 16th July, 1958.

Order for Second Reading read. 12.12 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move that this Order be discharged and that the Royal Malayan Navy (Amendment) Bill be withdrawn. Sir, since this Bill was given its First Reading, negotiations have been completed with the Federation of Malaya Government for the transfer of the Royal Malayan Navy to that Government. A public Press announcement has been made and it is hoped that the transfer can be effected by the beginning of next month. In those circumstances, Sir, there is no point in proceeding with this amending Bill which is concerned with the administration of the force.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill be discharged and the Bill be withdrawn.

I think this is a convenient time to suspend. I shall take the Chair again at 2.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.14 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with this Bill. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, it has always been customary in the provisions of the Widows' and Orphans' Pension Ordinance to keep in line with the corresponding law in the Federation of Malaya, for the reason that a number of officers have at times served under both Governments and it has with some been largely a matter of chance to which scheme they have been required to contribute throughout their service. During the last few years there has been considerable consultation with the authorities in the Federation on the provisions of this Ordinance following an actuarial examination of the two schemes and the report of a Committee which was set up before the war. As a result of these consultations and subsequent discussions with the Staff Side of the Singapore Civil Service Joint Council, which have taken some time, the amendments now proposed in this Bill are introduced to accord with the amending legislation which has already been enacted in the Federation. Clause 2 of this Bill seeks to regularise the position of officers on probation or agreement with prospects of permanency in a pensionable office between 11th December, 1950, and 1st January, 1955. Before the earlier date, only persons on the pensionable establishment were admitted into the scheme. With effect from that date, however, the Federation extended the application of their scheme to persons on probation or agreement with prospects of permanency. One of the aims of the Singapore Amendment Ordinance, 1952, was to keep the Singapore Ordinance in line with the Federation in this respect. This was not, however, achieved owing to the failure to provide that the new definition of "public servant" introduced by the 1952 amending Ordinance should have retrospective application to December 1950. Insertion of the words "on or after the 11th day of December, 1950", proposed in clause 2, will repair this omission. In making provision in the 1952 amending Ordinance, for officers on probation or agreement to be required to contribute to this scheme, it was also provided that they could elect not to become, or to cease to be, contributors during the period of probation or agreement, within six months of the date of publication of the amending Ordinance. The Ordinance was published in October 1952 but it was unfortunately not brought into effect until 17th August, 1956, when it was brought into force retrospectively to 1st January, 1955, by which time the period of election had long expired. Officers on probation or agreement appointed between 1950 and August 1956 were thus denied the right to elect not to become or to cease to be contributors to the scheme, with the result that they are now regarded as contributors during the period of their probation or agreement and have been required by the Directors of the scheme to pay arrears of contribution. In order to afford them the opportunity for election which they have hitherto been denied, clause 3 seeks to provide for the necessary extension of the period of notice under subsection (1) of section 5 of the main Ordinance. Clause 4 of the amending Bill deals with the refund of contributions to bachelors or widowers without dependent children. At present, when such officers retire, they cease to contribute and are paid a refund of only 50 per cent of the contributions made up to 31st December, 1954, and, by the amendment made in the 1952 Ordinance, the total contributions made between 1st January, 1955, and the date of retirement. Clause 4 seeks to provide for the full refund of all contributions made to bachelors or widowers without dependent children on their retirement, together with the payment of compound interest at the rate of 21 per cent. This will bring the Singapore legislation into line with the Federation Ordinance, and has been agreed with the Staff Side. At the Committee stage I shall be moving an amendment to section 12 of the principal Ordinance to make provision in respect of bachelors and widowers without dependent children who are removed from the service. Clause 5 of the Bill regularises the position of officers who are contributors to the United Kingdom Overseas Superannuation Scheme which was established on 1st January, 1955 and which is an approved scheme for the purposes of section 17 of the principal Ordinance. Under this clause, contributors to the superannuation scheme will be exempt from making contributions under the main Ordinance so long as they continue to contribute to the superannuation scheme. This amendment also will bring the Singapore Ordinance into line with the Federation Ordinance. Clauses 6 and 7 make certain consequential amendments as a result of the amendment of the definition of pensionable age introduced by the amending Ordinance in 1952. Clause 8 seeks to provide for benefits in certain circumstances to adopted children who have not previously been catered for. Clause 9 clarifies the position in regard to certain officers on transfer from Palestine, who were permitted to make a lump-sum payment to the Singapore Widows' and Orphans' Pension Scheme at the time of their transfer equal to the accumulated contributions paid by the officer and by the Palestine Government under the Palestine Widows' and Pensions' Ordinance which was wound up in 1948. Sir, I beg to move.

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

2.39 p.m. Clause 1-

Sir, I move an amendment, In page 1, line 6, to leave out "section 4" and insert "seetions 4 and 5". The object of this amendment is to accord with the insertion of a new clause which I shall be moving at the appropriate time. Amendment agreed to. Further amendment made: In page 1, line 9, to leave out "Section 4" and insert "Sections 4 and 5".-.[Mr David]. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8-

Mr Chief Secretary, in page 4, line 13, it occurs to me that the word "has" should be "had".

I agree with you, Sir.

We will treat that as a typographical error and make the alteration. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. New clause - "Amend- 5. Section 12 of the principal ment of Ordinance is hereby amended by section deleting paragraphs (a) and (b) 12. thereof and substituting therefor the following:- '(a) where such contributor is a bachelor, the total amount of his contributions under this Ordinance shall be re- paid to him together with compound interest thereon calculated with annual rests at the rate of two and one-half per centurn subject to the deduction of any sums due by him to the Government; and (b) where such contributor is a widower without children of a pensionable age, the total amount of the con- tributions which he has paid since the death of his last wife or the ceasing to be of a pensionable age of his last child, whichever event shall have last hap- pened, shall be repaid to him together with com- pound interest thereon cal- culated with annual rests at the rate of two and one- half per centum subject to the deduction of any sums due by him to the Govern- ment; and'." (Mr David). Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir, I move, "That the clause be read a Second time." The object of this new clause 5 is to bring section 12 of the principal Ordinance into line with the amendment to section 11. In section 11, the amendment provides that bachelors and widowers without dependent children shall draw their full contributions on death or retirement, but by an omission the same amendment was not inserted for section 12 which provides for officers who are removed from the service, and the object of this amendment is to provide for the same refund to bachelors and widowers without dependent children who are removed from the service.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill. Bill reported, with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.47 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." It is not necessary for me, Sir, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill to expand on the explanatory statement. The amendments proposed by clause 2 are merely a consequence of the re-designation of posts arising out of administrative reorganisation. The amendment to section 7 removes the necessity for the Minister to make rules for election procedures and in consequence the proposal is that paragraph (a) be deleted. The rest are consequential amendments. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 2.50 p.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the provisions for ordinary expenditure and for development expenditure made in the Appropriation Ordinance, 1956, were exceeded by the amounts and under the various heads shown in the First and Second Schedules to the Bill. These amounts total $10,881,793.94 in the case of ordinary expenditure, and $154,460.63 in the case of development expenditure. They have all been covered by supplementary votes approved by the Legislative Assembly from time to time. The Bill seeks to give legal sanction to the supplementary votes already approved by resolutions of the Assembly. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Please proceed with the Third Reading.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.52 p.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with this Bill and I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Under the existing Ordinance (Cap. 163), the Federation Government has since 1918 been permitted to maintain customs stations in Singapore for the purpose of collecting duty on dutiable goods exported from the Federation by rail. Federation customs officers have been authorised by warrant to perform certain functions under the Ordinance. These functions include the collection of duty, the search of goods and baggage within the limits of the station, and the power of arrest without warrant when an offence has been committed. Under section 10 of the Ordinance, authorised officers have the powers of officers of the customs under the Singapore Customs Ordinance, and have power to enforce the provisions of the Ordinance in so far as they relate to the collection of revenue on intoxicating liquors. Sir, over the years, the function of the collection station established under the Ordinance has changed. More and more it has tended to be used for the collection of duty on goods imported into the Federation from Singapore rather than for the collection of duty on goods exported from that territory. At the present time, the major portion of revenue collected at the station comes from imports. Commercial firms in Singapore have found it increasingly convenient to ship goods into the Federation through this station. It is considered that the time has come to recognise this change of function of the collection station, and to regularise its operations by changing the provisions of the law. Consultations to this end have taken place with the Federation Government and the Bill which is now before the Assembly is the outcome. As is to be expected, Sir, in the circumstances the overall effect of the Bill is to give extraterritorial effect in Singapore to the Federation Customs Ordinance, 1952, and the majority of the clauses of the Bill are based on that Ordinance which, in turn, is very similar to the Singapore Customs Ordinance (Cap. 160). I will not deal with the individual provisions of the Bill, Sir. They are described in some detail in the explanatory note, and there is also attached to the Bill a list showing from where the various clauses of the Bill are derived. This list also shows which clauses are new. It can be seen, Sir, on pages 26 and 27 of the Bill. There are, however, Sir, one or two clauses to which I should invite attention. It will of course be realised that certain clauses of the Bill give officers of the Federation Government considerable powers within the territory of Singapore. For example, clauses 14 (2), 24 and 29 give Federation customs officers power to examine the persons and baggage of individuals at collection stations in Singapore. The original intention was to examine passengers and their personal baggage en route to the Causeway. This was considered desirable in order to avoid a long delay for customs examination at Johore Bahru, and to enable the mail train services to be accelerated. Recently, however, the Federation Government has come to the conclusion that it would be better if the examination was to take place in the railway station at Singapore. Apparently, quite apart from the inconvenience caused tp passengers by an examination while the train is in motion, and from the possibility that it might not be completed in time, the cost of the staff required for the operation would be out of all proportion to the revenue likely to be collected. In the circumstances, it is now suggested that the examination should take place in a specially fenced-off portion of the concourse of the railway station. The cost of establishing and maintaining the examination point will fall on the railway administration. This suggestion has been examined by the Ministries concerned from the point of view of physical and mechanical practicability, and no objection is seen to it. All things considered, examination prior to departure would probably be preferred by the large majority of passengers. It is understood that the Federation Government does not wish to establish a collection station at Paya Lebar Airport for the time being. The volume of traffic, both passenger and freight, is within the capacity of customs staff at the airports in the Federation and the Federation Government does not wish to incur the expense of maintaining a 24- hour duty roster of customs officers at Paya Lebar Airport. In addition, there has as yet been no demand from the commercial interests in Singapore for the establishment of such a station. Clauses 17 to 19 of the Bill provide for the examination in the General Post Office, Singapore, with the consent and by arrangement with the Controller of Posts, Singapore, of postal packages addressed to destinations in the Federation. These clauses merely give legal sanction to a practice which has been followed for a number of years. Singapore is a considerable source of supply of dutiable goods for the Federation. From time to time, extensive use has been made of postal packages to smuggle small dutiable articles, like watches and fountain pens, into the Federation. When such traffic has been suspected, it has been customary for the Controller of Customs, Federation of Malaya, to arEange for the Controller of Posts, Singapore, to have all postal packages for a certain destination in the Federation examined for a period of days. Normally, no packages are opened. If, however, packages are found which might contain dutiable goods, details of the addresses are taken and forwarded to customs officers at the destinations in the Federation so that action can be taken, to bring the recipient to book and to collect duty. The examination is also sometimes used as a check on the efficiency of customs staff in the Federation. It is unusual for more than two or three of these examinations to be required annually, and they generally last for no more than three or four days at a time. The examinations cause no inconvenience or dislocation of business in Singapore and no objection is seen to their being held. Clause 53, Sir, confers on authorised Federation customs officers the powers of officers of customs under the Customs. Ordinance, Singapore, and the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Singapore. Examination of the Ordinances in question indicates that the powers so conferred, are wide and cover all the legitimate activities of customs officers operating: under the customs law in Singapore. In practice, however, these powers will be limited to those which would follow in the normal way from the discovery of an offence or a suspected offence against Singapore law during the course of an examination at an authorised passenger station. For example, a passenger to the Federation might, on examination, be suspected of being connected with a gang of opium smugglers. It might be imperative to follow the trail without delay. Under clause 53, this operation would be conducted by authorised Federation customs officers since the delay which might result from informing the Singapore Customs Department might mean that the law-breakers might be allowed to escape. There would be no question of Federation Customs officers exercising the powers conferred on them in respect of matters not arising from examinations at collection stations. The Federation Government is fully aware of the wideness of these powers and has given an assurance as to their use in the following terms: "The Federation Government undertakes that the powers under the Singapore legislation conferred by this section will only be exercised where a breach of the Singapore legislation comes to the notice of Federation Customs and Revenue officers in the execution of their duties under this Ordinance." While it is appreciated that the powers are wide, it is considered that their grant will make for greater efficiency in customs control in Singapore. The Government is satisfied that the powers will not be abused. It will, Sir, be appreciated that an important constitutional question is involved in this Bill in so far as it gives officers of a foreign territory rights of search and detention over the person and goods of citizens of Singapore in the territory of Singapore. Such an arrangement can only be contemplated because of the close ties, economic and otherwise, between the Federation of Malaya and Singapore. It would be out of the question between Singapore and any other power. At the same time, the power o the Bill merely seeks to recognise practice and procedures, the majority of which have been in force for a great number of years in Singapore. It is as much for the benefit of Singapore traders as for the Federation of Malaya Government that collection stations for import duties should be established in Singapore. The arrangements for customs examination of passengers' baggage prior to the departure of the mail train are for the benefit of, and are likely to be welcomed by, travellers generally. While the powers granted under clause 53 are perhaps open to greater objection in so far as Federation customs officers, might exercise powers of search and detention outside the limits of collection stations, the exercise of these powers is unlikely to affect law-abiding citizens of Singapore and can only make for greater and more efficient customs control. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.02 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I only want to refer to one clause in the Bill, and that is clause 24, in connection with the Hon. the Financial Secretary's statement that customs examination will now take place in the Singapore Railway Station instead of on the train en route to the Causeway as was at one time contemplated. In a question in this House over a year ago, I pressed for the latter practice to be introduced in order to reduce the journey time from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur and other stations in the Federation. Now, Sir, the Hon. the Financial Secretary has not made entirely clear whether time will in fact be saved in the journey under the new clause 24, nor how much time will be taken up by customs examination at the Singapore Railway Station, and we will be grateful if he would enlighten us a little further on the operation of this clause when he replies. 3.04 p.m.

I cannot give precise details, Sir, but I understand that, as a result of the operation of this particular clause, any delay other than that required for the embarkation and disembarkation of passengers at Johore Bahru will be avoided. In short, trains will now stop for only a short time at Johore Bahru. Hitherto there have been long delays while customs examinations have been made in Johore. With regard to the question of how long it will take to examine all passengers in the Railway Station at Singapore, I have myself put that question to the Federation Government authorities and they have given an assurance that every effort will be made to see that it is done as expeditiously as possible and that all passengers are cleared by the time the train leaves.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Committee Wednesday, 16th July, 1958.

3.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the business set down for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 7.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 7.

3.06 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to 16th July, 1958.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned of 16th July, 1958.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.07 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Hon. Members will recall that when the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance was passed in June 1956, certain objections to the measure were raised by the Singapore Bar Committee. Discussions with the Bar Committee resulted in ironing out areas of disagreement. This Bill now seeks to give effect to the recommendations made by the Bar Committee which have been accepted by the Government. One of the Bar Committee's recommendations was that in the working of the scheme, some measure of supervision should be exercised by the legal profession, although the Committee conceded that the service must be controlled and administered by the Government. This point is met in clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill which respectively alters section 11 and amends section 12 of the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance, 1956. It is now made incumbent on the Director of Legal Aid that all applications for legal aid should be approved by a Board consisting of the Director of Legal Aid and not less than two advocates and solicitors from the panel maintained by the Director of Legal Aid. In amending the provisos to section 16 and subsection (1) of section 17 respectively of the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance, 1956, clauses 4 and 5 give effect to the Bar Committee's recommendation that an aided person should have the right to have his legal affairs handled by a lawyer of his own choice. With regard to the vexed question of fees payable to lawyers working under the scheme, the Minister has power under section 28 of the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance, 1956, to make regulations relating to fees and no amendment to the Ordinance is therefore necessary. The Bar Committee has decided to issue no directive to members of the Bar with regard to participation in the scheme, and each member is therefore free to join the panel under section 4 of the Ordinance as he thinks fit. I understand that several members of the Bar have expressed their willingness to participate in the scheme. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a minor amendment that I propose to make, in page 3, line 14, the words "the appropriate panel" should not be deleted from the principal Ordinance. The erroneous insertion was only discovered after the Bill was printed.

The appropriate time to amend will be in Committee.

Yes, Sir. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.09 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to this Bill to assist those people who need legal aid, I have in recent times, a number of people coming to see me regarding this. They have been very unfortunate in having lawyers thrust on to them, and they have come along to see me complaining that their cases have never been handled properly. In one case, they informed me that the lawyer concerned never interviewed them. They waited until the case came up before the court and then at that time started dealing with his client, asking him a few questions, and in most cases the people who received legal aid were really receiving a very shabby form of aid. Perhaps it may be that complaints of this type may be worth the Bar Committee's while to look into, but I certainly feel that if a person receiving aid has a choice of his lawyer it will help tremendously. Furthermore, I would say that if lawyers who are rendering aid in such cases are found to be wanting not only by one person but by many persons, then it means that the work has not been properly done and he might properly come off the schedule. I always note that lawyers always talk about fees and it is important to them as to how much money they would get out of a case. The amount of legal assistance seems to be dependent on the amount of money received. Of course I have heard of famous cases where people are charged sums of three figures and over and lawyers refusing to handle cases, although deserving because all that the client can pay is a few hundred dollars. I think one former Member of the Assembly even said that his practice brought him well over $10,000 a month. What I am thinking about is so many of these lawyers have been talking about Socialism and wanting to help the poor people and today even the Bar Committee talks about fees. It pains me to see that those who talk loudest about helping the poor people are actually the people who try to ask, `How much shall we get for our service?'. 3.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a member of the legal profession, I would like to assure my friend the Member for Serangoon that in my experience of more than 25 years of the Bar in Singapore, no member of the Bar, having been assigned to look after the case of a pauper, has ever failed in his duty. I would like to assure this. House that I believe that the information given to him must be entirely in correct.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr Braga.] Bill considered in Committee. 3.14 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5-

Mr Chairman, I move an amendment to clause 5 of the Bill, In page 3, line 14, to leave out "the appropriate panel". This was an erroneous insertion and, as I said it was discovered only when the Bill had been printed. The deletion of these words from the original Ordinance would make the section meaningless. The section should now read- "17.-

3.17 p.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $735,900 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. 14 of 1958. Sir, of the 34 items in the Command Paper, all but 12 refer to unforeseen revotes of funds already voted by the Assembly. These applications for revotes are fully explained on the Paper and with one possible exception do not call for special comment. The 12 applications for new money are also fully explained on the Paper. The majority are for small amounts which do not call for additional comment. There are, however, one or two which hon. Members will no doubt wish me to amplify. Hon. Members who have been engaged in the constitutional discussions at different times will appreciate that, under the new Constitution, the position of the Director of Audit and the Audit Department will change and will increase in importance. Hitherto, the Audit Department has been a department of Government, and its duties, other than those prescribed by law or regulation, are laid down by the Government. Its officers are subject to governmental discipline and control. With the change in the Constitution, however, it is essential that the position of the Audit Department should be changed and that it should no longer be a department of Government, but that it should be completely independent of the Government and free from political influence of any kind. The new status of the Director of Audit and the Audit Department will be recognised in the new Constitution. In the circumstances, quite apart from the additional work and responsibility which will fall on the Director of Audit as a result of the termination of the old connection with the Auditor-General in Kuala Lumpur, it is desirable that the post should be regraded to take account of the responsibility which will arise out of his independent position in the hierarchy of Government. It has been argued with some force that, following the example of the Federation of Malaya, the post should be upgraded to Grade C, that is, on a par with the permanent secretaries, but it has been decided that Grade D is sufficient, at any rate for the time being. I hope that hon. Members will support the application for a token vote. Perhaps the most important item in the Paper is the creation of the post of Secretary (Loans). On a number of occasions in the past, Sir, I have drawn attention to the wide gap which is likely to exist in the future between the needs of the various central and local government bodies and corporations in Singapore for development capital and the total amount of development capital likely to be available. I have also stressed the need to mobilise and tap all available sources of development capital in Singapore if the gap is to be narrowed. I do not think that anybody who has studied the matter will deny the existence of the gap now and in the future, or the need to do everything in our power to narrow it by integrating and phasing development plans on an island-wide basis, by avoiding cut-throat competition for the funds likely to be available, and to explore and mobilise every possible source of investment capital. Integration and phasing of development plans on an island-wide basis is a difficult and complicated matter but it will have to he done if the best use is to be made of the limited funds likely to be available. We can no longer afford to allow every development authority to go merrily ahead planning what it considers desirable without regard to the needs of other authorities or to the funds likely to be available. There must be co-operation and coordination, and I ask that this co-operation will be given when the question of setting up a suitable coordinating body is discussed with the various authorities concerned. I think it will be generally agreed that it would be folly for the various authorities responsible for development in Singapore to indulge in cut-throat competition for the limited funds likely to be available for development in Singapore. Clearly there is a case for one authority, in this case the Government, to mobilise and tap all resources and to apportion the proceeds between the various authorities for the implementation of a phased, integrated and agreed island-wide development plan. Mobilisation of investment, capital will be far from easy. It will involve not only the flotation of loans of all kinds necessary to meet the requirements of local investors, but also the question of the issue of Treasury bills, the creation of short-term deposits and the like. It will involve the servicing of these loans, the operation of sinking funds, the investment of sinking fund money, the redemption and conversion of the loans, and so on. It will involve the consideration and implementation of savings campaigns. It will involve the gradual building up of a local money market, thus giving a greater measure of liquidity than exists at present to local trustee securities. It involves such questions as the investment policy of provident funds, insurance companies operating locally, and so on. It is a task which will call for a high degree of specialised knowledge and financial experience which is not available in the Treasury at the present time The Treasury is understaffed and the officers at present serving in it are lacking in financial experience. It is in my opinion of vital importance not only to the immediate pressing problem of mobilisation of investment capital, but also to the general efficiency of the Treasury to recruit a Secretary (Loans) Having regard to the qualifications and experience required for this task, it is considered necessary to offer the inclusive emoluments which are proposed. This particular question has been most carefully examined and I am certain that we would not obtain the services of the kind of man we want for anything less. I trust that hon. Members realise the importance of the matter and support me in this application. Item 130 seeks a revote in connection with the investigation of the Oriental Telephone & Electric Company's assets. Hon. Members will note that the explanatory note refers to the need to go to arbitration. That is indeed the position. Valuations were exchanged in 1956 and, as agreed at the time of the conclusion of the purchase agreement, valuers on both sides subsequently entered into negotiations with a view to clarifying points of difference and making such settlements and compromises that might be possible. These negotiations have been protracted but considerable progress has been made in certain aspects of the valuation. There are, however, certain major points involving considerable sums of money which have proved to be quite unsusceptible of compromise. These must now go to arbitration under the terms of the original indenture. Arrangements are now being made to set up an arbitration tribunal which, it is hoped, will sit in Singapore in the autumn of this year. Hon. Members will realise that I cannot at this stage make any comment on the details of the negotiations or about the matters which have been referred to arbitration. Items 133 and 134 deal with the pan-Malayan development of trunk telephone facilities between Singapore and the Federation. Singapore's share of the project amounts to roughly $1.3 million but I am assured by the Minister that it will remove the serious bottleneck existing at the moment and provide facilities which will meet with the needs of the peninsula for a considerable number of years to come. More important, it will be a project which will pay for itself in a comparatively short period of time. Sir, I beg to move.

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

3.28 p.m.

The summary is at page 16. Head 6- The sum of $10 for Head 6 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 15- The sum of $600 for Head 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 20- Question proposed, "That the sum of $4,000 for Head 20 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to refer to Head 20 Legal, item 108 at page 2 which reads: "A further supplement of $1,500 is required to meet in full settlement, inclusive of costs, another claim by a member of the public for alleged wrongful search." Would the Hon. the Financial Secretary kindly give us more details regarding this wrongful search?

Mr Chairman, Sir, this case was a somewhat involved affair in which a police officer used powers which it might be considered by some were not really sufficient for the search he made. There was the possibility of a somewhat involved legal argument which might have become extremely expensive and on considering the case as a whole, it was decided to compromise the issue and offer a sum of money in settlement of the claim that had been made and that sum has been accepted. It is not always possible to forecast with any certainty the outcome of a case before the courts. Fortunately, for lawyers, there are differences of opinion occasionally as to the effect of particular provisions of the law and, in this particular case, the matter was one of some considerable doubt. It was because of the doubt and the possibility of the expensive results of litigating that doubt that it was decided to settle the matter. Having settled the matter, steps have been taken to explain to the officers concerned precisely how in future they will exercise the powers that have been given to them. Steps have been taken to avoid any recurrence of this particular unfortunate type of search.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Hon. the Attorney-Genera! tell us whether the officer or officers involved in this case were either reprimanded or punished as a result of this illegal search?

Sir, to the best of my knowledge, the officers were not punished. There was no reason why they should be punished but the officers have had explained to them the way in which they should use their powers in torture. It is not a case of an officer deliberately doing something wrong; the officer was mistaken.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Attorney-General has not answered my question as to whether they were reprimanded or not. I appreciate that it was not intentional that they did wrong but because of the result of that wrong, were they ever reprimanded?

Sir, I am quite convinced that the officer concerned did nothing for which punishment or reprimand, which is a punishment, would be appropriate. I am not even prepared to say that what he did was wrong. As I have explained, it is a matter on which even lawyers might disagree but what I am satisfied about is that this particular type of action will not be taken in the future. But I must resist any suggestion that the police officer concerned is deserving of punishment. What he wanted was help and it is help that he has got.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $4,000 for Head 20 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 22- The sum of $21,000 for Head 22 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 25- The sum of $50,465 for Head 25 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 48- The sum of $20,156 for Head 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 49- The sum of $9,790 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 50- The sum of $7,000 for Head 50 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 52- The sum of $1,340 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 9- The sum of $680 for Head 9 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 11- The sum of $578 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 37- The sum of $2,760 for Head 37 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 57- The sum of $156,371 for Head 57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 59- The sum of $53,036 for Head 59 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D56- The sum of $25,500 for Head D56 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D59- The sum of $433,344 for Head D59 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D48- The sum of $570 for Head D48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sum of $735,900 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 $735,900 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. 14 of 1958.

3.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly is of the opinion that Mandarin should also be used in all verbal announcements made by and at the Singapore Airport. Sir, this motion is the outcome of long and futile negotiations with the expatriate Minister for Communications and Works.

Order. The word "expatriate" in this sense is provocative and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw that word.

I withdraw that word, Sir. Many of my constituents have complained to me that they were badly handicapped due to the lack of information particularly in Chinese at the Singapore Airport and upon this information, Sir, I have written several letters to the Minister for Communications and Works. With your permission, I would like to read the contents of these letters. On 28th January, 1957, I wrote to the Minister drawing his attention to the inadequacy of the English language being used in announcing the arrival and departure of planes in the Paya Lebar International Airport. I said: "The Singapore Airport should, for the con venience of the Asiatic passengers who do not understand the English language, announce the arrival and departure of planes in Mandarin, Malay and Tamil. There are many instances in which passengers missed or went to the wrong plane just because they do not understand English. As the Malayan Airways and other Airlines are mostly patronised by the Asians, and it is possible that a good number of them may not know English, the introduction of multilingualism in the announcement of their flight schedules is more URGENT. Since the Government is advocating multi lingualism in the Legislative Assembly for the convenience of its Members, I fail to understand why such facilities should not be extended to the Commercial Air Transports which play such an important part in the life of the people of Singapore. May I, therefore, request the favour of your early attention to this matter." And on 8th February, 1957, Sir, the Minister wrote: "Dear Mr Tan, You wrote on 28th January asking if multilingual facilities could be introduced at the Paya Lebar Airport, and in yesterday's Straits Times the subject was also mentioned. I am afraid that I cannot subscribe to the view that there have been many instances in which passengers missed or went to the wrong plane just because they were not conversant in English. I am, of course, aware of the fact that in many international airports announcements are made both in English, which has been accepted by the International Civil Aviation Organisation as the lingua franca of the air, and in the national language of that country. In so far as Paya Lebar is primarily an international airport, English would always be required, but in view of an increase expected in the local traffic between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, not to mention Sarawak and North Borneo, I have asked the Airport to experiment with Malay announcements and to report to me after an adequate period." I was very annoyed when he said that, Sir. And on 11th February, 1957, I replied: "I have to acknowledge with many thanks the receipt of your letter M.C. & W. 41/57 dated 8th February, 1957, in connection with my request that multilingualism should be adopted by the airport authorities in announcing the arrival and departure of planes in the Paya Lebar International Airport. I believe it is not so important whether you will subscribe to the view that there have been many instances in which passengers missed or went to the wrong plane just because they were not conversant in English; but the facts reported by me in my letter are supported by witnesse and, moreover, since such "instances" are never reported to the airport Authorities, it is very probable that you are ignorant of such state of affairs. Besides, the inconveniences experienced by the non-English speaking passengers in the airport can never be appreciated by those in power who normally cannot understand or are not concerned with the real needs of the Asians in this country. I am at a loss to understand why only Malay announcements are to be experimented when the majority of the passengers using planes between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, Sarawak, North Borneo, Indonesia and other countries is Chinese." And the Minister replied to me on 10th April as follows :- "Sir, In your letter to me of 28th January, 1957, you said, "that there are many instances in which passengers missed or went to the wrong plane just because they do not know English", and in your letter of 11th February, you added that these instances are supported by witnesses. As you know, we are experimentally making announcements in Malay as well as English; and I am also considering reports on the points raised in your letters. It would greatly help me if you can give me details of the instances referred to above; or, if you yourself have not got details, if you can give me the names and addresses of the witnesses from whom I can get the facts. What I need to know is: (a) the date of each instance referred to; (b) the country to which the passenger intended travelling; (c) the airline on which he was supposed to travel; (d) the passenger's name and address; (e) the languages and dialects spoken by the passenger." Sir, how can the Minister expect me to check the names and addresses of the passengers and the dialects spoken by them? Why not ask about their ages and the number of wives they have too? Frankly, Sir, what I am fighting for is a matter of principle, having at heart the progress and prosperity of Singapore. Singapore has an international airport. I have been to Hongkong and the authorities over there think it is necessary to introduce the Cantonese dialect as well as English to announce the arrival and departure of planes because the majority of the people there speak Cantonese. We say that we want to attract tourists and trade and yet we do not have the same facilities here. I can assure the House, Sir, that most of the Indonesian passengers who come to Singapore and bring trade and wealth to this country speak Mandarin. I am not asking the Minister to introduce only the Mandarin language. I am asking him to introduce something which this Assembly has already passed, that is, multilingualism, and I cannot understand why the Minister should take such a negative attitude. Is he so shortsighted not to see that this is an international airport and that we want progress in this country? Sir, I can quote a few instances. For example, take the case of a Chinese lady passenger who does not speak English but only the Chinese language. Whilst she is having coffee in the lounge or in the bar of the airport, suddenly an announcement comes over the air regarding the arrival or the departure of a plane. You will see that this same passenger will rush to the reception desk or will approach the other passengers and ask them what the announcement was about. That clearly shows that she does not understand English. I can also quote another instance. There were hundreds of supporters from the various political parties in Singapore who were waiting for the delegates to arrive back from London after the constitutional talks but the plane was delayed. The airport manager instructed somebody there to make an announcement in English to say that the plane had been delayed and asked the people to go back home, but nobody went back because they could not understand English. Subsequently, an announcement was made in Malay but it still did not make any difference. The crowd was still there. Eventually, in desperation, I think a reporter of the Sin Chew Jit Poh was approached and he got up to a microphone to speak to the people in Mandarin. Thereafter, the crowd just dispersed like the April mist in the July sun. All of them went back home. That clearly shows, Sir, that most of the people who go to the airport do not understand English. I am quite sure that the majority of the people in Singapore today, Sir - about 50 per cent - understand Mandarin. The Government say that they have already experimented with the Malay language and I can see that the reason why that has not been successful is that not many of the passengers who use the airport are Malays - I am quite sure that the percentage is very small. I am not arguing about the facts. I am arguing about the principle of introducing multilingualism in the airport because it is an international airport. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I second the motion standing on the Order Paper. I think it is very easy to satisfy the general public, Sir, being of various nationalities and speaking different dialects if announcements are made in the four main languages of this City especially at arrivals and departures of aeroplanes to and from different countries. For example, English, Malay and Mandarin will suffice for planes to and from Indonesia or for Malayan Airways; English only and possibly a second language, Malay, for planes to and from Europe; Tamil can be added for planes to and from India. This can very easily be done in order to help the travelling public in understanding announcements of arrivals and departures of planes to or from the various countries. I do not think that it would cost the authorities very much to provide these facilities. 3.47 p.m.

I would like to assure you, Sir, and the hon. Members of the House through you, that the principle of multilingualism at the airport and in civil aviation generally is one which is fully accepted. The Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) has described his long and so far unsuccessful struggle to get Mandarin included in the airport languages but of course the thing goes far further back than that - before he had even been elected to the Assembly. The question of what languages to use at the new Paya Lebar Airport has been discussed and consideration given to it and to all the factors involved long before it was opened, because that is part of the professional work of civil aviation officers, that they should make sure that their airport is as efficient as they can possibly make it and for that reason they consider the movement of passengers and how they are going to get to and fro without getting lost or held up. Naturally, the announcements which are made at the airport are part of the matters which are considered and I would give the House every assurance that if there appeared to be any real need for the introduction of additional languages which would lead to increased efficiency, then they should certainly be put in, but it is a matter to be judged on the question of efficiency. The hon. Member read at length from his letters to me and from my replies. He remarked also that his constituents had complained. Now he told me categorically that there were many instances of people who missed their planes because they did not understand the announcements and he said that he had witnesses prepared to come forward and tell me all about it. I wrote to him back in April last year saying, "Please tell me who your witnesses are. This is the sort of information I want. I want to know who it was, when he was travelling, and so on, so that I can check up." Thirteen months have passed and he has produced no witnesses at all, nor has he produced any actual case at all except for the imaginary lady drinking coffee in the lounge and rushing to the information desk because she did not understand an announcement. He is not able to tell me what lady it was and on what occasion. It is just "take a case and there it is". The only other concrete instance he produced was of a crowd seeing off the constitutional talks delegation in 1957. There was a delay by the aircraft, and the crowd not understanding announcements in the ordinary way, special arrangements were made at my request for an announcement to be made in Mandarin and through the co-operation of a newspaperman, the announcement was made. That is very appropriate and proper, and it surely does not argue that because on one occasion there was a particular crowd which needed a special announcement, we should retain permanent staff able to make other announcemets which are not necessary. Well, although his researches have not produced any single case of anybody who can be identified and who has required announcements in Mandarin, we have gone into this as thoroughly as possible, since I wrote to him last year. If I remember, for an Answer to a Question in the year 1956/57, we found one person who had missed his plane through not understanding the announcements. That person was a German. In the year 1957/58, one other person also went astray through not understanding the languages used at the airport. That person was a Turk. There was one other person who missed her plane at the time of the Malayan Airways strike. She was a young lady and I believe she went to the bank. In any case, she did not hear the announcement and as the Malayan Airways was short-staffed and overworked, they did not manage to get to the information desk for a special announcement calling for her and the result was that she, in fact, did not catch her plane. It was not a matter of the language; it was a matter of her not hearing the original announcement and not getting a subsequent special call for herself by name. Those are the only three cases that I have been able to unearth, and that is why I was so anxious that the hon. Member should produce his cases which he is so confident occurred; but until he does, I am afraid I must rank him with all the other sort of speeches that are made in this Assembly in which furious accusations are made but no evidence whatever is brought forward in substantiation. I need not instance the sort of cases that have occurred, but I personally do require to be convinced before I am prepared to assume that a person is talking sense. Now, there are various practical problems about - simply a matter of efficiency, Mr Speaker, Sir - how we are going to run our airport to the maximum convenience of the persons who want to travel through it. It is correct that the international language for civil aviation is English. French and Spanish are also used and in many airports the language of the country is added if there is a large flow of people who do not use the English language. In Hongkong, as the hon. Member pointed out, it is English and Cantonese. In Jakarta, it is English and Javanese-Indonesian. I beg your pardon; I think it is the Javanese variant of Indonesian. In Bangkok, it is English and Thai. In Kuala Lumpur, it is English, full-stop. In Singapore, we have experimented with Malay announcements. I gave Malay priority because it is, or will, I hope be, the national language for Singapore as it is for the Federation, and it seemed to me proper that we should give it first consideration. As far as could be observed, nobody wanted Malay announcements in respect of Malayan Airways flights and recently, after a year's experiment, we took them off again and again nobody noticed or commented about it. Not a ripple was noticed by anybody concerned. The fact of the matter is that people at present are moving conveniently and satisfactorily in the airport, and this is a matter of the expert opinion of people dealing with airport matters. The people most deeply concerned are perhaps the airline operators. The hon. Member was under the impression that if a person missed his or her plane, the Ministry would not hear about it. I can assure you that if any passenger is inconvenienced at the airport through defects in the airport organisation, we shall most certainly hear about it because the airline operators will come to us and say, "What is this? Our airline missed a passenger because you have done something inefficient." The airline operators are intensely competitive, extremely efficient, and extremely conscious of the need for speedy handling and convenience of passengers, and to suppose that they would sit down under an airport which was providing an incompetent service is to underestimate the business ability of the airlines. They would not. If they wished for announcements and if they thought that they would serve any purpose, it would be very important to them to press for announcements in whatever language they thought was necessary. We have, in fact, an informal, unofficial Airline Operators Committee which sits with the airport manager and I have been in contact with all of them. We had re ports a year ago when the hon. Member brought this up. We had reports again in consequence of this motion. All we managed to elicit was that one German and one Turk missed their planes because they did not understand announcements in English. That is all that the airline operators were able to produce in the way of complaint about the announcements. Now, if we are going to have announcements, we must have them in a way which is going to match up with the traffic of the airport. At peak periods, there are, in fact, eight flight movements such as an arrival or departure in the course of an hour and there may be further ones. If the plane comes in delayed or early on its schedule, that would add to the number. There may be other unscheduled movements as well. If we multiply the number of flight movements by the time taken for a fully multilingual airport, you would have a continuous series of announcements flowing out one after an other so that the unhappy passenger would never be able to wait and say, "Well, I wonder whether I can have a cup of coffee." He has to sit with his ears open all the time to catch a hasty announcement of his flight number. There will be a pandemonium of noise and experience shows that, in fact, that sort of continuous announcement defeats itself because nobody listens to it. A comparison between multilingual facilities in this Assembly and multilingual facilities in the airport is really out of the world. In this Assembly, hon. Members will have to put on their earphones and listen to whichever wave-band - or whatever you call it - they want to, and they will sit down comfortably in their seats; whereas in the airport the passengers have to walk about to see that their luggage is checked and get their tickets from the office, and so on. They cannot have earphones on their heads, as these must be connected to listen to the announcements. This is not possible in a moving body of people in a large space engaged in other things besides listening to announcements. Now, I do not want to make a great deal of this. The hon. Member spoke with some feeling about this matter but I would like to suggest to this House, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this is not a matter for feeling or for emotion. It is simply a matter for objectively considering what is going to conduce to efficient movement at the airport. If this House were to take it on itself to decide business matters without taking expert advice, then it could do great harm. I have tried to give this some basis of expert advice and I have pointed out that the airline operators - and this, of course, includes airlines like the Union of Burma, the Garuda, the Thai, Air India, in addition to the Hongkong line, the Australian line and all the other lines - have their means of discussing with the airport manager matters of the running of the airport in the Airline Operators Committee. They also can come and see me if they want to, and there is no question that if they felt any improvement is needed they would have put it up, but, in fact, what they have done was to ask that Malay should be removed because they felt that it hindered the smooth handling of passengers. People at the airport have not observed the rush to which the hon. Member referred; the mad rush of fighting passengers running to the information bureau when an announcement was made to say, "Was that for me?" It does happen, of course, with people in a conversation who suddenly wake up and say, "I wonder if that is for me!", and they go across and ask, "Was that flight so and so you were announcing?", but to describe it as a sort of general state of affairs is not, in fact, the case in my own observation. Persons experienced in travelling on world flights, say to Zurich, where, I believe, they use French and German in addition to English and possibly Romansh, say that the effect of a number of announcements one after another in different languages is that by the end of it, you do not hear anything at all. The Member for Telok Ayer (Mr R. Jumabhoy) in seconding the motion referred to the question of cost and, of course, if we are going to have flight announcements made through the whole 24 hours a day in whatever languages are necessary and to have standby staff because even though no scheduled flight is coming in, nevertheless, there may be an unscheduled flight or some special late arrival or early departure, it would mean recruiting additional staff in quite a big way and extra work in training because the staff changes very frequently. The girls that do the announcements are nubile and tend to get married and very often give up their career life. It would undoubtedly add to the expense. I have not attempted to estimate how much because I hope we shall not be involved in it. The only other point I should like to make is that although the hon. Member withdrew it, he referred to me as an expatriate. I am, in fact, a Singapore citizen and would like to have it on record-

Order. I thought I had made it clear that that word had been overruled in this context.

I do not think I need press any further on this matter, Mr Speaker. Sir. The basis on which I would wish this matter to be approached is not one of emotion or of a sense of frustration on the part of the hon. Member because he had a bright idea as he thought and it had not been accepted, but simply as a matter of seeing what is going to be useful to our airport which is of very great importance to us. About a quarter of a million passengers pass through the airport every year and it is important that their convenience and smooth handling should be as efficiently looked after as possible. I said in my opening remarks and I repeat it again that I fully accept that the announcements must be such as will, in fact, serve the efficiency of the airport and the convenience of the passengers. There is no evidence at all and the hon. Member has produced none in every year since I wrote to him to show that, in fact, anybody is suffering inconvenience from lack of announcements in Mandarin. Although the hon. Member has produced no evidence, I have made the most diligent search myself in contact with the airline operators, officials and others who would be in the best position to know and they have also produced no evidence of anybody being inconvenienced. There is no doubt at all that to introduce additional languages is inconvenient and can be expensive. It could be done if it was necessary; one inconvenience must be accepted if it removes a greater inconvenience. There is no evidence at all, however, that it is necessary now and until it is shown to be necessary, we must not introduce unnecessary languages which do not help efficiency but reduce it. 4.06 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when this motion came into my hands, I had in mind to introduce an amendment to leave out "Mandarin" and insert "multilingualism" and when I appealed to the mover of the motion, it appears that, for the time being, Mandarin is just enough. That is why I am not moving any amendment today and I am prepared to support the motion as it stands until such time as the Government will, I hope, introduce the other two languages if it finds that the use of Mandarin announcements at the airport is satisfactory. According to the Minister, Sir, it appears to me that the announcements made at the airport are for the benefit of the passengers only. He never thinks about the friends and relatives who go to the airport either to meet or to send off passengers. What he is only worried about is the efficient running of the airport as well as the convenience of the passengers. There are many cases where friends and relatives of incoming passengers go to the airport. If a plane is delayed, an announcement is made on the microphone and unless friends and relatives are aware of that announcement, they will stay on at the airport for hours for nothing which is just a waste of time for them but if they are aware of the announcement that a plane is delayed, then they can go home and, come back at the right time when the plane comes in. Again, Sir, according to the Minister, it is the concern of the airport authorities to see that the airport is run efficiently. He may be correct, but times, have progressed, Sir. The days are gone when very few Chinese-speaking people travel by plane. The days are gone when only the English-speaking people travel by air.

Turks and Germans.

Only one Turk and one German as quoted by you. Even people from China who used to dread hearing an aeroplane in the old days do travel by air now. So why then, Sir, this show of favour for the English-speaking people only? There are many non-English speaking people who travel by air and are we not to provide facilities for the convenience of these people at all - just only for the benefit of the English-speaking people, and not for the benefit of others? Sir, multilingualism has come to stay, as I have always said so. So why not introduce multilingualism in the airport as well? Why only in the Assembly and in the City Council? It should be introduced everywhere if it is for the benefit of the citizens, and not only at a privileged place like this Assembly. The airport happens to be not a privileged place. Sir, the reason why the Minister said that so far he has got no evidence of any people who have missed a plane or gone to a wrong plane is because most of the passengers who travel by air bring along their friends who speak English. It is very rare to see a passenger going to the airport alone. You can always see that he is surrounded by either his friends or relatives who can understand and speak English and this being the case, he can rely on them to interpret the announcements. That is the reason why the Minister has got no evidence so far of anybody who has missed his plane or gone to the wrong plane. He has quoted so far a Turk and a German. It is rather unfortunate that the Turk or the German did not have relatives in Singapore. They were foreigners and they came in as foreign ers. So as such, they could not bring along - I see Ministers laughing on the opposite side; it is a fact, and it is no laughing matter at all - any friends to guide or bring them to the airport and to interpret the announcements to them. I do not think it is right that just because the Minister lacks the evidence he is not prepared to introduce other languages at the airport for announcements. I think it is very wrong. Sir, the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) or the mover of the motion says that because there is a common language, Cantonese, spoken in Hongkong, the airport authorities of that country put over Cantonese announcements and the Minister himself admitted that in Indonesia, you have Indonesian and English and in Thailand you have Thai and English. But, we have many languages spoken here. Our country is quite different from other countries where it is a case of only one language. It is Thai in Thailand, Indonesian in Indonesia, and so on. Singapore is a place where you have different nationalities and the welfare of all these people has got to be looked after. Let us not always think of the privileged class - the English-speaking class. Nowadays, it is not only the English-speaking who can be elected. Everybody, even a trishaw-rider who does not speak English, can be elected. The airport is more or less a Government concern and it is not a domestic or commercial concern and in the interest of everybody, I think the Government should help everybody to understand the announcements. I support the motion temporarily as it stands until such time as the Government, I hope, will introduce more languages. 4.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot believe for a moment that the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works would present other than an entirely objective picture as far as this is concerned. I am quite sure he does not suffer from any racial prejudice. There are just two things I would like to say. One is that I am going to oppose this motion because I do not think it was very well presented. In one case, the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) talked about Indonesia, the trade with Indonesia and the number of Chinese coming from Indonesia. I myself spent five years in Indonesia and I would guarantee that every Chinese in Indonesia can speak Malay or its Indonesian variant. The second is this, that he says about 50 per cent of the people here speak Mandarin. Well, there is a sort of snobbism about Mandarin these days and it may be that, as 50 per cent of the population of Singapore are under 21, the younger people do indeed speak Mandarin. Certainly, they are all making a valiant effort to learn the international Chinese, as it is called but I would very gravely doubt if 50 per cent of the adult Chinese population of Singapore can speak Mandarin. I should have thought that there was a far better case for having Hokkien or Cantonese. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in spite of the opposition to this motion, I must say that I am not convinced at all by the arguments put forward by the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works that Mandarin should not be used at the international Paya Lebar airport. He mentioned, Sir, that long before the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) was elected to this Assembly, the matter of appropriate languages was considered but at that time, Sir, nobody thought of having any other language except English. Now, we have advocated the introduction of multilingualism in the Assembly. The Minister for Communications and Works said that he had already introduced announcements in Malay and that they were not much of a success. I am not in the least surprised at that because there are not many Malays in Singapore as compared with the Chinese. If Malay announcements were to be introduced in the Federation, they would be welcome and popular and I think would be well received. Here, Sir, apart from the Malay population which is small, many of them do not travel by air. The majority of the people who travel by air are the Chinese. Even compared with the Europeans, the Chinese are the majority of people who travel by air today and for those who speak the different Chinese dialects, Mandarin can be used as the common language medium. I think, Sir, that Mandarin announcements will be very useful and helpful to the people here as well as to the people of South-East Asia because even in South-East Asia, there are a lot of Chinese. If the Minister for Communications and Works had already experimented with announcements in Malay and failed, I do not see why he should not try them in Mandarin. I am quite sure he will find out that they will be very useful and helpful to the travelling Chinese population of Singapore. It is the Government's duty to do so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have heard a very unconvincing speech from the Minister for Communications and Works this af ternoon. I think it is the most unconvincing of all the speeches so far delivered. I can understand his difficulty. He said that the Airport went into the question of the possibility of languages as thoroughly as possible before and after the new Airport came into being and that he also gave this matter a great deal of consideration; but I know that it is very difficult to consider the problems in the Airport when most of the time one is away from it, sitting in one's office and depending on other people's information. He has quoted that there had been only a few people who missed their planes - Germans, Turks, or whatever they are. I suppose this is the usual B.O.A.C. line.

K.L.M. and Q.A.N.T.A.S.

But whatever it is, he should always realise that Paya Lebar Airport is both an international and an internal airport. It serves the routes of the world. It also serves our domestic requirements. It also serves South-East Asia. There are three distinct types of services rendered by the Paya Lebar Airport. As for the international air lines, English is a must. As for the South-East Asian air lines, probably we require English and another language that can easily be understood by South-East Asians. For our internal airline, I think it is a must; we must have announcements in languages that are known to the people who use them. I have been told so many times this afternoon that the Airport is going to be run efficiently and for the convenience of the passengers. If we move amongst the passengers, knowing their languages and knowing how they feel and knowing how anxious they are, we will then realise that they have always been asking their friends. "What is that announcement about? When is my plane leaving?" Their friends invariably have to come to their rescue to tell them, "Oh, this does not concern you. This is for the plane that is going elsewhere." Well, Sir, the Minister countered and said, "No, we cannot have multilingualism here. You know it is so very difficult. Our air traffic is so heavy and if we have multilingualism and make announcements one after another, the whole effect is lost; you cannot hear a thing and with our volume of traffic, you will have a never-ending string of announcements." I am certain that Singapore is not as busy as any of the European air ports, and if those European air ports can use at least two languages - English and their own language - I do not see why Singapore can not do the same thing. Furthermore, has the Minister considered that to overcome the difficulties, instead of having announcers, we can have the announcements flashed on a screen in words in Chinese so that everybody can read them in whatever dialects they want to? For planes going to Hongkong, you can just put the time down on a board and hang it up. That might be tried out. It would save having to make the announcements and you will probably have a quieter airport. We have been told that the airlines must be very efficient, as competition amongst them is very keen. I am certain that there is no competition so far as the internal airlines go. You either travel by Malayan Airways or you go by any means other than by air, and whether a passenger is going with you on this plane or the next plane, you can be sure that he will be in a Malayan Airways plane for internal travel. And there you are! Where there is a monopoly and where the people who run it feel that they have done a good job, patting themselves on the back, we see no improvement, because the Minister will always tell us that he has had expert advice. We have had a lot of expert advice coming to this Assembly; some accept it because they happen to think in the same way as the Ministers do, but many spurn it because they happen to think contrariwise. So after all, what is the use of expert advice? If you are going to listen to expert advice, probably you will still have the Governor presiding over a nominated Legislative Council run by a nominated Executive. That would be the best way - the best advice from the best experts. But it is quite fortunate sometimes to have politicians who shout their heads off! That is why I see so many important people sitting right in front of me; otherwise they would not be as important as they are.

What about yourself?

Yes, no thanks due to the experts, but to the voice of the people of Singapore! if we in this Assembly have accepted multilingualism - and mind you, it is the Government's platform - let us make a reality of it. Let us make it manifest, not only in this Assembly so that we can express ourselves, but also put it on trial at the Airport. We need not have earphones supplied to passengers so that they can listen in to any special channels, but I think there will be very little inconvenience if we try and adopt methods that can fit into our programme. 4.26 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, like the Minister for Communications and Works, 1 would like to reiterate that Government would certainly consider introducing multilingualism if it was convinced that such was necessary. The key word in all the speeches from the Members of the opposite side is "multilingualism". There must be a confusion of thought, for the mover of this motion has only directed himself to one particular language, namely Mandarin, to be used in the airport. Listening to him, I wondered in what language the would-be passengers bought their tickets from the various airlines - whether it be Q.A.N.T.A.S., K.L.M., Pan-American or B.O.A.C. - and how they understood the instructions on the tickets that they had to be at the airport half an hour before departure time. I have been to several airports - Madrid, Portugal, London, and others. The announcements are made in English and in the particular language of the country, and even if one listens to the particular language of the country, one can always understand that a plane is going to Rome or to London, and so forth; and anyone who listens at our airport to whatever language is used can always know that a plane is going to Bangkok. If this motion had been confined to Malayan Airways - our internal lines, as the Member for Serangoon suggested - I could understand it and would advocate that we add not only Mandarin but Malay in particular, as I would certainly say that 90 per cent of those going to the Federation speak Malay. If indeed any languages were to be adopted, I would personally think that English and Malay should be the ones, because as the hon. Mr Sutherland said that in the several years he spent in Indonesia he found that all the Chinese who travel by air from Indonesia to Singapore and vice versa speak the language of the country. I would like to repeat that Government would be only too happy to introduce multilingualism if they felt that it was a necessary thing to do at the moment but I think we are all satisfied that at this stage just to adopt Mandarin is not necessary. 4.29 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not concerned with the fact that a Turk and a German missed their planes. As I have already explained when I moved the motion, the principle I am fighting for is the progress of the country and surely it is the duty of the Minister in charge to offer facilities to all and sundry, particularly to those passengers who cannot understand English. They may understand Malay, Mandarin or Tamil and if you want to introduce multilingualism in the Airport, by all means do so. In my first letter to the Minister, I said that the announcements should be made in Mandarin, Malay as well as in Tamil. That is multilingualism. Sir, about the letter the Minister wrote to me dated 10th April, 1957, asking me to produce proof in the way of witnesses' names and addresses, may I inform the Minister that I am one of the elected representatives of the people of Singapore and that it is not my duty - particularly when I do not have the facilities and so on - to submit the names and addresses of the witnesses, the airlines on which they travelled, the countries to which they intended to go, the dates in each instance, and the languages and dialects spoken by them? Furthermore, Sir, the Minister said that on the occasion when the last delegation came back from London, the plane was delayed and that when a newspaper reporter announced in Mandarin to that effect, the crowd dispersed. That is proof enough that most of the people who go to the Airport - passengers or visitors - understand Mandarin perfectly well. In regard to the hon. Mr Sutherland, I now understand why the Member for Tanjong Pagar - I regret to note he is not here - always calls him the "Member for Tanglin Club", and I will not waste any time to reply to his remarks. If we were to introduce multilingualism in the Airport, it would save the passengers and visitors alike the trouble of having to go to the receptionist's desk to enquire what the announcer has said. It would help them very much to understand the language used by the announcer. Regarding the cost, Sir, is it not possible for airline companies to make their own announcements? This would save us the cost. I have to thank my friends the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Serangoon for having replied to some of the points raised by the Minister for Communications and Works, so I will not take up the time of this House further. Question put. The House divided: Ayes, 9; Noes, 14; Abstention, 1. Ayes Noes Ede, John. Abdul Hamid bin Goh Chew Chua. Haji Jumat. Goh Tong Liang. Braga, A. J. Jumabhoy, R. Chew Swee Kee Lee Choon Eng. David, E. B. Lim Choon Mong. Hart, T. M. Seah Peng Chuan. Jumabhoy, J. M. Soh Chee Soon. Lim, R. C. H. Tan, William. Mak Pak Shee. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abstention Abdul Hamid. Wong Foo Nam. Nair, M. P. D. Shanks, E. P. Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Theng Chiang. Thomas, Francis. Absent Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Lazarous, A. R. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Ching Siong. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Yew Hock. Tan Siak Kew. Motion accordingly negatived.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to have the number of Committee members increased from 40 to 60. Anyone who is not connected with this hospital or is aware of its working may wonder in his mind why it is necessary to have such a big number of Committee members. Is not 40 big enough? In this respect, Sir, I think it might not be out of place if I say a few words about the hospital itself. This hospital was founded in 1910, at a time when the population of Singapore was only 300,000. Today we have one and a half million. All the so-called thickly populated areas of today were jungles then. This hospital is situated at the junction of Serangoon Road and Balestier Road and is known as Rumah Miskin, the Poor House. This hospital is entirely free and takes care of about 450 patients. In addition, it has to take care of about 100 outdoor patients every day. After the war, the Committee spent nearly $600,000 in renovating and rebuilding this hospital, and building is still going on. The annual expenditure is about a quarter of a million dollars, whereas it was only $50,000 pre-war. The reason why we are asking for an increase of Committee members is this: it has been found most convenient to appoint a Committee member in each district so that he can collect subscriptions from the Chinese, especially the Cantonese - more than 95 per cent of the contributions are from the Cantonese - and, at the same time, hear any complaints from patients admitted from that locality. As I said before, when the hospital was founded, 40 Committee members were considered sufficient, but today, owing to the extension of the city and the existence of many more new districts, we find this number is insufficient. We consider 60 will be nearer to requirements. That is why we are asking for this amended figure of 60. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection. [Mr Wong Foo Nam.]

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn." -[Mr Braga.] Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Five o'clock p.m.

Wednesday, 11th June, 1958

asked the Chief Secretary to supply the crime statistics in respect of Singapore for January, February, March and April, 1958, showing the number of each type of offence.

The number if the cases of serious crime reported is as followed:- (References are to sections of the Penal 1958 Code, Cap. 119, unless otherwise indicated) Jan. Feb. Mar. April 1. Murder, section 302 1 2 6 3 2. Attempted Murder, section 307 - 1 - 1 3. Hurt and Grevious Hurt, section 324- 326 39 26 25 41 4. Extortion, section 384-387 38 48 49 51 5. Gang Robbery with Murder, section 396 - - - - 6. Armed Gang Robbery, section 397 3 3 - 3 7. Armed Robbery, section 397 16 18 19 21 8. Gang Robbery, section 395 - - 3 2 9. Robbery, section 392-394 24 26 26 24 10. Assembling to commit Gang Robbery, section 399-402 - - - - 11. House Breaking and Theft by Day, section 454 45 79 69 45 12. House Breaking and Theft by Night, section 457 87 121 110 105 13. Theft in Simple, section 379 298 332 314 338 14. Theft in Dwelling, section 380 148 100 133 153 15. Theft as a Servant, section 381 5 2 5 - 16. Criminal Breach of Trust, section 406- 408 9 9 16 8 17. Cheating, section 419-420 18 20 26 40 18. Dishonestly receiving or disposing of stolen Property, section 411 and 414 1 2 6 3 19. Fraud. Possess, section 29 (1), Cap. 117 6 6 7 6 20. Breakings/Attempts, section 453, 456 and 511 13 23 29 31 21. Secret Society Clashes 27 26 14 17 --- --- --- --- Totals 778 844 857 892 --- --- --- --- The following Question for Oral Answer stood on the Order Paper of 11th June, l958:-

To ask the Chief Secretary when a review of the order of detention under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, of Mr Jek Yuen Thong is to be made; and whether, for that review, there will be made available to the Reviewing Officer for his consideration the written statement which has been submitted by or on behalf of Mr Jek Yuen Thong to the Appeal Tribunal." Pursuant to Standing Order 16 (2), the Chief Secretary supplied the following answer.- "As the Hon. Member will be aware,the Detention Order of Mr Jek Yuen Thong has been suspended. His case will be reviewed, as required by section 8 of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, within six months of this sus pension order. The answer to the second part of the Hon. Member's question is `Yes, Sir'."