Hansard, 1958-07-16

The following Member has, 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: Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang) - 16th and 17th July, 1958.

Mr John Metcalfe Mason took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance.

I have received two messages from His Excellency the Governor. The first message dated the 18th June, 1958, informs me that, in accordance with the provisions of section 62 (2) of the Singapore Colony Orders in Council, 1955 and 1956, His Excellency had reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure the following Bills:-

I have formally to announce to Honourable Members that on the 13th day of June, 1958, I received a letter from Mr G. A. P. Sutherland, resigning his seat as a Nominated Member in this Assembly as from that date. In accordance with the provisions of section 50 of the Singapore Colony Orders in Council, 1955 and 1956, I reported the vacancy thus created to His Excellency the Governor; and, as Honourable Members are aware, His Excellency has appointed Mr J. M. Mason to be a Nominated Member of this Assembly to fill the vacancy.

asked the Chief Minister if he has received representations regarding the unemployment problems in Singapore from the Singapore Trade Union Congress, and if he will make a statement on the policy of the Government on those representations. The Chief Minister (Dr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to the first part is yes. With regard to the second part, I have already had discussions with representatives of the Singapore Trades Union Congress. These discussions are continuing.

asked the Chief Minister whether, and when, he will present to this Assembly-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be making a Ministerial Statement before the commencement of business this morning.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare-

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to (a) is yes; (b) no; (c) unemployed persons are already in receipt of relief under the public assistance scheme administered by the Social Welfare Department. The answer to (d), Sir, is no.

asked the Chief Secretary what is the purpose of spending money printing in the 25th issue (1st June, 1958) of the Directory of the Colony of Singapore a list of all past Governors, Colonial Secretaries, Chief Justices and Attorneys-General of the Straits Settlements and Singapore, and Certificates of Honours (Rules and Awards).

Sir, the current issue of the Directory includes the contents of a publication previously issued separately under the title of "Miscellaneous lists and public bodies". The object of combining the two publications was economy. The information to which the hon. Member refers formerly appeared in the latter publication.

Does it not appear to the Hon. the Chief Secretary to be highly inappropriate?

It is a matter of opinion.

asked the Chief Secretary under what other conditions, apart from those specified in section 4 (2) of the Theatres Ordinance (Cap. 229), would permission be granted to organisations to hold roadside "wayangs" to celebrate the forthcoming traditional Chinese "Seventh Moon" Festival.

Sir, such roadside "Wayangs" would be required not to cause any obstruction to traffic or disturbance to hospitals, places of worship or neighbouring householders in a residential area.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the booklet entitled Travellers' Guide to Singapore, 1958, published and distributed by the Department of Information Services, was not published until June of this year; what are the reasons for the delay; and whether he will take steps to see that the 1959 Edition is published at the beginning of January, 1959.

Sir, advance copies of the Guide were distributed in May. The Guide is produced for the Department of Information Services by an advertising firm free of charge. The decision to publish was not made until December last year and the text was not ready until January this year. The interval between them and the distribution of copies was, I understand, due to the need for obtaining support from advertisers to meet the cost of production and with proof-reading and printing. Discussions about the 1959 Edition are already being held with the publishers and I hope that earlier publication will be possible next year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Hon. the Chief Secretary aware that this 1958 Edition of the booklet published in May contained a diary of outstanding events in Singapore from January and will he state what the purpose of that was?

Sir, I have already explained that the text of this volume was ready in January this year and it was not in the control of the Department as to the actual date of publication because that was in the hands of the producers.

Is the Hon. the Chief Secretary aware that the reply does not convince us that the Government is encouraging the tourist industry in earnest in so far as the Information Services is concerned?

This publication, Sir, was produced, as I have mentioned, without cost to the Government and it was in advance of the arrangements that have now been made for promoting tourism and that is the reason why there was this delay.

asked the Attorney-General-

Sir, the answer to the first part of this question is none. The second part therefore does not arise. As to the third and fourth parts, the position is that a member of the Bar does hold an authorisation from me to conduct certain private prosecutions which are, I believe, the prosecutions to which the question relates. I have no authoritative information as to who is paying for these.

asked the Financial Secretary whether he will make a statement on the present economic and financial position in the Colony.

Sir, I have been asked to make a statement on the economic and financial position of Singapore at the present time and I welcome the opportunity of being able to do so. There is, Sir, little doubt that Singapore is at present experiencing a recession in trade. There are on all sides complaints of difficulties in moving stocks, of restrictions in normal entrepot outlets, of tightness of money and difficult trading conditions generally. There is, however, more concrete evidence in other directions. There has been a certain contraction in the circulation of currency and over the past two months banks have purchased some $30 million worth of sterling. Customs duty receipts have fallen below the estimates in some directions and are barely holding their own in others. There has been a marked falling off in the consumption of liquor and receipts have fallen some $2,300,000 below the estimate for the first six months of the year. Petrol duty receipts have also fallen below the estimate by about half a million dollars and although consumption still increases, the rate of increase is considerably below that of pravious years. Receipts from entertainment duty are slightly ahead of the estimate but here again the rate of increase in the purchase of cinema seats is lower than in previous years. The number of new motor cars registered has also fallen considerably below the level for the same period last year. On the other hand, the consumption of tobacco appears to have gone up but this may be due more to the successful efforts of the Customs Department in suppressing smuggling than to any real increase in consumption. Again, there is an even more marked reluctance to pay income tax and company tax this year than last year when tardiness also gave some cause for concern. All these facts point clearly to the existence of a recession in trade. It is impossible to say with any certainty what course the recession is likely to take in the future. Too many imponderables are involved. There are indications of an improvement in conditions in the United States of America and elsewhere and there is perhaps reason to hope that the corner has been turned in these countries. There are also encouraging signs in the local economy. The price of the higher grades of rubber has been maintained and rubber interests seem confident that the price of other grades will improve as the year progresses. Statistics suggest that the trade with Indonesia has been well maintained. There are therefore perhaps grounds for reasonable optimism about the future. At the same time, just as the effects of the world trade reces sion are delayed in reaching Singapore, so recovery is also delayed, although to a lesser extent. Therefore, even if the corner has been turned in the United States and elsewhere, we must expect the present recession to be with us for some time yet. It might be well into next year before the effects are finally thrown off. On the other hand, events could quite easily take place which might deepen and prolong the present recession. In the unsettled state of the world today, it is difficult to be certain of anything. When, Sir, it became clear that Singapore was going to be affected by the general recession in world trade, the Government decided to take stock of its position. As hon. Members are aware, a considerable proportion of the Government revenue is derived from sources which are affected to varying degrees by fluctuations in trade. Forty-five per cent of the revenue comes from duties on liquor, tobacco, petroleum, entertainment and betting. The yield from all these sources is affected to a certain extent by contraction of spending power which is often due to a recession in trade. Twenty-five per cent of the revenue comes from income tax and company tax. The yield from this source is directly related to earnings which in turn are directly related to the state of trade. In the circumstances, it will be appreciated that even a mild recession in trade must have some effect on revenue. A serious and prolonged recession could have a corresponding effect. Hon. Members will recall that when presenting the Budget for 1958, I said that provided there was no marked recession in trade and provided that Government expenditure and applications for supplementary vote were kept to an absolute minimum, revenue and expenditure should balance at the end of the year. It will therefore be appreciated that even a slight contraction of revenue could upset this balance and that a serious contraction could have a serious effect. Hon. Members are also aware that the very ambitious development plans which Government has in hand are financed to a considerable extent each year by a contribution from revenue in addition to the development fund and surplus funds. Any marked contraction of revenue would limit the capacity of Government to make these contributions and might have serious effects on the implementation of the development plans. Again in this connection, the implementation of these plans gathered momentum in the latter part of 1957. More work was done and more money was spent than was expected. This in turn meant that the balance of the development fund carried forward into 1958 was smaller than estimated and meant that a greater proportion of the surplus funds available will have to be used to finance development in 1958. That, Sir, then was the background against which the Government took stock of its position in the light of the uncertain economic situation. Now, Sir, perhaps I may be allowed to explain what action Government took as a result of its stock-taking. With regard to the recurrent expenditure position, it seemed clear that there must be at least a slight contraction of revenue in 1958. On the other hand, the possibility was that it might not be very large, and the returns for expenditure for the early months of the year suggested that the estimates for expenditure which were made in December of last year would not be very far out. The most obvious way to offset this possible slight contraction of revenue was to cut expenditure and it was therefore decided to make a determined drive to reduce expenditure in the various departments within their portfolios. All vacant posts in the Establishment were frozen until Ministers had an opportunity to re-examine the need for them in the light of a change in the economic position. Proposals for special expenditure were treated in the same way. The recurrent expenditure in departments of Government was examined with great care to see what economies could be effected. This examination has proved to be a long and laborious business and has not yet been completed. On the other hand, sufficient information is now available to suggest that considerable economies can be effected and that these may go a considerable way towards offsetting the effects of any contraction of revenue which may take place in 1958. In short, therefore, when the accounts are made up, it may well be found that the deficit between actual revenue and expenditure in 1958 is comparatively small. The position with regard to 1959 perhaps gives cause for a little more concern. As I have explained, the effect of any recession in trade on income and company tax returns is delayed and any marked decrease in individual earnings and company profit in 1958 could have a considerable effect on revenue from income and company tax in 1959. It has not so far been possible to obtain any reliable information on these points or to obtain any idea of the position in the Colony as a whole. I can however assure hon. Members that this particular question is engaging the close and constant attention of the Government and that whatever steps may be necessary to meet any situation which may develop will be taken. With regard to development, as hon. Members are aware, the Government is already heavily committed in respect of development plans which all Parties are agreed are essential for the well-being of the people of Singapore. The implementation of these plans will stretch the resources of Singapore to the limit. Any shortfall of funds from any source which has been taken into account in planning might have an embarrassing effect. It was therefore essential to consider the possible consequences of any shortfall of contributions from revenue and contraction of reserves and to make sure that the Government was not over-committed. Work in hand, Sir, at the present time will involve the expenditure of well over $70 million in 1958. This is more than has ever before been spent in one year on development and represents the fulfilment of all the Government's planning for the development of education, medical and health facilities, communications and public housing over the past three years. About $24 million will be spent by the Public Works Depart ment on capital works including the Polytechnic. About $22 million will be spent by the Singapore Improvement Trust on public housing. $5 million will be spent by the Singapore Telephone Board on telephone development; $4 million on rural development; $7 million on the purchase of sites for schools, etc, and on the resettlement of squatters, and the balance on miscellaneous special development expenditure. Expenditure of this order by Government will go a very long way to offset the effects of a recession in the building and allied trades and in many other directions in 1958. With regard to next year, work and services now in hand but uncompleted at the end of this year will necessitate expenditure of about $24 million in 1959. Of this total sum, $16 million will represent capital work by the Public Works Department. There will also be other unavoidable commitments of which account must be taken. These commitments will total a sum of $30 million including some $15 million for public housing, $4 million for rural development, $2 million for telecommunications development, and so on. In brief, work in hand at the end of 1958 and additional commitments of a general nature which must be added in 1959 will involve expenditure in that year of the order of $55 million. This is a very sizeable sum and represents a level of development expenditure well up to that of previous years. It will go a long way to offset any effects of the present recession which may still persist in 1959. All things considered, no serious difficulty is anticipated in financing these programmes. At the same time, until such time as the probable course of the recession and its possible effects on the revenues of the Colony are quite clear, care will obviously have to be taken not to enter into any fresh commitments which might subsequently be found to be embarrassing. With this in mind, Ministers are at present examining the list of additional items of public works which could possibly be started this year with a view to determining those which should be proceeded with forthwith and those which are of less importance and which can safely be kept back until a later date. It is hoped that this examination will be completed at an early date.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while we are grateful to the Hon. the Financial Secretary for his lengthy reply, is he aware that there is grave dissatisfaction in industrial circles at the failure of the Government to lay down a clear and unequivocal policy of support to local industry and that this is one reason for the economic setback?

I would like to have notice of that question.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing if he will consider introducing amending legislation to provide for appeal against the disapproval by the Singapore Improvement Trust of plans submitted under sections 61 and 62 of the Singapore Improvement Ordinance (Cap. 259).

No, Sir, but I assure the hon. Member that, in the draft amending legislation to replace the Singapore Improvement Ordinance, provision has been made for appeals against decisions of the planning authority. Mr R. Jumabhoy then rose and asked a question.

Order. The hon. Member should not ask questions until called. Mr R. Jumabhoy.

I have nothing to say, Sir.

That question then is struck off the record.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing if he will give a definite date for the District Council Elections.

Hon. Members will observe that a new Bill intituled the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Ordinance, 1958 is being introduced today. This Bill embodies recom mendations made in the Elias Report with regard to the conduct and holding of elections. As soon as after this amending Ordinance is enacted and comes into force, it is intended that elections to the District Councils will take place according to the statutory timetable pro.vided for in the Local Government Elections Ordinance, that is by the issue of writ followed by nomination day and finally polling day. The definite timetable will be announced once this amending Bill becomes law.

Sir, can the Minister tell us how long it will take rather than to give a vague reply that it will take place in accordance with the timetable provided for in the Ordinance?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this amending legislation will go to Select Committee and I therefore cannot anticipate how long the Select Committee will take in its deliberations but soon after the legislation becomes law, only then can the Government give a definite date.

Is this to give cause for the delay of the District Council Elections which will again give cause for the delay of the General Elections?

I am afraid I do not understand the question, Sir.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing if he is aware of the representations made by the tenants of Singapore Improvement Trust houses on Jalan Teck Whye Estate to the Assistant Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing on 17th May, 1958, complaining of:-

Yes, Sir, I am aware of these complaints. In fact, the site was visited by the Acting Minister, the Assistant Minister and the Chairman of the Singapore Improvement Trust who inspected the area and discussed the complaints with the residents on 17th May, 1958. Action has been taken by the Singapore Improvement Trust to deal with (ii), (iii) and (iv). With regard to (i), it must be pointed out that the type of single storey units in this estate belongs to the low cost category. The Singapore Improvement Trust have omitted ceilings from such houses as a matter of policy in order to keep the rents low but if tenants wish to install them at their own expense, the Trust would be prepared to grant permission. In fact, Sir, permission has already been granted to all such applicants. It has been ascertained from scientific experiments however that ceilings would not reduce the temperature by more than two degrees. A number of shady trees have already been planted in this estate and when they mature there will be a great improvement in the matter of temperature. Planting of further trees is being carried out in an effort to in crease protection from the sun but tenants can also help themselves by growing shady plants outside their houses.

As a matter of interest, could the Minister tell us who carried out these scientific experiments which determine that with a ceiling the temperature goes down by two degrees?

Naturally, not by laymen like me, Sir.

Was it in any way connected with his Ministry?

No, Sir.

What is the authority

Order. Mr Lee Choon Eng.

Sir, can the Minister tell us whether it is not possible for the Singapore Improvement Trust to raise the height of the roofs so that there will be more ventilation for those houses, thus reducing the heat?

Raising the height of the roof would probably cost more than installing ceilings.

asked the Minister for Education if he is aware that there are no representatives of the Legislative Assembly of Singapore on the Court of the University of Malaya, and if he will state when the election will be held by this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very glad that the Member for Queenstown has asked me this question of representatives of this Assembly on the Court of the University of Malaya as this same question has been engaging my attention for some time. I have discussed this matter with several people and have indeed gone into the matter very carefully. I have been advised that it seems rather invidious that Members of the Legislative Assembly including Opposition Members should be appointed to the University Court as when an occasion arises and an Assemblyman wishes to criticise or query the Court, it would mean that the Opposition would in fact be criticising or querying itself. There is also the other question of the future of the University and its division between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya which requires looking into. In the circumstances, I propose to deal with this question of the Assembly's representation on the University Court at the same time as I will be dealing with the future of the University and its new constitution which will arise because of the proposed division of the University.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works why the Singapore Telephone Board's Annual Report for the year 1956 does not give more relevant information about the operations of the Board and its financial position for the year 1956, and whether he will take steps to see that a fuller report for 1956 is published.

As pointed out in paragraph 14 of the S.T.B. Report under the heading 'Finance' the amount to be paid for the undertaking has not yet been agreed and consequently it is not possible to prepare comprehensive accounts which would give reliable information about the financial position of the Board. The hon. Member will appreciate that the actual cost of the undertaking is an essential basic factor in the light of which other accounting figures must be interpreted. I do not think that the Board should publish accounts from which this basic factor is omitted as they might be extremely misleading. If the hon. Member will indicate to me what non-financial information he desires about the operations of the Board in 1956, I will see whether I can get it for him from the Board. Under the Ordinance however it is not within my power to send back to the Board its Report with instructions that it should be amplified. The hon. Member will note that the Report in question is for 1956. If he will let me know what he considers should be in the 1957 Report, I can consider it and give what I think are suitable directions to the Board with regard to its 1957 Report. I hope in any case that it may be possible for the 1957 Report to give an indication of some of the financial aspects of the Board's operations.

Does the Minister for Transport and Communications understand that this House is at least entitled to as much information on the operations of the Board as any shareholder of a private company is entitled to, on the operations of a private limited company?

I would in general agree to that proposition, Mr Speaker, but it does not alter the fact that if the price is not finalised, you cannot finalise your basic accounts.

He agreed with my first proposition; does he of not agree that the Report as published gives us no information whatsoever as to the operational expenses of the Board for the year in question?

I would refer the hon. Member to my first answer to the question. The 1957 Report will be available in the not so distant future and we can consider what should be in that Report.

We are now discussing the 1956 Report and what I would like to know from the Minister is why were the operational accounts excluded from this Report? Surely, apart from the question of the compensation to be paid to the O.T.E.C. and the price on capital which is to be paid as compensation, we ought to know just how much was spent in that year?

I must again refer the hon. Member to my first remarks. Accounts which were published showing only the operational workings of the year might be extremely misleading not only to the public in Singapore and to Members of this House but even conceivably to the arbitration tribunal.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works whether he will make a statement regarding the expansion of Paya Lebar Airport.

Yes, Sir. I will make a statement at the August sitting of this Assembly.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether he will state the number of applications for registration of trademarks:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Registry of Trade Marks is a pan-Malayan/North Borneo department dealing with registration for the Federation of Malaya, British North Borneo and Singapore. The total applications received prior to 31st December, 1957, but not gazetted by that date amounted to 1,472. The total applications received during the period January to June, 1958, amounted to 1,600. The total received on or before 30th June, 1958, but not gazetted by that date for the purpose of inviting grounds of opposition amounted to 2,957. The average length of time taken to gazette such applications is between three and six months. The delay in gazetting is due to the fact that there has had to be correspondence between the Registrar and the applicants' agents and because of the smallness of the Registry staff and the delay in the printing and publishing. The post of Deputy Registrar has now been vacant for some time and efforts will be made to fill it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister state whether this unsatisfactory state of affairs could have been avoided and further what steps he will take to effect an improvement?

I admit, Sir. that the unsatisfactory state of affairs could have been avoided if the matter had come to my attention earlier. However, unfortunately, this department works as a department on its own in an automatic fashion and I have not received any complaints of delay. If I had received, I would have certainly investigated the reasons for the delay and tried to expedite the work. I thank the hon. Member for asking this question, thus drawing my attention to this state of affairs and I will see to it that the work is expedited in that department.

Are we hearing an admission from the Minister that parts of his Ministry work in an automatic fashion until they are brought to his notice?

We are, Sir, hearing an admission from the Minister that parts of his Ministry are not working to the satisfaction of the Minister. However, there are certain matters which are not of policy but routine and therefore they are handled by heads of departments. You cannot expect the Minister to handle the thousands of applications for registration of trade marks, companies, businesses and that is why you have Registrars of Trade Marks, businesses, companies, and so on. There are so many departments in the Ministry where the applications go direct. Naturally, things are handled by the heads of departments and only policy matters or appeals or complaints come to the Minister.

10.37 a.m. The Chief Minister (Dr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, as stated in my reply to Question No. 2, I now rise to make a statement on the discussions that took place in London last May between the All-Party Delegation and the Colonial Office on the terms of the Order-in-Council to give effect to the agreement reached in London during the Constitutional Conference in 1957. Sir, the first draft was received in Singapore at the end of April. The All-Party Delegation, including representatives of political parties represented in this Assembly, held several meetings in my office to discuss this draft. Unanimous agreement was reached as to the line of action to pursue in London. Sir, I have in this House said that the success of the 1957 Constitutional Conference was due to the unity of the All-Party Delegation. This unity was again displayed during the recent discussions and it was again due to this unity that the All-Party Delegation was successful in ensuring that the terms of the Order-in-Council directly reflect the agreement reached last year. At the conclusion of the discussions in London on 27th May, an agreed press communique was issued. This was a lengthy one and it set out in detail the main points which were discussed and settled. I believe this communique was published in full in the local newspapers and this has made my task this morning easier. The All-Party Delegation has adopted only one principle: to see that the Constitutional Instruments directly interpret the agreement reached in 1957. We asked for nothing more and we accepted nothing less. The substance of the pro visions of the Constitutional Instruments has been agreed and the legal draughtsmen of the Singapore Government and the United Kingdom Government are now finalising and refining the draft so as to state accurately the points of substance agreed upon. Sir, on the subversive clause, the stand of the All-Party Delegation was made abundantly clear in press reports. For the purpose of record, however, I quote from the press communique: "The Singapore Delegation emphasised the objection to the inclusion of a condition barring persons detained in Singapore for subversive activities from participating in the first Assembly. The Secretary of State took note of the Singapore Delegation's objections but could not agree that such a restriction should not be imposed. He stated that his intention was to recommend the incorporation of this restriction in a separate instrument which would in any case be necessary to provide for elections to the first Assembly." Sir, a Bill creating the State of Singapore and enabling the Queen to make the Singapore (Constitution) Order-in-Council has already passed its Second Reading and it is expected that this Bill will become law by the end of this month. It was pointed out, Sir, to the All-Party Delegation by the Colonial Office that it was not legally and constitutionally proper for the draft Order-in-Council to be made public until it has been submitted to the Queen and this draft Order-in-Council cannot constitutionally be submitted to the Queen until the Bill creating the State of Singapore has become law. The All-Party Delegation was therefore prevented from making public the draft Order-in-Council. Moreover, this draft Order-in-Council is still in the process of refining. It is therefore most malicious on the part of irresponsible politicians in Singapore to accuse the All-Party Delegation of hiding from the public the terms of the Order-in-Council. The All-Party Delegation has nothing to hide. We believe that we have done a good job and this fact will be established at the proper time. It has been agreed in London, Sir, that the draft Order-in-Council will be made public simultaneously in Singapore and in London when the time comes: this may be September. Hon. Members in this House will then have an opportunity to criticise the draft Order-in-Council agreed upon by the All-Party Delegation with the Colonial Office. Sir, now that we are on the threshold of complete internal self-government, let everyone who has made Singapore his home and the object of his loyalty wake up to his duty and his responsibility. Do not be misguided by the enemy in our midst. Subversive forces will definitely make every effort to capture the prize which we brought back from London. If they succeed, it will indeed be a day of sorrow for all of us but subversive forces can never succeed if the loyal citizens of Singapore unite and fight the enemy. Give the State of Singapore a strong and responsible Government and these vermin can be and will be exterminated. 10.45 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your guidance as to whether we can have a debate or can we only ask questions on this statement of the Chief Minister?

Hon. Members are at liberty to ask questions but, of course, the questions must not develop into a debate. Questions are in order.

May I ask the Hon. the Chief Minister, if this State of Singapore becomes law by the end of July, why does he say that a debate will take place in September and not in August? What is the reason for the delay of a debate on such an important matter as the Constitution of Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed not surprised that the Member for Telok Ayer should seek your guidance because, by the very question he asks, he displays his ignorance. Sir, I said in my statement that before any Order-in-Council can be submitted to the Queen, the Bill creating the State of Singapore has to become law. That Bill will get its Third Reading, as I said, by the end of this month. The draft constitution has not been finally polished. It is still in the process of polishing by the legal draughtsmen in Singapore and in London. Surely, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, I mean Telok Ayer-

Do not pick a fight with the wrong fellow.

- must have read the Report of the Constitutional Conference held in London in 1957. He must have read this Report many, many times. He keeps on repeating and asking almost the same question, "When is the new State of Singapore to come into being?" And each time he is referred to the agreement reached in London and told that the new constitution will come into force on the day of the General Elections and that the day of the General Elections is in the hands of this Assembly.

"to amend certain Ordinances of the Colony to provide for subsidiary legislation made under the respective Ordinances to be presented to the Legislative Assembly", presented by the Attorney-General (Mr E. P. Shanks); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 13th August, 1958, and to be printed.

"to amend the Local Government Elections Ordinance, 1957 (No. 23 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, 13th August, 1958, and to be printed.

Order for Committee stage read. 10.50 a.m. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.51 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's permission to proceed with this Bill and I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The amendments to the Quarantine and Prevention of Disease Ordinance are explained in the explanatory note and I do not propose to deal at length with this. I will however observe that the amendments do not bring in any radical change to the Ordinance and are largely in the nature of extending the provisions of the Ordinance to a more effective control of tuberculosis. Hon. Members are aware that in the Ministry, there now exists a Tuberculosis Control Unit under the direction of the Assistant Director of Medical Services (Tuberculosis) and the main functions of the unit are first to create and maintain a confidential central case register of all persons as far as is known affected by the disease and next to organise and carry out a systematic case-finding programme and to arrange for the treatment of those needing it. The Bill gives power to the A.D.M.S. (TB) in respect of tuberculosis only in the same manner as the Ordinance does to the Health Officer in respect of other infectious diseases. It lays down the procedure by which medical practitioners are required to notify cases of tuberculosis and Schedule Al attached to the Bill describes the manner in which such notification should be submitted. Clause 4 empowers the Minister to vary and remit fees and to vary the Schedules to the Ordinance. The systematic case-finding programme which is now being carried out in certain specified areas commenced on 1st July under the direction of a team of Australian experts provided under the Australian Colombo Plan. I would like to state that the response by the public has been more than heartening and I am glad to report to this House that if the degree of response now being experienced continues, the success of the initial programme is more than assured. From the information collected by this project, we should be able to take effective measures to prevent and control the disease and possibly in time eradicate it. 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 A. J. Braga]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.57 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, fifteen months of operation of the Light Dues Ordinance, 1957, has disclosed the necessity for a number of amendments to the Ordinance which are contained in this Bill. All the amendments have been agreed to by the Singapore Shipowners' Association. The definition "waters of the Colony" in section 2 of the Ordinance is deleted by clause 2 of the Bill. This definition refers to territorial waters excluding the port limits. This deletion is effected because the intention now, as reflected in clause 3 of the Bill, is that the light dues are to be paid by ships which call at the port or place within the Colony and not by ships which are in transit in the waters of the Colony and which do not call here. The deletion of the definition would also enable the Light Dues Board to expend monies from the Light Dues Fund on the maintenance of lights and navigational aids within the port limits and on the maintenance of the light at Pulau Pisang which is not within territorial waters. Clause 3 of the Bill, Sir, repeals and re-enacts section 3 of the Ordinance. Subsection (1) of the proposed new section 3 provides that except for ships exempted by subsection (2) of the same section, light dues shall be made, as I mentioned earlier, by ships calling at the port in the course of a voyage, for example, for bunkers and victuals, for the loading and unloading of cargo and for the embarkation and disembarkation of passengers. By necessary implication, ships, which are in transit in the waters of the Colony but which do not call at the port, that is, do not put in for any of the reasons I have just enumerated, will not be liable to pay light dues. Subsection (2) of the proposed new section 3 grants a general exemption from payment of light dues to the following classes of vessels: ships which put in from stress of weather or for the purpose of repairs or because of damage, ships belonging to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or to the Singapore Government or to a Commonwealth or foreign government if such ships do not carry cargo or passengers for freight or fares, ships under fifteen tons, fishing craft, and native sailing ships. Clause 4 of the Bill gives effect to the intention I referred to earlier of enabling the Light Dues Board to provide navigational aids within the port limits and at Pulau Pisang which is outside our territorial waters. Clause 5 amends the Schedule to the Ordinance so as to make it possible for ships calling more than ten times a year to be charged a comprehensive non-refundable payment of 20 cents per ton per year at the option of their owners, agents or masters. This amendment removes an existing anomaly in that, undei the corresponding item in the Schedule as it now stands, Singapore-registered ships which make long overseas voyages and put in once or twice a year have to pay as much as Singapore-registered ships in the coastal trade which put in more frequently, and pay even more than ships not on our register which make the same number of calls at the port. This Bill will not involve the Government in any extra expenditure. 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. 11.02 a.m.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 2, lines 14 and 15, to leave out "repairing or because of damage" and insert "emergency repairs in respect of damage occasioned on the high seas". This amendment, Sir, is necessary to make it clear that those ships will be exempted from paying dues which come in only for emergency repairs if they had suffered damage due to stress of weather on the high seas. Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.05 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Clause 2 of the Bill repeals and reenacts section 7 of the Singapore sailors' Institute Incorporation Ordinance which contains provisions relating to the constitution of the Committee of Management of the Singapore Sailors' Institute. The power to appoint members of the Committee is at present vested in the Governor, but is now being transferred to the Minister following the precedent set in other statutory bodies dealing with marine and seafarers' affairs. The Chairman remains as at present ex-officio, namely, the officer performing the duties of Master Attendant. The distinction at present drawn between ex-officio and unofficial members is removed, as also is the present stipulation that one of the unofficial members shall be a pilot on the Register of the Pilot Board nominated by that Board. Instead the Minister will appoint not more than six members one of whom is to be the nominee of the Bishop of Singapore. It would, of course, be open to the Minister to appoint persons to stand for the interests at present represented on the Committee. The abrogation of the ex-officio appointments obviously needs an amendment of the Ordinance due to mutations in titles of offices and changes in the duties of their holders. 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. 11.08 a.m.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a very simple Bill and Members of this House have previously discussed the principal object which is at clause 2. This provision enables employees of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to qualify for election to the City and District Councils providing, of course, that they are otherwise eligible. In other words, local civilian employees engaged by the armed services are eligible to stand for election. Employees of the Government of the Colony, however, continue to be debarred from standing for local government elections. The amendment at clause 3 re-enacts a provision in the Municipal Ordinance and renders it unnecessary for deeds executed by the City Council and the District Councils to be attested in the presence of an advocate and solicitor as required in section 12 of the Registration of Deeds Ordinance, provided that the provisions of subsection (1) and subsection (2) of section 36 of the Local Government Ordinance have been followed. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.10 am.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must congratulate the Government in realising the greatest blunder it has ever made in interpreting the law before the City Council elections. Late last year, when the political Parties and individuals were preparing for the City Council elections, the law was interpreted in such a way that Service employees were then not allowed to contest them. I say this with due respect to the Attorney General who, with his legal background, interpreted the law in such a way as to bar Service employees from contesting the elections. There were many public-spirited people who were prepared to come forward to contest the City Council elections in December last year, but because of the interpretation of this law, they could not do so. To quote a few, we "lost" a very good public-spirited man in Mr V. K. Nair who spent 6 years in the City Council, apart from his other public services. We also "lost" Mr Jaganathan who was also in the City Council for about seven years. Had it not been for the interpretation of this law, I am quite sure that these two men, together with many more from the three Services, would have contested the City Council elections. The result of their taking part would have been an entirely different composition of the City Council, and this may not have given the P.A.P. the big majority that it has today. As an ex-employee of the Army, I welcome this amendment and speak for my old colleagues. All those Service employees are considered as employees of the Crown. They are not treated, exactly as what the Singapore Government employees are treated. Where elections are concerned, they are supposed to be treated the same; but where privileges are concerned, they are not given the same privileges because they do not enjoy many of the benefits which the Singapore' Government employees are enjoying. While I was working in the Army, there was, as far as I know, a provision in the civilian staff regulations which provided for the nomination or election of a Service employee to the local government councils. There was also a provision which allowed the employee concerned to attend meetings of the local government councils - 24 days leave in a year, and these 24 days could be taken in half-days. If the employers themselves allow the employees to contest the elections, I cannot see why the Government should bar them from doing so. But better late than never - hence the introduction of this amending Bill. We are going to have District Council elections very soon, and, in view of the vague reply given by the Minister this morning, I hope it will happen very soon, because we have not been given a definite date yet. This Bill will give a chance to local people in the Services to come forward and contest the elections. I congratuate the Government in introducing it in time before the District Council elections and I support it.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 11.15 a.m. The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Dr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with this Bill. As explained in the statement at the end of this Bill, this is primarily a measure to wind up the Indian Immigration Fund and, by virtue of the Indian Government's action terminating the emigration of unskilled workers from India to Malaya, it is unnecessary to continue with the maintenance of this Fund. The Government of the Federation of Malaya has recently enacted a similar Ordinance and it has been agreed that the assets of the Fund should be disposed of in the ratio of 13 to 1. The Singapore share is therefore one-fourteenth of the assets, and this is based on the number of labourers in each territory on whom assessment had been paid to the Fund at the last operative date. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question proposed. 11.17 a.m.

Sir, since the publication of this Bill, quite a considerable number of South Indian workers who live in my constituency have held a meeting to discuss clause 4 of the Bill. The meeting recommended that the Government should set up a Board the members of which should include representatives of South Indian labour organisations. Several suggestions to utilise the Fund in the interests of South Indian labour were put forward at this meeting. They were: (1) A contribution to existing South Indian schools and the establishment of a Tamil secondary school. (2) The Government should offer the necessary land to establish a home for the aged and destitute Indian labourers. (3) Some of the money to be used for the repatriation of the aged and destitute who prefer to go back to India. (4) The Board should be empowered to establish a South Indian co-operative society, to build homes for sale, the establishment and maintenance of dairy farms, etc., and the profits derived from this enterprise to be utilised for welfare work. They also suggested that the Board should also be empowered to raise more funds through other legitimate means, like concerts and shows, etc. Sir, I do hope that the Minister will give consideration to the suggestions made by my constituents and that the South Indian labour organisations will be consulted on the future administration of the Fund. 11.19 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter has come before the previous Councils. This money which has been collected and kept as a fund was for the welfare of the labourers. These labourers have contributed a great deal in establishing the Malaya - especially its rubber plantations - of today. Since this Fund belongs to the Labourers, the money in it should be devoted to their welfare and spent on their repatriation. No assurance has, however, been given by the Government in this respect. Clause 4 reads in part: "...in such manner as the Governor shall direct." Sir, I wish to stress again that this Fund belongs to these people and should be spent on their welfare only. Another question which I would like to ask is: As this Fund is to be divided in the ratio of 13 to 1, what is the amount Singapore is going to get? 11.20 a.m.

Dr Lim, in reply?

Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the administration of this Fund, my Ministry will take full note of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Seletar. The assets that will come to this Fund will be disposed of for the benefit of Indian labourers and for nobody else. The amount involved is in the region of half a million dollars.

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. [Dr Lim Yew Hock.] Bill considered in Committee.

11.22 a.m. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4- Question proposed, "That clause 4 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, I will read part of clause 4: "...balance of the assets of the Fund remaining after payment..." As I said during the Second Reading of the Bill, Sir, this matter has been brought up before the previous Councils. An attempt was made to mix up this Fund with the Silver Jubilee Fund or some other Fund. My suggestion is that, whatever our share of the money will be, as the money is for a specific purpose, it should be deposited as a separate fund for a special purpose and should not be mixed up with any other welfare fund.

Sir, I am again indeed surprised that the hon. Member for Telok Ayer is still so dense in spite of the explanation that I have given during the Second Reading-

Order. I think I must rule out the word "dense".

I am sorry, Sir. I withdraw the word. Sir, the hon. Member is so thick-headed as to ignore the explanation that has been given-

Order. I suppose this sitting is full of surprises, but I did not think the Chief Minister would be guilty of these surprises. "Thick-headed" is equally as unparliamentary as "dense".

I withdraw the word "thick-headed", Sir, I am afraid the hon. Member for Telok Ayer has great difficulty in understanding simple English when I said that the Fund will be administered for the benefit of the labourers concerned.

Sir, English is not my mother tongue. It may be the Chief Minister's, I do not know, but I cannot understand why the Chief Minister this morning is so irritable.

Order. Now we are debating tempers. We are still on clause 4 of the Bill. If the hon. Member wishes to say anything further on this clause, he may do so, but anything else I think is irrelevant.

That is what I am coming to, Sir. I was making a passing reference to his remark. As I said, Sir, this money belongs to specific people. I also said that this matter has been brought up before the previous Councils, and that an attempt was made to mix up this Fund with the Silver Jubilee Fund. What I wish to say now is this - that this Fund should not be mixed up with any other Fund. I cannot understand why the Chief Minister cannot understand.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has never come before any previous Councils. I have been a Member of the Legislative Council since 1948, and so has the hon. Member for Telok Ayer. I think what he meant to imply was that this Bill was considered by the Executive Council of which he was a Member. Sir, I have already given an assurance that this Fund will be used for the benefit of the labourers concerned, and that in the administration of this Fund, in reply to the hon. Member for Seletar, a Board of Trustees may be appointed. Sir, the last sentence in the Explanatory Statement has been there ever since the Bill was presented to this Assembly. Perhaps the hon. Member for Telok Ayer had not enough energy to read up to and including the last sentence. Perhaps he stopped at the penultimate sentence of the Explanatory Statement.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Committee stage read. Bill considered in Committee. 11.30 a.m.

Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 14, after "wounds", to insert "or injuries". The object of this amendment, Sir, is solely for purposes of clarification and to make it clear that pensions or gratuities can be awarded to the widows and families of members who are killed as a result of wounds and injuries. Amendment agreed to. Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 9 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. New clause- 'Amend- 7. Section 16 of the prin- ment of cipal Ordinance is hereby section 16. amended-

Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." This proposed new clause, Sir, effects two amendments. The first one under the proposed clause 7 (b) removes women members of the Force from being subject to the provisions of the Naval Discipline Act. It is not considered appropriate that they should be subject to courts martial or made liable to sit on them. The second amendment, Sir, is to delete the existing section 16 (2) of the Ordinance which is now covered by the new clause 9 of the Bill.

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 Committee stage read. Bill considered in Committee. 11.35 a.m.

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

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 12, to leave out "or Settlement". This definition was drafted before the Federation of Malaya achieved independence, but owing to an oversight, it has not been amended in the light of the constitutional changes which followed the event. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, lines 30 and 31, to leave out', hereinafter in this Ordinance called the "Collector",'. Here again this description is unnecessary in view of the definition in clause 2. Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 41, to leave out "called". Here again the word "called" is unnecessary in view of the definition of "Federal Revenue Officer" in clause 2. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12-

There are typographical amendments which will be made.

Thank you, Sir,I now beg to move. In page 6, line 22, to leave out "such removal" and insert "the payment of the customs duty". The words "such removal" do not appear to be related to any other part of the clause, and the amendment will clarify the position. Amendment agreed to. Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, line 33, to leave out "at the collection station for despatch" and insert "for despatch at or through the collection station". As drafted, the clause does not preclude the possibility of goods beiig loaded elsewhere than at the collection station, but actually despatched from the collection station. The amendment which has been suggested is more comprehensive and tightens the clause. Amendment agreed to. Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 15 to 45 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 46-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 18, line 41, after "of", to insert "non-dutiable or". As drafted, the clause makes the removal of all goods an offence, but only prescribes penalties if the goods are dutiable or prohibited. The amendment provides a penalty for the removal of non-dutiable goods. Amendment agreed to. Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.. Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 48-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 20, line 5, after "officer", to insert "or such other person". This amendment is required in view of the reference to "or other person" made earlier in the clause. Amendment agreed to. Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 49 to 56 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 57-

There is a typographical error and correction will be made. Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

11.45 a.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $392,997 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. 17 of 1958. Sir, this is a small message containing some fourteen items of which three are revotes. The items are all explained in considerable detail in the Paper. If further explanations are required, I have no doubt that the Ministers responsible will be happy to give them. Sir, I beg to move.

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

11.47 a.m. Schedule-

The summary is at page 6. There are no notices of amendments. Head 7- Question proposed, "That the sum of $325,000 for Head 7 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, we get presented with these special messages for money so often that one soon becomes indifferent, to what appears in them. But Head 7 is a curious message indeed, for the sum of $325,000, and it appears under Chief Minister - New Subhead - Rural Development. Since when has the Chief Minister's Ministry undertaken this business of rural development? We understood from the working of the Rendel Constitution that his colleague, the Member for Ulu Bedok, the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, is the man in charge of local government and rural development. At this late hour, when the Government is being hard pressed to answer when we are going to have the District Council elections, we have the vote of $325,000 for the Labour Front's District Council elections fund. Sir, I am not really concerned with the indirect slight which the Labour Front have administered to the Deputy Chief Minister. They must obviously have considered him inept and incapable of administering this fund to the full advantage of the Labour Front, and so he has to allow the Chief Minister to take over rural development. The Financial Secretary said that full explanations have been given and it is interesting to note what the full explanation for this subhead is. It says: "It is proposed to establish a Rural Development Fund under the control of the Chief Minister"- not the Financial Secretary, and not the Deputy Chief Minister who is in charge of local government- "and, in the first instance, to make the sum of $325,000 available for rural development projects which will enable farmers to take advantage of modern methods to improve their standards of production, and to make the best possible use of their land." A highly laudable project which should receive the tumultuous support of all Members of this House. The explanation goes on to say: "These moneys are intended to be spent on rural credit schemes, minor development projects, such as the conversion of waste into animal foods, the construction of district incubator units, improved pigsties, chicken houses, etc., ploughing and fertilization projects, improvement of drainage methods, the processing and storage of farm produce, and so forth, publicity, and minor works" and every other conceivable manner of getting votes in the District Council elections. Let us see what an English-language newspaper said about this - this is after an interview with a Government spokesman. The knowledgeable reporter, in an article published the day before yesterday, said: "Farmers associations in the Yio Chu Kang, Changi, Amah Keng and Upper Serangoon areas"-- with which the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary is, I think, closely associated - with the coming of the elections he is taking a great interest in rural matters and votes- "hope that the Government will also assist them to stay away from moneylenders and middlemen, who, they said, deprived them of the benefits of their hard work. According to Association officials, farmers are deep in debt and a major part of their income goes towards paying interest to moneylenders." Therefore, with the assistance of this fund, they will not be paying interest to moneylenders but they will be paying in votes to those people who patronise farmers' associations with government funds.

Will the hon. Member please identify the newspaper?

The paper is the Free Press, issue 14th July, 1958. Sir, it is considered legitimate business of Government to ensure that it will have the continued support of the people. But such a blatant attempt at this late hour to take $325,000 and put it under the personal supervision and disposal of the Chief Minister who has personally come out now to conduct the Kallang by-election -[Interruption.] to retrieve the fortunes - No, no, I hope it does not hurt him at the end of it all. But to have the impertinence to come here and say we should at this juncture give him $325,000 to get votes in the District Council elections is scandalous, to say the least of it, and I ask the House to vote against this subhead.

I allowed the word "impertinence", but I think I must disallow the word "scandalous".

I will withdraw it, Sir, I will say that this must give rise to great indignation in all right-thinking men.

Sir, it would appear that the Kallang by-election is being fought in this Assembly this morning! However, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar has seen fit to throw his challenge at me on a matter which is in the interests of rural dwellers, I will take it up. He has admitted that it is a good thing that there should be this development in the rural areas. What he has criticised is that this fund should be created at this time and that it should be administered by the Chief Minister. Sir, rural development has been in the minds of my colleagues the Minister for Commerce and Industry and the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing for a long time.

Three and a half years.

It has been rather uphill work, in view of the difficulties which were put in the way of the elected Government - difficulties which prevented us from carrying out the plans we have in our four-year programme. Before we left for London, this House gave approval to the appointment of a Rural Development Commissioner with some field officers and other members of his staff. Surely it is not expected that we should appoint this Rural Development Commissioner and his staff and tell them to sit in their office and do nothing because there is no money for them to do what they are intended to do. The fact that the fund is to be administered by the Chief Minister is because of difficulties encountered under the Rendel Constitution. If this Rural Development Commission were to be attached to the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing, or to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, it would encounter difficulties from other departments in the way of giving priority to whatever project this Rural Development Commission feels should be carried out. If it is entrusted to the Chief Minister, he can issue a directive - and he will so issue a directive - that any priority work demanded or required by this Rural Development Commission should be carried out without any hindrance. The hon. Member is feeling rather worried and accuses us by saying that this move is vote-catching. The Government does not-

Vote buying, not vote catching.

Order.

It is suggested that the help that the Government is extending to the rural dwellers is vote buying. What this Government does is in the hon. Member's mind vote buying; but what the P.A.P. does in the City Council has - so he describes - appealed to the masses and is wanted by the masses. This poor Labour Front Coalition Government does not know what the masses want. Now when we try to show them that we know what the masses want and that we want to give to the masses what they want, he has the impertinence to say that this is vote buying.

I do not know if the Chief Minister is responsible for his impromptu speech as I know he has not got his set one. But if he were in his usual state of composure, he would, I think, think twice before he admits that he is really in earnest, asking for $325,000 in order to get the masses over to him in the District Council elections. Sir, there is a distinction between the Government and a public authority like the City Council consciously pursuing a programme at public expense to win over the support of the majority of the population. There is a distinction between that and this belated attempt of a block vote of $325,000, taken specially into his jurisdiction, to spend in some priority which he will decide, for the now admitted purpose of winning over the support of the masses - not in the City Council, because that is a waste of time; that will not come up in another two years - but in the District Council elections. The answer to the Member for Queenstown, if he really wants to know when the District Council elections are going to be held, is that they will be held as soon as the Government feels that having spent this money - this bribe of $325,000 - it can reasonably anticipate a fair proportion of the voters voting for it. 12.00 noon.

Sir, I am sorry that the Member for Tanjong Pagar is misinterpreting this move by the Government to assist the rural dwellers. I cait truthfully and honestly tell him that it is about two years since I have been trying to help the rural dwellers because most of the matters affecting them come within my Ministry - the Agricultural Department, the Veterinary Department, the Co-operatives Department and so on. I have all along felt that, in order that the small farmer can stand on his own legs, a fund has to be created - either by the creation of a rural bank or some other method whereby he can be advanced such money as is necessary for him to get away from the influence and clutches of the middleman, and if I had my way, this would have come up two years ago. However, there are priorities in the spending of public funds, and as hon. Members I think know full well, when the Budget comes up there is only a limited amount of money available and it is a matter of fixing priorities. I have not been successful in getting priority for this project, otherwise I could have-

Until the District Council elections.

No, it is not so, Sir, If the hon. Member remembers, His Excellency's Speech at the opening of this Session of the Assembly contained a statement of Government policy for this year that a Rural Development Panel will be set up under the Chief Minister's Ministry and this is an execution of the announcement of policy made at that time. In fact, it was as a result of pressure exerted by me that this has been set up under the Chief Minister's Ministry. The reason is that rural development concerns so many Ministries - it concerns mostly my Ministry; it also concerns the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing; it also concerns the Ministry of Communications and Works when rural roads are to be built; it also concerns the Ministry of Finance because finance is involved to a great extent - and it will not be possible, under the present administrative machinery, for one Minister to try and expedite any project which concerns so many Ministries because it has to go through the administrative channels. If the hon. Member has read the newspapers, Sir, I did in fact in a speech made in the Rotary Club in January this year point out that one of the dangers facing Singapore is that the administrative machinery of the Government might not be capable of working to a point of absorbing the dynamism of an elected Government. I cannot say it more clearly than that. It means that the administrative machinery has its methods and so on which are subject to delays, and co-ordination is difficult to achieve between one Minister and another especially when the matter concerns three other Ministries. It has to go through these channels. I am saying all this frankly, Sir, because the hon. Member has sort of alleged that the Chief Minister has got this money as a bribe to buy votes from the rural dwellers. That is not so, I can truthfully and honestly say. I said that the only way to achieve any progress in rural development is for the Chief Minister to take it up himself and set himself up as a dictator over the other Ministers and say, "This must be done, and that must be done." It might be an admission of administrative difficulty - it is so - but I was anxious that the Chief Minister should take it over so that rural development could proceed at a quicker pace. That is the real reason why this vote of $325,000 is under the Chief Minister. In fact, it was announced in His Excellency's speech at the opening of this Session.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry enumerated the Ministries which were normally involved in or connected with or consulted on rural development. I think I am right in quoting him as saying that they were his own Ministry - the Ministry of Commerce and Industry - the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing, the Ministry of Communications and Works, and the Ministry of Finance - four eminent Ministries, but not including the Ministry of Labour or the Chief Minister's Ministry. Am I right - that this matter does not concern the Ministry of Labour and Welfare, because it does not come under it, nor does it come under the portfolio of the Chief Minister? Would the Minister just confirm this, because I may have misheard him?

Sir, I mentioned four Ministries - they are directly concerned. The other Ministries are also indirectly concerned. Welfare is somethng which concerns everyone in the island. Even education is concerned when it comes to educating the rural folks in fishing methods and so on. We have plans that schools in the rural area should teach fishing and other rural pursuits to the students there. Therefore other Ministries are concerned, but these four Ministries - those of Local Government, Lands and Housing, Communications and Works, Finance, and my own Ministry - are directly concerned. But as I said, Sir, the Chief Minister has been brought in because he is the Chief Minister.

Sir, I think the allegations made by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar are quite unjustified. He first said that the idea of rural development projects which will enable farmers to take advantage of modern methods to improve their standards of production was indeed laudable; but when he ended his speech, he urged Members to vote against the $325,000 provided in this vote. Sir, he might be right if we on this side have indulged in empty propaganda. On this rural development authority, we sincerely believe that it would be better to go ahead with a well-planned machine rather than shout our heads off before the actual event took place. Sir, if we had said that this rural development plan had been a dream of the Chief Minister, or that he had vowed to see the establishment of this authority two years ago, then probably it would be said that it is a publicity thing - just as what the Mayor of the City Council said yesterday morning that when he went to see the floods at Braddell Road two years ago, he promised the people there that he would surely give them a mobile dispensary. We do not for a moment believe in fantasy or in unnecessary publicity. We do not even spend any money on banners, like the anti-spitting campaign which has been launched by the City Council. Our intention is not to spend money unnecessarily, but to spend it on necessary projects which will achieve better results for the people. It is quite justified for allegations to be made if we have spent money unnecessarily. Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar is probably quite worried now because he has said that the Government is undertaking a project which will benefit a large number of rural people. I hope and believe that if he has the interests of the rural people at heart, he will give unstinted support for this project and for all others which the Government undertakes in the interests of the people.

I was waiting for some valuable information which I thought the Assistant Minister would provide us. Is he or is he not connected with the Yio Chu Kang peasants or rural dwellers association which, according to the Free Press, hopes to get interest-free loans?

Sir, it was in 1952 when I took a direct and keen interest in the establishment of a rural development authority. I had filed more than six questions to the then Colonial Secretary to ascertain from him what the Government policy was at that time in regard to rural development. I must tell the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar that in my manifesto as an Independent candidate, one of my promises to the people was that I would try my best to see that a rural development authority was established for the proper and well-planned development of the rural areas. Sir, I am not only concerned with individual farmers and I am not concerned with my constituency alone. This is not a matter affecting any part of anybody's constituency. This project will benefit about 400,000 people who are now undergoing considerable hardships of various types. Hitherto all the departments interested in rural welfare have not been co-ordinated and, as a result, there have been no well-planned projects in the rural areas. Sir, I wish to say this - that I am not taking this matter as affecting my constituency alone.

Sir, the Hon. the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary has still not provided me with the information which I was trying to elicit from him.

Sir, the association with which I am connected is the Singapore Country People's Association. It has 2,500 members and they come from all over the rural areas. Question put, "That the sum of $325,000 for Head 7 stand part of the Schedule." The House divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 2; Abstention, Nil. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Goh Chew Chua. Haji Jumat. Lee Kuan Yew. Braga, A. J. Chew Swee Kee. David, E. B. Abstention. Ede, John. Nil. Goh Tong Liang. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy, J. M. Absent. Lee Choon Eng. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Lim Choon Mong. Jumabhoy, R. Lim, R. C. H. Lazarous, A. R. Lim Yew Hock. Lim Cher Kheng. Mak Pak Shee. Lim Ching Siong. Mason, J. M. Lim Koon Teck. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Seah Peng Chuan. Shanks, E. P. Soh Ghee Soon. Tan Siak Kew. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam. The sum of $325,000 for Head 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sums stated for the Heads stated below ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head Title $ 8 Chief Secretary 19,941 19 Statistics 8,743 20 Legal 36,874 25 Contributions and Cha- ritable Allowances 17,160 45 Education 10 51 Labour 445 52 Social Welfare 28,000 54 Civil Aviation 550 15 Police 1,070 37 Marine 1,542 D59 Telecommunications 1,400 The sum of $392,997 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 $392,997 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. 17 of 1958.

I think this is a convenient time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.19 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Nature Reserves Ordinance (Chapter 235), resolves that paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Ordinance be deleted and the following substituted therefor: 'All those pieces of land situate in Mukim No. V Pandan and Mukim No. VI Peng Kang, in the Island of Singapore, known as Pandan Forest Reserve, comprised in lot 136-15, Mukim No. V Pandan, and in lot 193, Mukim No. VI Peng Kang, and estimated to contain approximate areas of 356a. Or. 00p, and 186a. Or. 00p, respectively, the boundaries of which are more particularly delineated and edged pink on Certified Plan No. 10485 filed in the Office of the Chief Surveyor, Singapore.'. Sir, before I proceed to speak on this motion, I have here with me sufficient copies of a rough sketch* of the area which, with your permission, I propose to circulate to Members, so that they may follow easily the references which I might make in the course of my speech on this motion. May I have your permission, Sir? *Annex "A". ANNEX A - SKETCH OF PANDAN NATURE RESERVE

Let me have a look at it. [Copy handed to Mr Speaker; with Mr Speaker's permission, copies distributed to Members]. Hon. Members will recall that, in spite of strong opposition from the Nature Reserve Board and others interested in preserving the nature reserve, I successfully moved in this House on 4th December, 1957, a resolution to amend the Schedule to the Nature Reserves Ordinance, the effect of which was to reduce the acreage of the area of the Ulu Pandan Nature Reserve from 1,374 acres to 371 acres, thereby confirming the release of about 150 acres then covered by prawn ponds and releasing a further 853 acres for development as prawn ponds. The attitude, Sir, of those interested in preserving the nature reserve at that time was such that they were not prepared to concede even a small portion of the nature reserve for purposes of prawn ponds. They were not prepared to talk terms with me in order to arrive at a reasonable solution which might be beneficial to both interests. However, after this House approved my motion in December and gave me the authority to release a big portion of the thu Pandan Nature Reserve, the more reasonable elements of those objecting, realising that there was no other way, came to see me with a reasonable proposal which would preserve the interests of the nature lovers at the cost of reducing, by a small portion, the released area, and by extending and regrouping the remaining portions of the nature reserve. The new proposals, Sir, in effect mean the extension of two pieces of swamp reserves which are marked on this sketch as A and B (the extensions would be in the direction of D and E) and thereby enlarging the nature reserve as at present defined by approximately 171 acres. Hon. Members will notice that there is an area of reserve marked C on the sketch plan which will be deleted now. To give you the exact figures, Sir, it is now proposed to excise, instead of the previous 1,003 acres, only 832 acres from the Pandan Nature Reserve, leaving a total of 542 acres in the reserve, a net increase to the reserve of from 371 to 542 acres, namely, 171 acres. This extension of the nature reserve by 171 acres would provide for (a) better administration of the area under the control of the Nature Reserve Board; (b) a fairly full range of mangrove animals to maintain themselves; (c) self-perpetuation of mature mangrove vegetation; (d) a full range of important mangrove plants; (e) the retention of type localities of many species first described as new to science from specimens obtained there; and (f) easier access for those interested in nature study. I therefore feel, Sir, that this is a very fair proposition and commend it to hon. Members. Sir, I beg to move.

I second the motion. Question proposed. 2.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker,. Sir, when the Hon. Minister for Commerce and Industry introduced a motion in this House last December to reduce the Pandan Nature Reserve to three areas, of 236, 90 and 45 acres respectively, I pointed out very serious objections to - what he was doing. Not only was he destroying a valuable nature reserve for no purpose, but he was in fact endangering the future of the prawn industry in that area by this destruction, the industry which we ourselves wish to see developed. His reply to the House on the scientific arguments which I propounded was as follows - and I quote from column 2880 of Volume 2, No. 40, of the Official Report dated 4th December, 1957: "... I must assure this House specifically that all these arguments which the hon. Member for Tanglin has put up have already been put up to the Ministry by the Chairman of the Nature Reserve Board, with supporting evidence as put forward by the Member from the various other professors and people of high academic qualifications, and they have been considered by the Ministry. The Ministry feels that, as far as fisheries is concerned, it is its Fisheries Officer who is best qualified to speak on the subject and who should know his job." Now I had good reason to believe that neither the Minister nor the Fisheries Officer had in fact met the experts on the subject round the table, and at the conclusion of my speech on the same day I made this point - in column 2865: "My own belief is this: that if all the experts on the subject in the country got round one table to go into this matter and pool their knowledge - as should have been done before - it would be found. firstly, that the area of land alienated for prawn ponds could be increased beyond the present area; secondly, that a sufficient but different area of mangrove could be retained at the Pandan Forest Reserve as a feeding area for prawns and as a self-propagating area for biological study; and thirdly and finally, the proper balance of nature could be achieved. That would be the best possible result, while at present the Government may get the worst of both worlds." Now, Sir, I am not going to flatter myself that the Minister accepted what I had to say, but enough attention was drawn to the matter for him to decide to reconsider the position. I believe a meeting of experts was arranged - I was not present but the Minister has told us roughly what transpired - but the final outcome has been that the Minister has been broad-minded enough and flexible enough to come forward with a modified scheme which will leave intact two areas of 356 and 186 acres of - undisturbed mangrove in precisely the right position from everybody's point of view. The happy result then is as I had hoped. There will now be a sufficient area of mangrove for it to be self-propagating and to yield its botanical and biological riches, and, at the same time, experiments can be made to increase the prawn catch without too much risk. Also, the Malay fishermen can continue to earn a living by fishing down the river with the undisturbed mangrove still there. I congratulate the Government on thinking again and modifying its previously apparently intractable attitude, and we are glad now to be able to support this motion. 2.42 p.m.

Sir, it is true that the hon. Member in the debate in this House in December pointed out, as he had said, that the Government was destroying valuable areas of nature reserve and endangering prawn production. I did assure that all the arguments put up by the Chairman of the Nature Reserve Board were considered. However, the arguments that were put up to me at that time were: `All or none'- `We want the whole reserve to be preserved'. None of them was sane enough to come to me and say, `Look, we realise that prawn pond cultivation is of vital importance to the economy of Singapore - that it is going to expand the economy - and therefore we propose that this and this and this compromise should take place, whereby the interests of the nature reserve could be preserved and also that a certain area could be released for prawn ponds'. Their attitude was very obstinate and I, as a Minister responsible to the people of Singapore, governing for the benefit of the majority interests of Singapore, would not be blackmailed by small groups into making decisions which benefit only small groups. And therefore when they were not willing to play ball with me, I said, `Right, I go ahead.' If they had come - and I must thank Professor Oppenheim who, after this resolution had been adopted, a few months later met me and said, `Look, there can be a compromise'; I said, "Is that so?" He said, "Of course there can be." I said, "Why didn't the Nature Reserve Board people tell me that there could be a compromise. If there was, as a reasonable man I would be willing to come to a compromise whereby both interests would be preserved." So there is no need for obstinacy, Sir. When I saw the proposals were reasonable, I said, `I am governing in the interests of the country at large and if I can bring both interests together I will certainly do so, and I will not stand on obstinacy.' And that is why I brought this motion to the House.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Nature Reserves Ordinance (Chapter 235), resolves that paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Ordinance be deleted and the following substituted therefor:- 'All those pieces of land situate in Mukim No. V Pandan and Mukim No. VI Peng Kang, in the Island of Singapore, known as Pandan Forest Reserve, comprised in lot 136-15, Mukim No. V Pandan, and in lot 193, Mukim No. VI Peng Kang, and estimated to contain approximate areas of 356a. Or. 00p. and l86a. Or. 00p, respectively, the boundaries of which are more particularly delineated and edged pink on Certified Plan No. 10485 filed in the Office of the Chief Surveyor, Singapore.'.

2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the motion which stands in my name. It reads as follows: That this House notes with regret that the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections had made its report (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 7 of 1958) without giving to some of the persons, against whom allegations were made in secret, the opportunity to know of such evidence and to cross-examine such witnesses and to confront them with contrary evidence; and that this House urges the Government to take action against the persons whom the report says the Police have reliable evidence of their having solicited and paid for the assistance of gangsters in their elections. Mr Speaker, Sir, the elections which were the subject of these investigations - the two by-elections - took place more than a year ago. The report has been with Members for more than two and a half months. I hope that, as a result of this report, despite its shortcomings, we will be able to benefit by making the necessary adjustments to our election laws, not just with the purpose of trying to counter another Party, but of trying to make sure that the electoral machinery will work fairly and efficiently. I had the advantage this morning of scanning the Bill to amend the Local Government Elections Ordinance which was tabled for First Reading by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, and my impression is that whilst it did very wisely adopt some of the recommendations contained in this report

The hon. Member is out of order in referring to a Bill which will come up eventually to this Assembly for consideration; it is anticipating.

As you please, Mr Speaker, Sir. Without referring to that Bill, may I be permitted to make this remark? If it is the purpose of the Government not only to embody some of the recommendations which this report has made, but at the same time to introduce new conditions and propositions with the purpose of crippling Opposition political Parties, because it is believed that the nature of the support of Opposition political Parties may be such that certain conditions if introduced would block that support, then the whole purpose of this Commission would be defeated. We would be thrown into the arena of party politics instead of trying, sensibly, to work out a system which will work for all time. Coming back to the report, Sir, time has also flowed since the Commission was first appointed and I can only say it is a matter of regret that one of the Members of the Commission has since got into some prominence and has said, in what I think must be the classic under-statement of all time, that he is not an angel. I do recommend to the Government, if in the future they have to appoint more commissions of this nature, that they should try to appoint persons of unimpeachable character and reputation, and not those who are likely to have to declaim in the witness-box that they are no angels.

Order. I hate to pull the hon. Member up but the hon. Member I think is aware of the section in the Ordinance which prohibits any disrespect being paid to any members of a commission whether they are sitting or have sat in the past. Of course the hon. Member is protected by privilege but I do urge that, in matters of this nature, the hon. Member should take great care not to say something which might redound to the discredit of a member of the public who is not here to defend himself.

Indeed, Sir, I was extremely careful to make sure that I quoted the words right. I think it was blazoned in banner headlines that a Member of this Commission had said in court that he is no angel. What I urge the Government in future to do is to make sure that it does not get involved with people who subsequently have to declaim that they are not angels; not that all members of commissions should be angels, but at least they should not be put in a position where they have to deny that they are angels. Sir, the report is not all that we would have expected and in fact I shall take my criticism first. On two persons there has been, in my opinion, gentle whitewashing. In the first place I refer to the finding about certain allegations re garding Mr Brash which is reported in pages 21 and 22 of the report. Now, Sir, this was an article published by "Cynicus". It is referred to in paragraph 48 of the report and on page 22 in the finding. Just to refresh the memory of hon. Members in this House, I will read the excerpt again: "At a bye-election campaign luncheon in Singapore which will not figure on the candidate's expense sheet, the talk turned to the value of public meetings and a candidate's speeches. "Don't bother about meetings and speeches", said the candidate's adviser. "They'll get you nowhere." "I know", said the candidate. "Get the secret society boys out", said the adviser. "They'll do it." "I know", said the candidate. Everybody at the lunch heard it. Everybody would deny it if names were mentioned. Or they might say it was all a joke. But it wasn't a joke, and the secret society boys have been called out." The finding is as follows: "The person who was referred to as `the candidate's adviser' was Mr M. B. Brash, an Advocate and Solicitor, who is a member of several committees of the Liberal-Socialist Party. We are satisfied he was not an adviser to either of the candidates or to the Liberal-Socialist Party, Mr Brash who appeared before us, gave us his account of the conversation, which was to the effect that while discussing with a journalist seated beside him, the value of public meetings in an election campaign, he had expressed the view that public meetings had proved to be of little value during his own election campaign in 1955, and that the intervention of secret societies had been an important factor in that election; and he had proceeded to develop this theme with a description of what had occurred in the 1955 Elections. We accept his account of the conversation. The fact that secret society members did intervene in the Bye- Election activity has, in our opinion, no connection whatsoever with the conversation at that luncheon." Now, Sir, this witness went into the witness-box and admitted on oath that he had spent over $35,000 in his own election campaign. Why was no reference made to that in the report? How was he able to spend $35,000 in an election campaign? Why is there such a glaring ommission in this report? The other item I wish to refer to is contained in paragraph 70, page 26, relating to our Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare. It says here: "Mr Lee Kuan Yew in his speech in thee Legislative Assembly on the 18th July, 1957,. referred to a case in which he alleged that tea and cigarettes had been provided to a group of people who had been helping Mr Koh Choon Hong in his election campaign. It appeared from the evidence we heard that coffee to a total value of $32.05 had been served from time to time in an office, which purported to be a branch election office of Mr Koh Choon Hong, to about 15 people who were said to have been working for that candidate. None of the witnesses could tell us who those person were, or what they were supposed to do for Mr Koh Choon Hong, and there was no evidence as to whether they were electors in the Tanjong Pagar division. Mr Koh Choon Hong denied that the office was his and said he know nothing of the people said to have frequented it. As regards the cost of the coffee, it appeared that $19.50 had been paid by a witness named Lim Tiong Yap for coffee consumed up to the 10th June, and $22.50 was outstanding in respect of coffee consumed between the 11th and 24th June. Mr Lirn Tiong Yap alleged that Mr Mak Pak Shee had provided the $19.50 and was responsible for the $22.50; and that Mr Mak Pak Shee had arranged with him to pay for the refreshments because he (Mr Mak Pak Shee) was supporting Mr Koh Choon Hong. Mr, Mak Pak Shee denied the allegation. We found that Mr Lim Tiong Yap was an unreliable witness, and we are unable to come to any conclusion as to whether anyone other than he had provided the $19.50 and was responsible for payment of the $22.50 outstanding. Assuming, however, that Mr Lim Tiong Yap's allegation was true, we do not consider that any question of treating would arise. There was no evidence of the identity of the persons who had consumed the coffee, and even if they were electors in Tanjong Pagar division, it seems to us quite clear that the coffee was provided for them by way of refreshment in the course of their work, and not for the purpose of inducing them to vote for Mr Koh Choon Hong." Now, Sir, the witness who came forward with the notebook gave his evidence in public and was ready to be cross-examined by Mr Mak Pak Shee, the Assistant Minister, or anyone on his behalf. The person against whom this allegation was made chose to meet the Commission in camera, and nothing is said as to what is transpired in camera. But one thing is quite clear - that the Assistant Minister, using his position as Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare, had telephoned the Labour Officer of the Singapore Harbour Board, one Mr Archer, and told him to release this man Lim Tiong Yap as and when this man required, whilst he was on duty and being paid for, in order that he might canvass for Mr Koh Choon Hong. Now, Sir, nothing is said about that. Mr Archer admitted it and I must, for the record of this House, deplore the omission of the evidence which was taken on these two matters. This is a matter for considerable regret. A whole host of this evidence would have withstood cross-examination in an open Commission. Because of this lapse which I find difficult to understand, this almost forgetfulness, of the Chairman, who was legally qualified and trained, to give an opportunity to the persons against whom these allegations were made to know of them and to cross-examine the witnesses, a lot of unworthy people will now have worthy excuses. Now, Sir, the allegations made were of a very serious nature and I would list them for the benefit of hon. Members. First, the one against Chong Wee Ling, the Liberal-Socialist Party candidate. This appears on page 17, paragraph 34: "Further information from Police sources was to the effect that one Aw Sai Soo, a member of the Tai Chap Wee secret society of 24 Group, had been engaged by Mr Chong Wee Ling at a remuneration of $400 per month to put up election posters for him; and that he had been promised a further $1,000 on polling day, but there was no indication as to whether the latter sum had in fact been paid." Now, then, Mr Chong Wee Ling's by election returns were published and no such item was disclosed. Even though the evidence might have been insufficient to mount a prosecution, it is a matter for regret that this evidence, given presumably by a police officer. should not have been revealed to him in order that he could challenge it, and there could be no excuse. Next was one against Mr Koh Choon Hong, contained in page 18, paragraph 36: "According to information from a Police source, Mr Koh Choon Hong engaged the Headman and a member of 969 secret society of 24 Group, four members of other secret societies of the same Group and a member of a secret society of 18 Group at a daily remuneration of $12 each, to canvass for votes...". Now, Sir, again it seems to me signal folly not to have put this evidence to Mr Koh Choon Hong, offer him the privilege of cross-examining the witness and going to the witness-box to deny it. The odds are this evidence must have been reliable and should have been properly put. Next, an allegation against the Labour Front candidate. Mr Keng Ban Ee: "According to information from two separate Police sources described as reliable, this candidate sought and obtained the assistance of one Jiman Bin Simen alias Panjang, the Headman of 329 secret society of 36 Group, and promised him that if he was successful in the election he would present him with a motorcar as a reward for his help." Unfortunately he was not successful so I presume the question of the motorcar did hot arise. Nevertheless I cannot understand why Mr Keng Ban Ee was not given the opportunity to explain that he did not buy the motorcar because he did not win the election. And as for our Member for Cairnhill - and I think he need have no fear that I shall be reading the allegations in reference to my own candidature - it is said in paragraph 41, page 19: One witness told us that on polling day members of the Lau Yong Heng secret society went from house to house collecting voters and compelling them to go to the polling station in cars bearing Mr Soh Ghee Soon's symbol. Lim Toh Heng admitted to us that in 1953 he had been one of the leaders of the Lau Yong Heng secret society, but said he had resigned his membership in 1953. He"- namely, the leader of the secret society- "said that Mr Soh Ghee Soon had asked him to help him by driving a car on polling day to transport voters to the polling station, and that on polling day he did so." He did so but he did not mention the consideration for this. Now, Sir, if the Commission had given Mr Soh, the Member for Cairnhill, the opportunity - as in fact they did give him in another instance about seven of his helpers being City Council employees - then Mr Soh would have no just complaint for this allegation made against him. But I think he is entitled to complain that this very serious charge that he had solicited and obtained the help of a leader of a secret society, was not put to him. The Chairman of the Commission, in page 24, paragraph 61, had done this in regard to another allegation against Mr Soh: "Mr Soh Ghee Soon told us that 7 of his helpers were employees of the City Council. He said one was employed as a clerk at the rate of $5 a day, two were paid $20 each for their services during the campaign, and the other four worked voluntarily. At the time of the Bye-Elections Mr Soh Ghee Soon himself was a City Councillor. Under the City Council's Conduct and Discipline Rules, their employees are divided into two categories, Restricted and Unrestricted. Those in the Restricted class are all senior officers and holders of clerical and technical posts above the time-scale, as well as all employees who in any way come in contact with the public in an official capacity. One of the 7 City Council employees mentioned by Mr Soh Ghee Soon (one of the recipients of $20 for his services) was a junior officer in the Secretariat and in the Restricted class. We consider that it was improper for Mr Soh Ghee Soon to make use of that officer's services in his election campaign, particularly as he himself was a City Councillor and, as such, a member of the authority responsible for the maintenance of discipline among the City Council staff." Well, that is the proper way. There was this evidence against Mr Soh. It was undesirable. Mr Soh was given the opportunity - the Member for Cairnhill was given the opportunity to explain. The fact that he failed to explain it satisfactorily to the Commission was a piece of misfortune which befell him, but nevertheless he was given the opportunity in this instance which he was not in the other. Now, Sir, this was the police statement made against election activities, not against me, but against the campaigning on my behalf, and I would like to record here my regret that such allegations were made without having been put to me being brought to my notice, or indeed been put to the persons against whom these specific allegations were put. It said first of all in paragraph 31, page 15: "Early in April, 1957, a dispute arose in Craig Road between members of the Ji Tok Kiat secret society of 24 Group on the one part, and 206, 309, and the Hai Lok San secret societies of 108 Group on the other part, and later the same evening an open fight took place in Duxton Road between the members of the two Groups, in which bottles and knives were used. The two Groups of secret societies were associated with the two Chinese clans which were predominant in the Duxton Road area, the 24 Group with the Teo clan and the 108 Group with the Ho clan. Initial efforts to settle the dispute by arbitration failed and the situation remained in ferment. Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who was away in England at the time the dispute occurred, was informed of the situation on his return by Mr Ho Beh Swee. . ., the leader of the Ho clan in the Duxton Road area and a Committee member of the Tanjong Pagar Branch of the People's Action Party. Being aware that a Bye-Election was to take place soon in the Tanjong Pagar division, he was anxious that the dispute should be settled because he feared that an alignment of the clans and the secret societies supporting them with the candidates in the forthcoming Bye-Elections might result in clashes during the election campaign. On the 18th April, 1957, the situation had become so serious that Mr Lee Kuan Yew telephoned the Superintendent of Police in charge of the Secret Societies Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department to warn him of the tension and to inform him that members of the Ho clan, who had supported him during the 1955 Elections, were hoarding weapons such as bicycle chains, poles, and daggers for protection against an expected attack by members of the Teo clan, who were supporters of Mr William Tan, the Liberal-Socialist member of the Legislative Assembly for Tiong Bahru division, and he suggested that the Police should help to settle the dispute. He said that he would get in touch wih Mr William Tan and that they and the leaders of the two clans should meet in the Superintendent's office with a view to resolving the situation, to which the Superintendent agreed. Mr Lee Kuan Yew then got in touch with Mr William Tan who agreed to mediate in the dispute, and in fact he [Mr William Tan] was able to effect a settlement with the co-operation of Mr Ho Beh Swee and Mr Teo Choon Huat, the leader of the Teo clan in the Duxton Road area. On the 15th May, 1957, Mr William Tan, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Ho Beh Swee, and Mr Teo Choon Huat called on the Superintendent of the Secret Societies Branch in his office and formally announced to him that the dispute had been settled." Now, Sir, if the Commission had put those facts, I could easily have told the Commission that on the day when it was being settled, the formal announcement on 15th May, was in my absence. I think the Member for Tiong Bahru will recall that I was late because I was held up in court. When I arrived at the office of the Superintendent, Secret Societies Sub-Branch, Mr Ho, Mr Teo and Mr Tan were there together with the Superintendent and they informed me that the matter had beeii settled. Now it is this sort of mistake which would have been avoided if only the facts had been put, if only, instead of the officer-in-charge of the Secret Societies Sub-Branch giving evidence in camera, he had given it either in camera in my presence, or in public to my knowledge. The report goes on, in paragraph 35, to say with regard to the by-election: "According to information from Police sources described as reliable, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was supported by members of secret societies of 108 Group and members of 969 secret society of 24 Group of the Cantonese section of Chinatown, who canvassed for votes for him and put up his posters. One Police report was to the effect that Mr Ho Beh Swee was supplying food, refreshments and cigarettes to members of the Sio Eng Hiong secret society of 108 Group, who were putting up election posters for Mr Lee Kuan Yew in the Tanjong Pagar area." Now, Mr Ho Beh Swee was the same gentlemen who had informed me of an impending clash in the Duxton Road area, who was at that time a member of the P.A.P. Tanjong Pagar Branch Committee. Now, Sir, Mr Ho Beh Swee unfortunately was never called to deny this - that he had supplied refreshments. In fact, according to my reports, because of all these clashes with gangs and secret societies, he quietly withdrew from the election campaign altogether. Now whatever was the truth of the matter, the thing should have been investigated, Mr Ho should have been called, because there was an allegation made against Mr Ho. There is, true, no further allegation that I asked Mr Ho to act on my behalf in this matter; nevertheless, Mr Ho should have been asked, and I can see no excuse whatsoever for this unfortunate lapse. It goes on to make this allegation in page 18, same paragraph: "At five public meetings which Mr Lee Kuan Yew held in different parts of the Tanjong Pagar division during the month of June, 1957, detectives observed members of secret societies controlling the crowd and generally acting as stewards." Now, Sir, the Tanjong Pagar area has probably the highest number of secret societies, according to Sub-Branch officials. I would have welcomed the opportunity if they had gone into the witness-box, even in camera, to ask them whether they acted as stewards officially; did they wear arm-bands?; were they under instructions from P.A.P. branch officials?; could they identify some of them?; could they be brought forward to court to find out why it was - if in fact it was true - they were participating in my campaign? As I said, there may be a sub-stratum of truth in all these allegations, and in fact I am fairly confident that in most of these cases there was. The pity of it all is even if there was good reason to make these allegations, now the persons against whom these allegations were made can shrug their shoulders and say, `Ah, well, pity I was not allowed to rebut it.' But all said and done, although I would not support the recommendations in tow because a number of them would be impracticable to implement, a good nutnber of others are practicable, and should be implemented. If the Government - here again I do not want to anticipate the Bill - but if the Government can convince us that those extra items which are not recommended were not intended for the purpose of defeating their political opponents, we will give it our unqualified support, in particular, the summary of recommendations on page 39: "(i) That compulsory voting should be introduced." I think the Hon. the Chief Minister has already committed his Labour Front Government, I do not know how-

Order. I was just wondering whether the motion itself touches on these recommendations; it seems to be away from the recommendations.

Well, Sir, having deplored the part which I think was not as perfect as it should have been, I feel it my duty at the same time to point out that, despite these criticisms, there are considerable credits in the recommendations or parts of the recommendations made in this report. I do not wish to give the impression that because people were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses, because there has been some white-washing of Assistant Ministers, I therefore disregard the findings. And with that intention, Sir, I hope you will allow me, Mr Speaker, just to briefly touch on these recommendations to show that they are in many instances worthy of our support. I was saying-

Order. I do not think the hon. Member has satisfied me that touching on these recommendations would bring his comments within the terms of the motion itself. The motion itself deals with allegations which were made against persons in secret and deplores that no opportunity was given to these persons to cross-examine witnesses; and the second part urges the Government to take action against persons whom the report says the Police have reliable evidence of their having solicited and paid for the assistance of gangsters in their elections. I cannot see how comment on the recommendations will bring the hon. Member within the terms of his motion.

Sir, I have not come to the second half, the second limb, of my motion, the one urging the Government to take action. I am reserving that for my last parting shot at the Government, so to speak. But in between I hope to avoid conveying the impression that because I find the report unsatisfactory in parts, I therefore find it unsatisfactory in its conclusions as to how more efficient and fair elections could be held in the future. Since you have expressed the opinion on this matter I would not go into it in detail but in principle I would say that those parts which are practical like the abolition of private transport, polling day being made a public holiday, banning of high-pressure canvassing outside polling stations, and so on, should be implemented, and the sooner they are the better. But the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing will have a lot of explanation at the Select Committee stage as to some of the other provisions that he may have thought of. Lastly, I would ask the Government to find out who were the police officers who made these allegations, particularly in regard to Mr "... Koh Choon Hong's direct, specific allegations - Mr Koh Choon Hong engaged the Headman and a member of 969 secret society of 24 Group, four members of other secret societies of the same Group and a member of a secret society of 18 Group at a daily remuneration of $12 each . ..". Now, Sir, Mr Koh Choon Hong's election return has been published. These expenses were not disclosed, and I am quite sure that the Attorney-General's Chambers do not lack people who can find - provided that the evidence is solid enough - a particular section in some part of the criminal law to mount a prosecution. Similarly with Mr Chong Wee Ling- "...one Aw Sai Soo, . . . 24 Group, had been engaged by Mr Chong Wee Ling at a remuneration of $400 per month to put up election posters for him; and that he had been promised a further $1,000 on polling day . ..". And Mr Keng Ban Ee and the motorcar. Now these are allegations made by police officers, albeit in camera; I think it is worth looking into further to see whether or not a prosecution should be mounted, and the matter should not be left just with the publication of this report. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

3.18 p.m. The Chief Minister (Dr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the remaining items of business set down for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 7.

I second the motion.

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

3.19 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 13th August, 1958.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to 13th August, 1958.

Consideration of motion resumed. 3.20 p.m.

Sir, I rise to second the motion. The report of the Commission could have been better. It has failed in being beyond reproach, as such reports should be, because of elementary mistakes. It has not found the Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare guilty. His accusers gave evidence in public but the Assistant Minister gave his evidence in private. What did he say? What was his explanation regarding-

Order. I was listening to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar very carefully when he touched on that aspect. I did not pull him up to order, or considered him out of order - he kept completely in order. But I think the hon. Member who is now speaking is getting out of order because, under Standing Order 31(9), "The personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose.", and I do not think there is a substantive motion moved for the purpose of considering the personal conduct of the Assistant Minister. I think the hon. Member, if he carries on along the line he has been carrying on, will be completely out of order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just explained what the Assistant Minister had done during the by-election at Tanjong Pagar.

Order. I do not think we are debating the Assistant Minister; we are debating a motion moved by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar which is quite clear in its terms.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will just touch on the report of the Commission of Inquiry. The report has made damaging findings against several candidates, about their hiring gangsters to help them in their campaigns. Most probably, Sir, these allegations were made by the police officers. The police officers gave their evidence in private. Probably they were true. It is all the more regrettable that the persons concerned in these allegations were not told of them and given an opportunity either to admit or rebut them. But nevertheless the Commission has served a useful purpose in bringing attention to a whole host of abuses that regularly take place in elections. Sir, my Party is glad that we have moved this motion. Question proposed. 3.24 p.m.

Sir, if I am not mistaken, the set-up of this Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt. Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections was put through by a motion of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. Maybe he thought at that time, Sir, that he could show to the people of Singapore that he was the only person who fought clean and the others were questionable. He is now, I believe, disappointed, and has many criticisms against the Commission's findings. To a certain extent, Sir, I agree with him. I must also say that the findings of the Commission were not entirely fair or accurate. If you will give me the permission, Sir, I will tell you why in my case I think it is not fair or accurate. Am I allowed to do so, Sir?

If the hon. Member will continue I will soon tell him whether he is in order or not.

When I told the Commission. Sir, that the first occasion on which I met Lim Toh Heng, who is alleged to be a headman of a secret society, was when I went on house-to-house canvassing with a Chinese staff member of the Liberal-Socialist Party at Kim Yam Road and Mohamed Sultan Road, the Commission disbelieved me; and when I further said that I did not know that Lim Toh Heng was actually helping me during my election campaign because he had never brought me to see anyone or attended any of my public meetings, it still disbelieved me. I think it would also not believe me if I were to say that I was not aware that Lim Toh Heng was helping me on polling day. The fact is that on polling day I was concentrating on Cairnhill Road and Emerald Hill Road areas, and I only went to Mohamed Sultan Road in the evening at about 6.30 p.m. with Mr Lim Choo Sye, the City Councillor, in his car. I did not meet Lim Toh Heng or any one who was assisting me. But when the detectives told the Commission that they saw Lim Toh Heng at my public meetings at Tank Road on 13th and 24th June, 1957, this statement was accepted. The Commission also accepted the detectives' word that on 13th June Lim Toh Heng was in the company of two members of his own secret society maintaining order at the meeting, and that on 24th June Lim Toh Heng was in the company of four members of his own secret society, two members of another secret society and three members of a secret society of 18 Group. The Commission further believed police sources that 40 to 50 members of Lau Yong Heng secret society were assisting me in the Mohamed Sultan Road area, by canvassing for me, driving cars and transporting voters to the polling station. On my word of honour, I have not seen anyone of these members of the Lau Yong Heng Society and to this very day I do not know who they are; except that I learnt later on, from the findings of the Commission of Inquiry, that Lim Toh Heng was an ex-member. But when I approached him on that day canvassing from house to house, I had no idea at all that he was even a member of the Lau Yong Heng secret society. I had only five public meetings during my by-election campaign last year and they were at Tank Road on Thursday-

Order. I think the hon. Member is probably making a defence, whereas the motion does not ask him to do so; the motion deplores the fact that he was not allowed to do so.

I am sorry, Sir, I only wanted to point out that there was no such meeting and if you will not allow me, I will not say any more, but I do not think much about supporting this motion. 3.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek the indulgence of this House to read the letter dated 19th April, 1958, addressed to His Excellency the Governor by the Commission of Inquiry: "Since our Report on Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections was published, three of the candidates in the by-elections namely Messrs. Lee Kuan Yew, Soh Ghee Soon and Keng Ban Ee have in statements to the newspapers criticised our procedure in the Inquiry on the ground that no opportunity was accorded to them to refute allegations affecting them made by witnesses who gave evidence in camera. In addition, Mr Lee Kuan Yew also criticised us for not giving him the opportunity of hearing the evidence of such witnesses and cross-examining them. In the circumstances, it may be appropriate to submit to Your Excellency our observations on those criticisms. In regard to the first criticism, the fact was that after we have heard evidence in camera relating to those candidates, we called them in camera and particularly examined them in relation to the material points of such evidence so as to enable them to give us their evidence on those points. The dates when they were so called and examined were as follows: Mr Soh Ghee Soon on 20th December, 1957 Mr Lee Kuan Yew on 13th February, 1958 Mr Keng Ban Ee on 28th February, 1958. In regard to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's second criticism in cases where the fourth direction in the Commission appointing us applied, we had no discretion as we interpreted the word "public" to include persons about whom a witness was testifying. Moreover, we considered that whenever it was necessary for a witness to give evidence before us in camera especially on the subject of secret societies, that witness was entitled to expect that his identity should remain unknown not only to the public at large but also in particular to the person or persons about whom he was testifying. We were conducting an Inquiry and not a trial but even if proceedings under certain local Ordinances where the liberty of persons detained is involved, the need for protecting witnesses by not disclosing their identity is recognised by law and the evidence of such witnessess is not given in the presence of nor subject to cross-examination by the person affected. In our opinion, similar considerations apply in our Inquiry." Sir, on 8th July, 1957, the Member for Tanjong Pagar in moving his motion, which brought the Commission of Inquiry into being, spoke words of wisdom and even foretold the findings of such a Commission of Inquiry. Official Report Volume 2 No. 30, column 2171 contains these words: "But if an Inquiry Commission were set up which is not confined to the technicalities of the criminal law of corruption, then some astonishing disclosures could take place." Words of wisdom, prophetic words, Sir! He prepared us for some astonishing disclosures and we were therefore not astonished by paragraph 35 of the Report (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 7 of 1958) under the heading "MR LEE KUAN YEW" but what astonishes us is that the hon. Member was apparently astonished by the astonishing disclosures in the said paragraph. Well, well, well, what an astonishing sequel! He now wants this House to note "with regret that the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections had made its report (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 7 of 1958) without giving to some of the persons, against whom allegations were made in secret, the opportunity to know of such evidence and to cross-examine such witnesses and to confront them with contrary evidence...". And yet, Sir, there is no record of the hon. Member having raised any difficulties about the Commission taking evidence in camera or asked for any elucidation of procedure from the Commission. In fact, the terms of the Commission of Inquiry were clear to him before the Commission was appointed. Formal notice setting out the Commis sion makes it quite clear that any witness who states that he desires to give evidence in camera shall be at liberty to do so and in such case, the Commission shall direct that any such evidence shall be heard in camera or otherwise recorded without being made available to the public. Looking back, this may be loosely worded but at least criticism cannot be levelled at the Commission for procedure which was well within the terms of reference, and, as I said, the terms of reference were clear to the Member for Tanjong Pagar before the Commission was appointed. This point, Sir, was further made by the Chairman of the Commission in a broadcast on 25th September, 1957. He said: "Remember also that if you wish to give evidence in private, the Commission will and indeed must comply with your request and if you mark your correspondence `confidential', it will be treated as such." Sir, in the Singapore Standard of 10th October, 1957, there was a story saying that of the 12 subpoenaed witnesses who were present, six offered to give their evidence in public while the other six elected to give it in camera. No question seems to have been raised as to whether the candidates in the by-elections would have an opportunity of hearing or, if they so wished, submitting rebuttals to the evidence laid by these witnesses before the Commission. Again, Sir, in the Straits Times of 17th February, 1958 a story said that of the 40 witnesses heard by the Commission, half of them gave evidence in camera. In the story was a paragraph which said: "The Commission examined several witnesses both in open and private sessions who admitted their connections with secret societies and to have helped election candidates. No private query or public comment was raised." Sir, column 2170 of the Official Report referred to contains these words uttered by the hon. Member: "Our law, as I have said, is copied from the English law which is effective under English social conditions where people will give evidence and denounce others in open court. Here it is impossible. Unless we give witnesses a guarantee of secrecy, it is impossible to get these people to come forward in court." "Unless we give witnesses a guarantee of secrecy, it is impossible to get these people to come forward in court." More words of wisdom! Column 2202 records the hon. Member as saying: "I am quite satisfied to have a separate Court provided that there is sufficient protection given for it to make a complete and thorough inquiry. There must be complete privilege, sympathy if necessary, and extra judicial powers in the sense that it can hear evidence which would not otherwise be received, and can hear second-hand evidence if necessary." All these, Sir, are words of wisdom! The Commission did exactly what the Member for Tanjong Pagar wished to see done and now the hon. Member says that the Commission should have done otherwise. What an astonishing disclosure of a man who has been claiming that he always means what he says but now apparently says that he does not mean what he meant to say on 18th July, 1957! Sir, the Government having appointed the Commission believed that they would be able to assess the credibility of witnesses and the degree of credence to be given to the evidence submitted. What the hon. Member is asking is that he himself should act as an independent Commission on the witnesses and their evidence and decide therefore on what he considers the effectiveness of the judgment of the Commission. The Government caniiot accept any criticism which reflects on the integrity or efficiency of the Commission. It is not the Commission which is on trial but the secret society penetration of political Parties which no one in this House denies. Two things, Sir, are quite clear about the Commission. First, they were clearly impartial in their stringencies on the relations of secret societies to all political Parties and secondly, they gave the source of their evidence. Sir, I now come to the second part of the motion which reads: "...and that this House urges the Government to take action against the persons whom the report says the Police have reliable evidence of their having solicited and paid for the assistance of gangsters in their elections." What did the hon. Member say on 18th July, 1957? I quote from column 2167 of the Official Report: "The by-elections led to a great number of charges and counter-charges of strongarm methods, illegal methods, corrupt methods, but no election candidate has filed an election petition against his opponents, nor indeed has anyone made any serious complaint to the police." And in column 2174, he said: "In the cloistered atmosphere of a court such as the Commission on Corruption, or a court of enquiry or some tribunal not hamstrung by the strict rules of the law of evidence, a great deal of corrupt and improper practices can be brought to light." I would like hon. Members to take note of these words "not hamstrung by the strict rules of the law of evidence, a great deal of corrupt and improper practices can be brought to light." Sir, the Commission was dealing with events which had occurred months previously and neither the police nor the C.P.I.B. had made specific investigations into them at that time because in the words of the hon. Member "no election candidate has filed an election petition against his opponents, nor indeed has anyone made any serious complaint to the police." My learned friend and colleague the Hon. the Attorney-General has made enquiries and is quite satisfied that though the police obtained information from sources that have properly been described as reliable, there is no evidence on which to found a prosecution for an offence in connection with the by-elections in question. Sir, the Government does not need to be urged to take action against offenders. The Hon. the Attorney-General would have done so if he had been satisfied that there was evidence on which to found a prosecution and in the light of this explanation, I am sure that this House will reject this motion. Sir, some more words of wisdom from the Member for Tanjong Pagar, a very learned member of the Bar! Column 2174 reads: "The whole of the law relating to corrupt and improper practices is completely unsuitable to our conditions, and we cannot bring the crooks to book with these laws." He has admitted, Sir, that we cannot bring the crooks to book with the present law. Sir, it is clear from my speech that the Government opposes the motion. 3.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe this motion is aimed at the Commission of Inquiry or I would say that the mover of this motion has no confidence in the Report of the Commission. I thought that this Commission was first asked to be appointed by the Member for Tanjong Pagar and that he expressed great faith in Commissions of Inquiry. In fact, one of the Commissions of Inquiry was praised by him a great deal, and this House was urged by him to see that all its findings should be recorded as truths and its recommendations implemented. This motion, however, Sir, seems to give me an idea that there may be Commissions of Inquiry but that some Commissions are good and some not so good. Some Commissions would be acceptable to the People's Action Party, other Commissions must be totally rejected. But still, the People's Action Party finds that some parts of the Report should be praised - such as candidates buying coffee for their helpers or candidates wanting to buy a car for one of their helpers. No regret has been expressed about the findings of the Commission, although the Commission reported that there has been no concrete evidence to bring these cases to book. On looking through the Report, I, however, regretted the appearance of paragraph 31 whereby the Member for Tanjong Pagar was connected with secret societies and through his good offices was able to settle disputes amongst them.

It is your colleague, the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan).

The Member for Tanjong Pagar took a big hand. In paragraph 46, another member of these undesirable people tried to help him by tearing down posters. Furthermore, there are more allegations in this Report and the whole of Chapter V is devoted to it under the heading "USE OF FORCE AND COMPULSION (Aggressive Attitude to Voters)". All these I think, Sir, are the parts of the Report that should be very much regretted! They should never have made their appearance in the Report! If they have not made their appearance, then this Report is good. However, they have made their appearance. It astounded me even more that there should be accusations of candidates being helped by gangsters to win the elections with or without the knowledge of the candidates. The Member for Tanjong Pagar said that if you look up the records, Tanjong Pagar is an area which can boast the most number of gangsters in Singapore and yet he represents them. Perhaps I would say that the Commission should have specially written in its Report that the gangsters voted for him without his knowledge and that some of them helped him without his knowledge! But I would like this House to note, Sir, that when a Commission is appointed by this Assembly and if we have no faith in the members that are appointed, or if we think that they cannot do a good job, then we should have said so immediately upon their appointments, or while the proceedings of the Commission are going on, and not wait until after the findings are made known, and then fling allegations at them. I am afraid that allegations flung in this way are apt to be biased and not fair to all concerned. There may be a few small faults but generally speaking, I think the Commission has revealed to Singapore that a great deal of maipractices are perpetrated by many of these people who want the world to believe that they are clean by first bringing a complaint to this Assembly to have the matter investigated.

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

I think the hon. Member has completed his speech.

I was on the point of rising-

I have completed my speech.

The hon. Member has completed his speech. The Member for Tanjong Pagar will have an opportunity in reply. 3.52 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed surprised that the Member for Tanjong Pagar who moved this motion in this House made no reference particularly to a meeting held on 2nd June, 1957 (that is, on page 23, paragraph 54 of Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 7 of 1958). I think the People's Action Party should be blamed for what happened during the meeting held on Sunday, 2nd June, 1957. On that day the Liberal-Socialist Party held a rally behind the Oriental Theatre and there was quite a big crowd from the neighbouring area attending this meeting. About 9.15 p.m. on the same night, Sir, while it was going on and a few of our members were making speeches, a big group consisting of about 600 people marched along Banda Street (that is the street behind where we held our rally) and their behaviour reminded me of the mob action during the Hock Lee Bus riots.

Order. Before the hon. Member continues, would he please relate those remarks to the motion? If he can convince me that those remarks are relevant to the motion, then he can carry on but, at the moment, I cannot see any relevance whatsoever.

Sir, what I am saying is in connection with paragraph 54 of the Report.

Order. I understand that but I would like some connection with the motion.

I am referring to that because the Member for Tanjong Pagar moved the motion reading: "That this House notes with regret that the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections had made its report . . , and that this House urges the Government to take action against the persons whom the report says the Police have reliable evidence of their having solicited and paid for the assistance of gangsters in their elections." Sir, what I am referring to is that the crowd was led apparently, if I am not mistaken, by gangsters. That big group came to disturb our rally and was, in fact, led by gangsters. I have information that this group was led by the Sio Eng Hiong secret society. Why did the Member for Tanjong Pagar not make reference to this? Why I say that, Sir, is because I am most concerned. The Member for Tanjong Pagar said, in relation to page 15, paragraph 31 of the Report, that I settled the dispute between the secret societies. The Superintendent of the Secret Societies Branch in the C.I.D. told me that the Member for Tanjong Pagar said that he represented the Ho clan who belong to the 108 Group, as distinct from the Teo clan who belong to the 24 Group.

Where do you come in?

I challenge him to deny that he did not make such a statement in front of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. I was surprised, Sir, that the Member for Tanjong Pagar did not say anything in the office of the Superintendent to deny that. I want to say that, because the reason why I stepped into this dispute was that the Ho and the Teo clans in Duxton Road told me that they had no faith in the hon. Member and that they did not like him to come and interfere in their dispute which involved them in that area. Eventually, the Member for Tanjong Pagar approached me because he understood that both of these clans respected me.

Hear, hear!

Whether he shouts, "Hear, hear!" or does not shout, "Hear, hear!", the dispute was settled without a fight! They did not belong to secret societies, as was alleged by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, and I was really surprised why he did not deny that fact in front of the Superintendent of Police. Sir, there is one point I want to make clear. When the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry asked me - I am referring to page 17, paragraph 33 - whether I knew a certain man by the name of Teck Hock, alias Teck Ho, I told him that I did not know him unless I saw him in person. I made a request that this person should be brought to me in person to identify whether I knew him as Teck Hock or Teck Ho, but he never did so, Sir. He went on to say that Teck Hock, alias Teck Ho, was formerly the headman of the Hai Lok San secret society and I told him that I had no idea about this. I told him, "How do I know if he is a member of that secret society when he does not have any secret society wording written on his forehead?" I told him, if he were to say that Teck Hock or Teck Ho was a member of a secret society, - these are the words which appear at the footnote on page 13: "We were particularly shocked when Mr William Tan, a Member of the Legislative Assembly, told us: "I know many people connected with secret societies among my friends." I regret, Sir, that this remark or sentence has appeared in all the newspapers and in the Malayan Monthly, and I am now so popularly labelled as a friend of the secret societies. The Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry said he was shocked. I was more shocked! Sir, actually when he confronted me with the name of Teck Ho as a member of the Hai Lok San secret society, I was taken aback because it was not written on his forehead that he was a member of a secret society. I told him that, if he were to think like that, then among my friends there must be members of secret societies. Sir, I support the Hon. the Chief Minister when he said in his speech that this is the type of motion which the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar - he is the Secretary-General of the People's Action Party - likes to move, because he likes to play to the gallery. The hon. Member knows that this motion may be 85 per cent or 90 per cent true. Because he regretted that he had ever asked for a court of inquiry to be set up, he has today, in order to clear himself, moved a motion as follows: That this House notes with regret that the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections had made its report (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 7 of 1958) without giving to some of the persons, against whom allegations were made in secret, the opportunity to know of such evidence and to cross-examine such witnesses and to confront them with contrary evidence; and that this House urges the Government to take action against the persons whom the report says the Police have reliable evidence of their having solicited and paid for the assistance of gangsters in their elections. I am very happy to note, Sir, that the Hon. the Chief Minister has rejected this motion. Even though the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry said that he was shocked at the fact that among my friends there were many people connected with secret societies, I still that this report, though it is not a hundred per cent true, is 95 per cent or 99 per cent true. 4.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very glad to have had the advantage of hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru. I had a little difficulty in linking some of it to the motion, but it is quite clear that he is a very know ledgeable man, and I wish that I could have him at my side in other places and in other circumstances. With his assistance, I think it might be possible to achieve what the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has described as quite impossible, and that is the bringing properly to justice of a number of people who have in the past indulged in malpractices in elections. I believe the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar went a little outside that paragraph in the Report which mentions the 1955 elections and referred to one specific case of an admission. It is all very well, Mr Speaker, for people to come here and refer to admissions of this kind and yet stay away from the places where such information could really be made great use of. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar knows as well as I do - and he has known for a long time - as my friend the Hon. the Chief Minister has told us, just what the difficulties are. He knows those difficulties. He knew them before this Commission was set up, and it is because of those difficulties that the evidence to which he seems to refer in the second part of his motion is not anything better than second-hand, or in many cases third-hand. If the police had any relevant admissible evidence, I should have been able to take action against perhaps a number of people; but if Members will read what the Commission has said, they will see that nowhere is there anything better than evidence resulting from information which, according to the police or to police sources, is described as reliable. Now that is not good enough. On that it would be very wrong to seek to institute a prosecution - unless it were a prosecution of someone for failing to come forward and give evidence that is within his knowledge. That has been considered, but unfortunately we have not even got enough for that, and we have not got it for the reasons which are so well known to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. There may be people - and having read this report I firmly believe there are people - who have committed offences in connection with elections, and if I could lay my hands on proper evidence, I should prosecute - but I cannot. And if I could lay my hands on evidence against people whom I could prove have got evidence and have refused to give it to me, I should prosecute - but I have not got it. I have not got it because of the need to give these pledges of secrecy. It is no use leaving things to other people. That does happen in all communities. People are apt to stand back and say they do not want to be involved; let other people get on with it. "Of course, we know it is all wrong. We know this goes on; we know that goes on and someone ought to put it right." Who is that someone? It is the Attorney-General or the Ministers. But how can the Attorney-General, the Ministers, or the police - anyone concerned - do anything about it unless people will stop saying, "It is all wrong. I do not approve it, but I am having nothing to do with it." If there is something that is wrong, come out and help. Perhaps with the help of the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru, any other hon. Member of this House, or any citizen or inhabitant of Singapore, something could be done if we all had the courage to come forward and say, "We need no secrecy." What we want is the truth. We have not got it. And so we have this Commission which was set up with this very careful provision for the taking of evidence in camera. Now, because we have that provision, we have complaints that certain people were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses before the Commission. Mr Speaker, to suggest that secrecy of this kind is necessary and to complain that one is not allowed to cross-examine witnesses is a contradiction that needs no stressing by me. It is a contradiction so obvious that I doubt whether any responsible Member of this House can possibly, seriously, support this motion. 4.13 p.m. Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose -

In reply, Mr Lee Kuan Yew?

In reply, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, first the statements of fact made by the Chief Minister. He said he cleared the terms of reference of this Commission with me. If he intended by that to mean that he cleared paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 at page 3 of Command Paper No. 7 of 1958, yes; but if he meant that he had cleared with me the procedure which is set out in the paragraphs following, that is, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, then the answer is no. The terms of reference in the report was a thing with which I, as the mover of the motion, was concerned. The procedure was not one with which I was concerned. The Chief Minister quoted me quite rightly that I intended that the Commission should have powers which need not have to be fettered by the rules of evidence, that evidence should be taken in camera if required, and that secondary evidence should be heard. But what I am asking the House to note is this: it is not a failure to observe the rules of evidence, but it is a failure to observe a fundamental rule of natural justice that both sides to a question must be heard; that in these cases - the ones which I have cited earlier - both sides were not heard. A police officer was heard. What he said was probably true, but it should have been given to the person against whom these things were said in order that he could either say yes or no, and further that he might be asked in camera whether or not he had taken into consideration this, that or the other. When a thing is heard in camera to the exclusion of the public, it does not mean that it is heard in camera to the exclusion of the interested party. In many delicate cases the court is cleared. But you cannot have a court where the interested parties have been cleared, and then proceed to hear evidence in camera in the absence of the person against whom allegations are made. The Commission said it called me up on 13th February, 1958. Yes, it did, and I was surprised because nothing specific was put to me. "Did gangsters paint the P.A.P. symbol in Trengganu Street?" I said, "No, not to my knowledge." "Well, we want to find out, that is all." Many of the findings were never put to me. In my opinion, although the Commission may have been right in not putting it to me because it was not an allegation against me, it should have been put to the man who was then - not at the time of the hearing of the Commission, but at the time of the by-election - a Committee member of a P.A.P. branch. It is stated in paragraph 35 at page 17 of the Command Paper: "According to information from Police sources described as reliable, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was supported by members of secret societies of 108 Group and members of 969 secret society of 24 Group of the Cantonese section of Chinatown, who canvassed for votes for him and put up his posters. One Police report was to the effect that Mr Ho Beh Swee was supplying food, refreshments and cigarettes to members of the Sio Eng Hiong secret society of 108 Group." Well, Mr Ho Beh Swee should have been called up and asked, "Did you supply?", even though it may have been irrelevant to me. As far as I was con cerned, it was res inter alios acta, but as far as Ho Beh Swee was concerned, this allegation had been made and published. He was never told of this, in fact, if it had been mentioned to me that this was said about Ho Beh Swee, I would have brought him along to be cross-examined on this; but he was never called. That is what I am asking the House, to note with regret, and I am glad to hear the Member for Tiong Bahru agrees with me that 95 per cent of this report may be correct. I said that at the outset, and in fact, I think Members of this House were taken off balance by the very calculated stand which he did take at the opening, namely, that whilst all this had been said and done, the substance was correct and the only regret was that the thing was not done in a way which made it beyond reproach. It is not rules of evidence, as the Attorney-General knows, but it is a fundamental principle of natural justice - andi alterem partem. He knows that; I do not have to teach him. But the Chief Minister may not know it. It is not laid down in the Evidence Ordinance of the Colony of Singapore, but it is a fundamental principle. Secondly, and this is a matter for even greater regret, these witnesses who sought secrecy in camera. Surely they were not afraid to meet the persons against whom they were saying these things. They were police officers, and probably amongst them was the Officer i/c of the Secret Societies Branch whom I had summoned for help in order to prevent breaches of the peace. If this officer was afraid to meet Mr Ho Beh Swee, or other members of the Tanjong Pagar Committee who were in charge of the elections, and against whom he might have said something, then there is some thing seriously wrong with the police force. I can expect individuals like To Tung Tak, or whoever it is who associated with the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Tiong Bahru, to be unhappy at saying something about Mr X.Y.Z. in the latter's presence. These were police officers, trained personnel of the law, and I do not understand why their evidence was not put to the persons concerned. I would like to say this at the outset. Many speakers, including, I may say with some regret, the Chief Minister, have implied that I have noted with regret, because I was involved and I am now trying to exculpate myself. No, Sir,If the report is read, nowhere is it said that Mr Lee Kuan Yew went to see the headman of so and so. There is no such allegation. It is alleged that some gangsters went there and helped, and I would have been as interested as anybody else, for I would have had the opportunity to go into the evidence. And this is police evidence. Surely the Attorney-General has to admit that if police officers need protection from the public and from an interested party - be it me or Mr Ho Beh Swee - then I say something is seriously wrong with the instruments of policy of the law. Sir, I still intend to proceed with the first limb of my motion, because I think I am fully justified in taking note of it; but in view of what the Attorney- General has said, I do not intend, with the leave of the House, to proceed with the second limb of my motion, namely, "and that this House urges the Government to take action against the persons whom the report says the Police have reliable evidence of their having solicited and paid for the assistance of gangsters in their elections." The Attorney-General has said that the police in fact have reliable police evidence, but not of the nature that could be produced in a criminal court, and I therefore beg leave to expunge from my motion the second limb as stated above. I think I need the consent of the House, under Standing Orders, not to proceed with the second limb and I shall be obliged if Members will indicate their consent. This is out of respect for a law officer who has informed me, according to the evidence. But as to the first limb of my motion, I see no reasons whatsoever why this error should have been committed, particularly in view of the nature of the witnesses. Further, I would like to say this: if the Chief Minister says he believes that this report is correct, then it is a matter for some considerable regret that he has not expelled Mr Keng Ban Ee from his Party. The report says: "According to information from two separate Police sources described as reliable, this candidate sought and obtained the assistance of one Jiman Bin Simen alias Panjang, the Headman of 329 secret society of 36 Group, and promised him that if he was successful in the election he would present him with a motorcar as a reward for his help. Jiman enlisted members of his own secret society, as well as members of secret societies of 24 Group operating in Jalan Besar area, to assist Mr Keng Ban Ee. Mr Keng Ban Ee himself admitted that Jiman had helped him in his election campaign, and had been in charge of one area ...". Why has he not been expelled? What is he still doing as a respected and honourable member of a not quite so respected and honourable Party - the Labour Front? As for Members on this side of the House - the Member for Cairnhill, the Member for Tiong Bahru, and the other candidate, Mr Chong Wee Ling - I can only quote the Secretary-General of the Liberal-Socialist Party the day when this report was published, "I hang my head in shame." And he had reasons to hang his head in shame.

The hon. Member has in effect suggested that this motion should be considered as two motions and that, with the leave of the House, he wishes to withdraw the second motion. I think that is perfectly in order, and therefore I am treating this motion as two motions. I will first take the second motion which is: "and that this House urges the Government to take action against the persons whom the report says the Police have reliable evidence of their having solicited and paid for the assistance of gangsters in their elections." The hon. Member has asked leave that that motion be withdrawn. Have I the assent of hon. Members that that motion be withdrawn? Hon. Members: Aye.

That motion is accordingly withdrawn. We are then left with the first motion and I will put it to the House.

Question, "That this House notes with regret that the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections had made its report (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 7 of 1958) without giving to some of the persons, against whom allegations were made in secret, the opportunity to know of such evidence and to cross-examine such witnesses and to confront them with contrary evidence." put, and negatived.

4.26 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion which stands in my name is a sequel to the motion which I moved in this House in April this year. On that occasion I had the unanimous support of all Members of this House urging the Singapore Harbour Board to accept and implement the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry which inquired into the dispute between the Singapore Harbour Board and the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association. With the Kallang by-election on, and the proposed United Socialist Front which is a new ganging - up of the old actors on the political stage, it would be sanguine of me to expect the same unanimity in getting this motion through this House. I have come here today prepared to meet the kind of niggling excuses from Members who had pledged, in April, to support me in such a motion if in fact by the next sitting of the House, the Singapore Harbour Board had not implemented the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry. I should be acquainted with the real core of the dispute before I go into the specific findings. And quite frankly I do not think the Chief Minister, as Minister for Labour and Welfare, will disagree if I said that the real core, the real reason why this thing has blossomed in this way with a threatened strike, is because the Singapore Harbour Board wants to break Mr Jamit Smgh, who is the Secretary-General of the Staff Association, and the Chief Minister is thoroughly dissatisfied with Mr Jamit Singh's conduct and is not in the least bit inclined to intervene or prevent the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association from beating the brains out of Mr Jamit Singh. That briefly and succinctly is the position. Now, Sir, I can view with equanimity the breaking of any individual trade union official provided it is fair and he asked for what he was going to get. But I will not view with equanimity a move calculated to destroy someone who happened to have displeased the Chief Minister, particularly if it involves at the same time the breaking up of a union; and that is what in effect the Singapore Harbour Board intends to do, and the Chief Minister intends to sit back and let them do it. Now, Sir, the strike has been called off because the Singapore Trade Union Congress had made an appeal that there should be no strike and that avenues should be explored for settling it. But let us be frank and honest. The real reason is that the Singapore Harbour Board says, `Well, all right, this is the time. Let's call in all the blacklegs and you, the Government, give us all the arms of the police, Singapore Harbour Board Reserve and so on, and we'll break them up. Let's see who wins.' The Union, quite wisely, took stock of the position and thought that the time for a fight was perhaps some other day on some other occasion. But that does not absolve - although the fight is avoided because the Union understood the inappropriateness of the time - it does not absolve the Ministry of Labour and Welfare nor the Minister himself from responsibility in seeing that this dispute is solved in a way which does credit to courts of inquiries, which does credit to peaceful methods of solving labour disputes. And the core of the dispute that remains outstanding is briefly this. Now there are 10 men, 9 to 10 men - my list shows 9, the Chief Minister says 10-men who have not been reinstated, none of them. The Chief Minister says that is because the Singapore Harbour Board cannot find the men. I have been plagued and pestered by these men every time I went to the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Asso ciation and I am astounded that the Singapore Harbour Board Chairman cannot find them because they have been told time and time again to present themselves - which they did - and never succeeded in getting employment and reinstated. And I have offered to, and I will give the names, addresses and present the list. I do not know if the Chief Minister would consider this is harassing tactics, but if he wishes, I will lead the nine people to his office, to prove to him that they are still there waiting for jobs. But if he feels that this is not gentlemanly, then I will just provide him with the names and addresses and hope that he will do something about it. But that is just the fringe of the dispute. The real dispute is: does the Union, the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association, represent the majority of workers in the Harbour Board to warrant recognition? And the reason why the Chairman of the Harbour Board has refused to meet the Union to talk it over is because it appears that if he meets the Union he has, ex hypothesi, acknowledged that the Union represented the daily-rated workers, which he does not acknowledge, therefore he will not meet the Union. Now, Sir, there is a recommendation here that there should be a joint negotiating machinery and that a ballot should be taken to see who or which is the union the majority of the members of the Singapore Harbour Board staff support. I asked the question last year of the Chief Minister and he said he was enquiring from the trade unions to find out their views because although he understood that this was the practice in America, he was not quite sure whether it was appropriate here. Well, Sir, since then at the Ford factory the employers have agreed with the employees that that would be a very convenient and suitable method and a ballot was taken. Secondly, the Trade Union Congress has issued a statement, not just on the initiative of the Secretary who might be said may be sympathetic to the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association, but after it had gone through the governing council of the Trade Union Congress, that the taking of a ballot is a fit and proper method of finding out whether or not a union represents the majority of members under a particular employer. And I would like very briefly and simply to have the answer of the Minister for Labour and Welfare. In view of these developments, does he intend to make further inquiries? I am quite sure the answer is yes. How long will he take? Will it go on until next year by which time a decision may never have been taken by him? Now, Sir, I said before that there is a lot of politics involved in all this and it came out very clearly to the forefront recently when the Singapore Harbour Board, almost in a state of desperation, said, `Ah, well, never mind if the Union goes on strike.' It has got a negotiating committee already with six other Unions which the Court of Inquiry had found did not represent any sizeable proportion, or any proportion at all, of the members of the Harbour Board. Now, in the appendix to the report, the Court set out the membership register of the Unions which the Singapore Harbour Board claims represent its employees. If I may just briefly run through it, on page 10 of the report: SHBLU (Singapore Harbour Board Labour Union) - number of members on the books, 491; Registrar of Trade Unions states 322 probably old members, 169 new members, another register shows 316 members, membership declining rapidly. SW&SLU (Ship Wharf and Ship Labour Union) - number of members, 325; subscriptions book inspected by Registrar of Trade Unions; in the light of subscription receipts, membership declining. CSCET (Confederation of the Singapore Chinese Engineering Tradesmen) - number of members, 292; Registrar of Trade Unions unable to say whether all working for Singapore Harbour Board. HBEU of S (Harbour Board Employees Union of Singapore) - number of members, 270; official notification of this figure not submitted to Registrar of Trade Unions. MSU (Malay Seamen's Union of Singapore) - number of members, 117; this figure said by the Secretary of the Union to represent employees of Singapore Harbour Board; Registrar of Trade Unions unable to say whether this statement correct. States however that only 16 members appeared to have paid subscription. The remainder paid no subscription during 1957, and many paid nothing at all for the last 2 or 3 years. SHBEWU (Singapore Harbour Board Engineering Workmen's Union) - number of members, 34; after September 1956 nobody paid subscriptions. SHBS & WWU (Singapore Harbour Board Stevedore and Wharf Workers' Union) - number of members, 307; only 62 applications for membership duly completed. Registrar of Trade Unions said that he was told by officials of the union that 245 who had defaulted had recommenced to pay subscription in June - just before the inquiry started. And the sum total of all that book membership does not clear 1,200 members out of a total labour force of over 8,000 members. Now, Sir, how long can one pretend that these Unions exist when they do not, that members are there when they are not? The question of principle which the Minister for Labour and Welfare must decide is this: is he prepared to allow the employer to take advantage of the organs of Government to break a union, when in fact the Court of Inquiry has recommended that a ballot should be taken to see whether or not the Union has the support of the majority of members of the Harbour Board? Is the Minister for Labour and Welfare prepared to stand back and tell the Board, 'Yes, that's right. You carry on with this negotiating machinery with six unions that really do not exist, and refuse to negotiate with the one union that does exist'? There is no possibility for the Minister for Labour and Welfare escaping responsibility by his saying, `Ah, well, this is a matter between the employer and the Union', because in this parti cular case the Court of Inquiry had been appointed by both sides. And I would like to remind him that I saw him before the Court was appointed; there was delay in its appointment and he told me that the delay was because he had been unable to persuade the Singapore Harbour Board to accept the recommendations in advance, because he saw no point in appointing a court unless both sides agreed to accept its recommendations in advance. Subsequently it did and then he appointed the Court. He cannot absolve himself from the moral responsibility of seeing that the Court which he appointed after both sides had promised to accept its recommendations does in fact have its recommendations accepted by both parties to the dispute. Sir, I beg to move, That this House condemns the unreasonable and obstructive attitude of the Singapore Harbour Board in not complying with the recommendations contained in the Report of the Court of Inquiry (Sessional Paper No. S 7 of 1957) as was unanimously urged in this House on the 24th day of April, 1958, and calls upon the Government to take steps to compel the Singapore Harbour Board to comply with the recommendations in that Report. 4.40 p.m.

Sir, I second the motion. Question proposed. 4.41 p.m. The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Dr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, the dispute between the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association and the Singapore Harbour Board has been the subject of many speeches in this House; even as far back as December last year, the hon. Member for Queenstown painted a very sorry picture of the workers belonging to this particular staff association going on a hunger strike on the advice of its General Secretary. I have listened to the points brought forth by the hon, mover of the motion and it would appear from his speech that there are only two main points to be settled, and that because of the fact that these two main points have not been settled, he felt it incumbent upon him to move the motion standing in his name. Now what is the first point? He said that nine persons had not yet been reemployed. He said in this House that these nine persons had presented themselves to the Harbour Board and had not been taken back. I understand from the Harbour Board that these nine persons have not presented themselves and that they were not able to trace them although registered letters have been addressed to them. Representatives of the Harbour Board Staff Association came to see me about a week ago on this point, too. I pointed out to them that the Harbour Board could not reemploy people who could not be found, and if they were really in evidence, they should present themselves. They suggested to me about a week ago that they would bring the nine men to my office on my undertaking to take these nine men back to the Harbour Board. It is not a harassing tactic at all. In fact I welcome it. I suggested to the representatives who saw me that if they felt it infra dig, for them to bring the nine men to see the Chairman of the Harbour Board, they could bring them to me and I would bring them to the Harbour Board and see that they get re-employed. Well, that much for the first point, that nine men will be re-employed if they will present themselves, and if the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar will bring them to my office, it will indeed be my duty and my pleasure to see that they are re-employed by the Harbour Board. Coming down to the second point which is of greater importance - the taking of a ballot to ascertain whether or not a union represents the majority of employees in a particular organisation - the hon. Member quoted the Ford Company and said that there balloting had been accepted. The two cases are not the same. In the case of the Ford Company, what was required was to satisfy the employer that the majority of the workers belonged to the union or desired to be represented by the union. In the case of the Harbour Board, there are seven different unions, although it must be admitted that the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association was the first union to be registered. It was the first union to be registered but its membership was only thrown open to clerical and cognate workers, never, never to daily-rated employees until the present General Secretary came on the scene. How did he bring it about? He did so by a change in the constitution of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association to embrace daily-rated employees. He started with the registration of a new union called the Singapore Harbour Board Workers Union for daily-rated employees. He operated from the premises of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association. I do not like to go into the manipulations that have been taking place in the Singapore Harbour Board Workers Union and into what has happened to that particular union, but what is more important to the issue is that under our present Trade Union Ordinance only seven persons are required to sign an application form, to organise a trade union. To agree that a ballot should be taken of employees in any organisation when there are already registered trade unions representing certain sections of employees in that organisation is to allow a particular union to work in such a way as to (I would not like to say intimidate because it is so difficult to prove) capture all the employees in the organisation. This is definitely wrong and I, as Minister for Labour and Welfare and as a man connected with the trade union movement for so many years, have come to the conclusion, quite reluctantly, that the taking of such a ballot in the Singapore Harbour Board is not in the best interests of the workers. Can we blame the Singapore Harbour Board on this point, blame them for something for which the Minister - I myself - have taken the full responsibility? The only thing that can be levelled at the Harbour Board today is the re-employment of the nine persons, but the Harbour Board has said time and time again that these nine men will be re-employed if they can be found, if they will just present themselves. Let us not cloud the issue by saying that the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has a list of the nine names. When the two representatives of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association came to see me they said that they would produce the nine men and I am still waiting for them to do so. Produce the nine men and the first point to the motion would have been answered. Now, I do not like to criticise the activities of any trade union leader. I do not like it. But when it becomes abundantly clear to me that the activities of any trade union leader is not directed in the interests of a trade union but directed in his personal interests, I must resist any attempt at intimidation to force me to toe the line. The General Secretary of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association saw me and said that if I would just call a meeting of the Singapore Harbour Board and the Staff Association he would withdraw the strike notice. In other words, he put the onus on me that if I do not call a meet ing, the strike would take place and I should be held responsible. That is not the way to conduct a trade union. If it is genuinely felt that a trade dispute requires strike action, go ahead, but do not do it in such a way as to hoodwink the workers. He has been running back and forth. Every time he goes back to the Staff Association, he says, `Ha! ha! I have got this okay. Boleh, la, boleh menang; tungu sekijap, boleh menang.' It is not necessary to bluff the workers like that. It is not necessary. Again it is most significant that the strike notice expires this morning and I would ask hon. Members to take note of that. Not content with trying to intimidate the Minister for Labour and Welfare, there is this attempt to intimidate this House into accepting a motion which is definitely most unfair and unfounded. 4.53 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I moved an amendment to the motion at the April sitting urging the Singapore Harbour Board to carry out the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry. I was most elated by the result of the resolution. I believe that workers must work in order to get their pay. Workers must stand together, unite, in order that they may better their lot. But I also believe that when they stand together to bargain for what would be more favourable conditions, there are also people who will come in to make use of them in order to further their own political aims. I am against this sort of manoeuvring. We are for the workers. We want them to have a higher standard of living. We want them to be treated fairly but we do not want them to be tools of people who promote their own interests. We have heard the case of the Singapore Harbour Board presented to us many times. We have heard that on the orders of the Secretary, the paid Secretary, Harbour Board workers went on strike. They received no pay but I would like to know whether the paid Secretary received his pay. They had on his orders went on a hunger strike. I would like to know whether the man who ordered them on hunger strike also refrained from taking food, or that he must grow stronger at the expense of the followers who were sacrificed. Today we have before us a complaint that there are workers who have not been given jobs even after the Court of Inquiry had recommended that they should be re-employed. There are two sides of the question. One side says they are there. They have presented themselves but there are no jobs. On the other hand, we have heard the Chief Minister say that he would take them to the Harbour Board if they would come to see him and they would have their jobs back. If this is the case, then there is no complaint whatsoever. The complaint should be withdrawn. In fact I was also interviewed one day by the officials concerned about the loss of jobs, but after inquiring from sources I did find that the claims had not been as true as they should be. And under such circumstances, bringing of a motion and putting up a complaint like this when there is assurance from the Minister for Labour and Welfare that they will be given back their jobs is wasting the time of this Assembly. I personally think that this dispute is not one between the labourers and the Singapore Harbour Board; it arose from the General Secretary wanting a pass to get in and out of the Harbour Board; and when he could not get the pass, it means everything in this world to him - there is a loss of prestige and the workers must suffer until such time when he has restored himself in the eyes of his workers as the all-powerful man in the Singapore Harbour Board. The next point I heard, and from a very unbiased stand, is that the Singapore Harbour Board should recognise this union or that union; or one union must be allowed to represent the workers to the exclusion of the other unions. Well, if we are going to do that, then let us have a change in the trade union laws and say that if there are two unions existing, then we must cancel one. But so long as the law agrees to allow people to form trade unions, then every one of the trade unions should have standing in the eyes of the law and the authorities. However, I am not going to talk about recognition of these unions at length. The most important matter is not the recognition of unions, but that every worker should have a job! If there are not enough jobs to go round, then no matter whether you have one union or many unions, it will bring us no nearer to what we want. It will not help the workers a little bit! We must have unions that really fight for the workers. But, if unions are there to see that the workers are not going to get what they want, but what the leaders want, then I am sure Singapore will be happier if we do not have such people who call themselves leaders of unions. These are the bogus leaders! 5 p.m. Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose-

In reply?

In reply, Sir, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry to say that I waited in vain to hear some coherent argument why the recommendation of this Court of Inquiry should be flouted, but at least I have the satisfaction of pinning the Hon. the Chief Minister down to a flat refusal to implement the finding that there should be a ballot. Sir, let me, before I go into the argument, just read to the Hon. the Chief Minister and his new-found colleague (the Member for Serangoon) on the issue of recognition. I am reading now from page 7 of Sessional Paper No. S 7 of 1957: "THE ISSUE OF RECOGNITION (iii) It is because of the disorder in ad ministration that it was difficult for us to arrive at a clear-cut finding on the issue related to the second term of reference. (a) It was quite clear that the seven unions. namely, the Singapore Harbour Board Labour Union, the Singapore Wharf and Ship Labour Union, the Singapore Harbour Board Stevedore and Wharf Workers' Union, the Confederation of the Singapore Chinese Engineering Tradesmen, the Singapore Harbour Board Engineering Workmen's Union, the Malay Seamen's Union of Singapore and the Harbour Board Employees Union of Singapore, were not representative of all daily-rated employees of the SHB, nor in fact do they represent a majority or even a sizeable proportion of such group of workers." Sir, I repeat the last words of that sentence - "not representative of all daily-rated employees of the SHB, nor in fact do they represent a majority, or even a sizeable proportion, of such group of workers." I had read earlier to this House the finding of the book membership of the various unions involved and what I hope to hear from the Minister for Labour and his supporter (the Member for Serangoon) is why is that finding wrong, and why should that finding be rejected, and as a corollary to that finding why should this recommendation be rejected. The recommendation reads as follows: "... We would suggest that such evidence be collected in the form of a secret ballot by members whose names appear on the membership cards of the SHBWU [Singapore Harbour Board Workers' Union] and the SHBSA [Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association]. The question to be asked should be whether or not each one of these men supports the SHBSA. The ballot could be easily arranged by the Ministry of Labour in co-operation with the Registrar of Trade Unions and the Supervisor of Elections." That very clearly and simply sets out the recommendations which the Hon. the Chief Minister said that the Singapore Harbour Board had agreed beforehand to accept, and which the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong), in a debate on 24th April, 1958, said that he would urge the Harbour Board to accept and implement and that if it did not do so by the next sitting, he would support me in a stronger motion to compel the Harbour Board to do so. Now, Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister has given reasons - I do not know whether it is 1� or 2� reasons - why the ballot should not be implemented. First of all, he said the Ford Company was slightly different because the ballot was taken as there was no other union involved and therefore it was taken just to find out whether more than half the members were in the union. I should have thought that if there were more unions involved, a fortiori it would be very necessary to have a ballot to find out which of the unions have more than half the membership but it seems that this is the reason why it should not be allowed. But the real reason - the first one is just a half reason, the second one is the real reason and I give him one point for that - he has decided in his words that it is now (after dilly-dallying for a year and more) not in the best interests of the workers. I thought that was what the Court of Inquiry was supposed to do - to find out what was the best thing to do in the interests of both the workers and the employers and this is what it suggested. The Hon. the Chief Minister for no rhyme or reason now tells the House - but for no obvious rhyme or reason although there are some not so very obvious ones, that I can have a good guess at - that it is not necessary to go on with this, and that it is not in the best interest, because there are six other unions already there, and that he is not going to allow any trade union official to capture the membership or the potential staff. In his own words, he would not allow any trade union official to capture the workers for his union. Now, Sir, I thought that is the purpose of a union. When a union is formed, the first thing it wants to do is to expand membership. When a political party is formed, it is formed for the purpose of collecting members. If, of course, it fails in collecting members, then a new one has to be formed for the same original purpose. He now says that that is a reprehensible object to achieve, and particularly as it is likely that the object has already been achieved, he will not allow a ballot to be taken. Let us face the facts. If on taking a ballot the Staff Association is not expected to get half the ballot and these six piddling unions were expected to get the members to support them, then I suggest to the Minister that his stand would definitely be that it is in the interests of the workers to have a ballot and he would have arranged for it long ago. It is because he expects a ballot to expose the emptiness of the six unions, with whom I am told some Labour Front types are associated, that the ballot will not be taken. I expected the Minister for Labour to take this line eventually and I am sorry that he was forced to take it in this debate. But I am even sorrier to note the Member for Serangoon who is a great preacher of moral re-armament principles reminding me -

Correction.

- "Never mind who is right. What is right is the issue," and in a matter such as this, he has failed to see what is right. Mr Lim Choon Mong rose -

Is it on a point of order?

No, Sir. It is a point of clarification.

No, I do not really want him to try to denounce the moral re-armament movement just because I have let it out that he is in favour of it. If he wishes to denounce it at some subsequent date, I think he could choose a more appropriate occasion. But he did tell us in a debate on 24th April that he would not want to take sides and that he wanted to see what was just and fair. In Hansard, Volume 3 No. 4, column 351-

Column 315?

Bottom of column 314 and top of column 315, or should I begin perhaps for the benefit of hon. Members whose memories may have dimmed on this subject - column 314, last paragraph: "However, with many politicians who are interested parties coming on the scene, such may not be the case all the time, and we may have to face a large number of strikes and labour unrest in future. This must be avoided. One way of avoiding such a case would be to appoint a court of inquiry to find out things. And I would say that in many cases the best way to settle a dispute would be not to leave it to the employer and the employee, both thinking that they are right, but to leave it to independent people, independent and impartial people who have no axes to grind. And I think Courts of inquiry should be established: arbitration courts should be established. And I believe that one day we must have compulsory arbitration with a panel of people agreed to by employers and employees alike, and they will sit to arbitrate. And I would say that whatever their decision should be, both sides should agree to their decision. This is a case where the matter has been brought up to a court. The court has set out its findings, the court has made its recommendations. It consists of people trusted by all sides and I think that it would be wrong for any party not to accept the recommendations of such a Court. "... We would like to urge the Harbour Board to accept those recommendations."- This is the middle of the last paragraph of his speech: "It will create a good precedent for other employers and employees to follow if we have courts of arbitration or enquiry appointed at a later date." And so he moves his amendment. We forgive many of his failings because he is so obviously a sincere, if often a misled man. We know that he is genuine about youth clubs, he does worry about them. He may not know much about other things in life but nevertheless he tries very hard to do the right things. As he was, at one time, so very anxious to impress upon me - "Never mind who is right. What is right," says he, and I am quoting it back as a moral re-armament principle which he has quoted. Never mind whether the Chief Minister is right or the General Secretary of the Singapore Harbour Board is right! What is right is already what he stated the last time, that the recommendations of the Court should be accepted and implemented. If this is the price he has to pay to join the United Socialists Front - he has his basic relief in moral re-armament - then I say that he is really embarking on a most hazardous adventure that he may yet live to regret. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put. The House divided: Ayes, 2; Noes, 24; Abstention, Nil. Ayes. Noes. Goh Chew Chua. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Lee Kuan Yew. Jumat. Braga, A. J. Chew Swee Kee. David, E. B. Abstention. Ede, John. Nil. Goh Tong Liang. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lee Choon Eng. Absent. Lim Choon Mong. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Lim, R. C. H. Jumabhoy, R. Lim Yew Hock. Lazarous, A. R. Mak Pak Shee. Lim Cher Kheng. Mason, J. M. Lim Ching Siong. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Lim Koon Teck. Abdul Hamid. Nair. M. P. D. Seah Peng Chuan. Shanks, E. P. Soh Ghee Soon. Tan Siak Kew. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam. Motion accordingly negatived.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The objects and reasons for this private Bill are incorporated in the Bill itself and are set out in the recitals. Briefly they are as follows. In January, 1949, there was set up a Synod in the Diocese of Singapore as the local body, which is the proper body to manage the land and premises to which it is entitled. Until now, under the Bishop of Singapore Ordinance of 1911, the Anglican Bishop of Singapore has been the body corporate vested with the power to manage the buildings belonging to the Diocese. This is not really the function of the Bishop but the function of the Synod of the Diocese which, as I have already stated, is a local body properly responsible for conveyancing, collection of rents, payments of quit rents on properties and the general carrying out of these duties. In clause 5 of this Bill, it is expressly stated that the Bishop of Singapore shall be divested of the lands hereditaments and premises specified in the Schedule and all rights estates and interests therein and these shall be vested in the Corporation, that is to say, the Secretary of the Synod of the Diocese of Singapore. Sir, this is a straightforward Bill and I think there is no need to add anything more. 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 John Ede].

5.19 p.m.

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

Sir, I second it. Question proposed.

5.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer to my question tabled at this sitting for a written answer this morning and I have since received the answer from the Minister. My question reads: "To ask the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing to state the number of properties allocated by the Singapore Improvement Trust during the period 1st January to 30th June, 1958, excluding those allocated to fire victims and persons served with demolition orders and shop houses, showing the names and the number of points awarded in respect of each of the successful applicants together with the house numbers (addresses) of the premises allocated to each of the applicants." And this is the answer I received this morning: "I am informed by the Trust that 1,144 dwelling units and 66 business premises were allocated during the period 1st January, 1958, to 30th June, 1958. Of these, 543 units were allocated to applicants from the housing register, while the balance of 671 units were allocations to rehousing eases (including fire victims), families from clearance areas, transferees, etc. With regard to the request for names and points awarded, I would refer the Member for Queenstown to my written answer to his previous question on the same subject on the 17th July, 1957; also to my oral answer to his question on public inspection of the applications register. I have nothing to add to these answers." Sir, the answer refers to a similar question of mine dated 17th July, 1957 and this is the answer I got from the Minister at that time: "I am informed by the Singapore Improvement Trust that the Trust has let no new premises during the period January/June, 1957, and that any lettings during this period have been to fill casual vacancies or in connection with transfers only. The Trust considers it highly undesirable to divulge information as to the names of applicants who have been successful in obtaining accommodation in vacated premises or the names of tenants who have been transferred to other premises." Sir, the reply now means that it is the same as what I got last year - "highly undesirable". Why should it be "highly undesirable"? Why should the public not know about the allocation of houses by the S.I.T. and the points awarded to applicants? The question is this, Sir: the S.I.T. works in secret. If the Minister is to say that it is highly undesirable for applicants' names to be divulged to the public, I may agree but after allocation when everybody knows that Mr So and so has got a house, then why should it be undesirable to divulge the name of that successful applicant? I cannot see why? Why should it be made a secret? In market or in some other allocations, I am quite sure that immediately after an allocation is made, the names of the successful applicants are made public but in this case where the S.I.T. is `concerned, everything is kept very secret. Personally I am of the opinion that there must be some fishy business about this question of allocation. The Member for Pasir Panjang (Mr Wong Foo Nam) at one time accused the S.I.T. of corruption. I think in this instance there is some sort of corruption or preference is given to friends in the matter of allocation. If not, why then should this question be treated as top secret? The answer is that there must be some sort of underhand work being carried on by some officers of the S.I.T.: I would not say that everyone of them is involved in this but some officers - be they junior or senior officers. I do not see any harm in making known the names of the successful applicants and the number of points that they are awarded. There is quite a lot of dissatisfaction amongst the applicants on this question of the points system of allocation and also the fact that some of them with stronger cases have not been given accommodation whereas others with weaker cases or cases of a similar nature have been successful. These are the complaints. But according to the Annual Report of the S.I.T., there is no complaint by the public about the points system. I refer to page 19 of the Annual Report for 1957 of the S.I.T.: "The volume of correspondence in connection with housing applications has reached a total of approximately 100 letters per day. When analysed the majority of these letters complain of the shortage of premises available for allocation, not the points system by which the premises are allocated." Now, Sir, if the question of allocation is made public, I am sure that the S.I.T. will not receive 100 letters per day. The second part of that statement says that there are no complaints about the points system. It is just utter nonsense. How can the public complain about the points system when they are not told about the actual points awarded? How can they know about the points system and how can they complain about it when they do not know about it? It is not a question of shortage of premises as the S.I.T. has been building thousands of houses but it is a question of houses not being allotted. The S.I.T. awards a number of points to an applicant. As soon as he applies for a house, he is given a receipt and on that receipt is quoted the supposed number of points awarded to him but is that figure which is awarded on the receipt itself correct? The correct points awarded to applicants are kept secret and not known to the applicants or to anybody. That figure on the receipt is just a vague figure. I will read what the Annual Report says about this points system. I refer to page 20 of the Report: 'The applicant is informed of the points awarded at the time of registration and of the general factors which are taken into account in the assessment of points. The fixed or "confirmed value" points are assessed after the investigation of the case and are not disclosed.' Sir, after the investigation of a case, the confirmed or fixed points are not disclosed to the applicant. Now, in a statement, the S.I.T. says that there is no complaint about the points system. If the actual or confirmed or fixed points awarded to an applicant are not disclosed to him, how can he know how many points he has been awarded? The figure on the receipt serves no useful purpose in any way either to the applicant or to anybody. Why then have the figure on the receipt? In the old days, there was no figure of points awarded shown on the receipts. Lately, the S.I.T. has adopted a new policy by stating the number of points awarded on the receipts but that that figure is not the "confirmed" or fixed value points. Everything is kept top secret in the files of the S.I.T. and only known to members of the Estate Committee of the S.I.T. Even a trustee of the S.I.T. does not know the number of points awarded. Why should it be worked on such lines, that it is only the members of the Estate Committee of the S.I.T. who are told of the actual number of points awarded to applicants? Sir, if the allocation of houses by the S.I.T. is strictly based on the points system, then let the public know the points awarded and they should not be kept in suspense as to when they can expect to get houses. If the correct points are made known to the applicant, he knows his chances and he will not go round bothering Assemblymen and City Councillors. I have experienced many cases of people who come to me to ask me, "When can I get a house?" A receipt may show eight points but when I write to the S.I.T. they tell me that the eight points are not the actual or confirmed points awarded to the applicant: "We have within our files the confirmed or fixed points. That figure means nothing at all." So why show that figure on the receipt? By keeping this points system a secret, you cannot blame the public for harbouring a suspicion of corruption? How can you blame them? There are many cases in which I have experienced that an applicant with a lower point is given priority over an applicant with a higher point. There are many cases of such a nature, but the point that I am referring to is the face value of the receipt and not the confirmed points. So that causes dissatisfaction among the applicants. One applicant will say that another applicant has lesser points than he has; then why should he be allotted accommodation in preference to his application? This kind of thing will certainly cause suspicion and lead people to think that there is monkey business in the S.I.T. I will draw the attention of the Minister to how applications for accommodation are dealt with by the S.I.T. An applicant approached me about one and a half years ago. He had about 7 to 8 points on the face value of his receipt. I wrote to the S.I.T. about his case. The reply which I got from them was that the applicant must wait until the completion of the Kallang fiats. He waited until early this year. Subsequently I wrote again to the S.I.T. telling them that the Kallang flats were nearing completion. They wrote back saying that there was no allocation yet. The applicant then came and told me that there was a house in Dorset Road which was vacant and he asked me to write again to the S.I.T. and draw their attention to this vacant house. So I wrote to them and mentioned that the applicant would prefer house to him, in view of the fact that he had 8 points? The S.I.T. replied saying that his application could not be considered for Dorset Road or Owen Road and that it could only be con sidered for the Kallang flats. When the applicant came to see me again, I told him that I could not help him any further. So he approached another source which I think the Minister knows very well.

I do not.

As I was saying, he approached another source and, as a result, to the surprise of the Minister, he is now staying in that very same house in Dorset Road about which I wrote to the S.I.T.! And yet they said this person's application could only be considered for the Kallang fiats! But when he approached that other source, he got his house in Dorset Road! How did he manage it? I hope the Minister will tell me that. Sir, the Government claims that it is a democratic Government and that it is going to have a Housing Authority very soon. How soon we do not know. We have been told by the Minister again and again that very soon a Housing Authority will replace the S.I.T. I was told that it would come in May. This is now July - two months- a nd there is still no sign of the tabling of a Bill to the effect that a Housing Authority will replace the S.I.T. I hope that the Minister in his reply will also inform us when this Housing Authority will come into being to replace this top-secret and iron curtain S.I.T. If the S.I.T. work strictly to the points system, I am quite sure that they will be relieved of all complaints, irrespective of the shortage of accommodation. Members of the Assembly and City Councillors will similarly be relieved of these complaints, which come into their hands every day, about allocation of Trust accommodation. In fact, I would have tabled a motion deploring the policy of the S.I.T. on this issue, but because of the assurance given by the Minister that the Housing Authority will come into being soon to replace the S.I.T., I have only tabled a motion for the Adjournment. I do hope that when this Housing Authority is created there will not be any such policy as that no one should know how accommodation is allocated and how points are awarded. All these things should be made public. My second point is about the complaints from the residents of Trust houses on Jalan Teck Whye Estate. I refer to the reply given to me by the Minister this morning on this point. I am very glad that of the four complaints enumerated he is going to look into complaints Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but not No. 1 which concerns excessive heat. If the Minister can look into three out of four complaints, why cannot he look into all four? You have said you can only look into three.

I do not think the Speaker has.

I am so sorry, Sir; I was referring to the Minister and not to you. From the reply given by the Minister, Sir, it is evident that he agrees that the houses on Jalan Teck Whye Estate are really hot and that the heat is intolerable, because if he did not agree, he would not have said that, by putting asbestos ceilings on these houses, the temperature would be lowered by only two degrees. So he has committed himself by agreeing that they are hot. Therefore, the blame should fall on the S.I.T., or the planners in the S.I.T. That the houses are hot is not because of the cost or the rents of the houses, but it is because of the planning. These complaints from S.I.T. residents about excessive heat are not the first of their kind. I was a resident of one post-war house myself and I too complained of excessive heat. Within my constituency, that is Queenstown, the residents of Redhill Estate also complain of excessive heat in their houses. Now, after receiving all these complaints of excessive heat, cannot the S.I.T. im prove on the conditions of living? It is not a question of the extra cost of raising the roof. The Minister said this morning that raising the roof would cost much more than putting on an asbestos ceiling. If at the time of construction of the houses the S.I.T. had taken into consideration complaints of excessive heat from other quarters, they could easily have improved on the construction of the houses and raised the roof for purposes of better ventilation and reduction of heat. Why did not the S.I.T. do this at the time of construction? The result is that, by providing cheap houses, the S.I.T. are forcing their tenants to suffer from the heat. I think it is the policy of the S.I.T. that if you want to live in comfort, thea you must go and five in a big bungalow; but if you want them to provide cheap houses, then you must live under conditions which they provide, that is, with a ceiling as low as eight feet. I went into one of these houses the other day, and at the back of the building, the height of the roof is only about 7 feet 6 inches. I ask the Minister if he can bear to live in a house with a roof only 7 feet 6 inches high, with a ceiling made of zinc or asbestos. The Minister is pointing to himself. I am sure he will come out with a statement that although he is a Minister he is staying in a little out-house from a bungalow. Mr Speaker, Sir, if a man can have a little out-house with a bungalow, I am quite sure that that out-house will be just as comfortable as the bungalow itself. It is not the same type of house as that built by the S.I.T., and if the owner of that bungalow cannot build a decent out-house, I doubt he would ever build that out-house. The Minister will say that he is residing in a little out-house, so he has experience of the discomforts of living in a little out-house. I challenge the Minister and any officers of the S.I.T. to come and stay in one of the houses built by the S.I.T., not for a day, but just from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.; and if they can bear the heat, then I say that the residents should be prepared to do so also. If they feel that they cannot, then it is their responsibility to look into this question of excessive heat. Sir, these complaints came to the notice of the Acting Minister and the Assistant Minister on 17th May this year. They both took the trouble to arrange for a meeting with the residents of these houses and toured the area with officers of the S.I.T. They left their office work - for which they are paid - and went to that estate to see how the residents suffered. Until today no information has been given to the residents. What action have they taken? It is only when I tabled a question that I got a reply and knew what the Minister intends to do. It is because of that big protest meeting that has prompted the Minister to take action. Had it not been for that big protest meeting, and had it not been for my question, I doubt whether the residents would have been told what action the Minister intends to take or has taken. Sir, is it right to keep them in suspense? At the protest meeting the residents went so far as to move a motion to boycott the District Council elections. It was only through my persuasion that the motion to boycott the elections was dropped. So I hope that whenever the Minister or anybody on the Government side receives any complaints, he should tell the complainants of what action he has taken or intends to take. 5.42 p.m.

When I read the matter which was to be raised as a motion for the Adjournment, I thought the Member for Queenstown was going to talk on the Government's housing policy in relation to the Singapore Improvement Trust. Unfortunately, Sir, in his long diatribe I could not find anywhere in his speech where he has related in any way at all the question of Govern ment's housing policy to the S.I.T. He spent much of his time in criticising the S.I.T. in relation to the administration of the Trust itself. I should like to make the position clear to the Member for Oueenstown. The Trust, Sir, is a statutory body and its authority and functions and the extent to which it is subject to the control of Government are prescribed in the Ordinance creating that body.

That is no reply.

This is one of the reasons why Government intends to create a Housing Authority vested with full powers to carry out Government's housing policy, and since the Member for Oueenstown has asked me about this Housing Authority, I can say definitely now, Sir, that Bills on the Housing Authority and the Planning Department of the S.I.T. will be ready for First Reading at the next sitting of this As sembly. However, it must be emphasised that while I have certain responsibilities and powers, the day-to-day administration of the Trust, and eventually the Housing Authority, must remain the responsibility of the members of the Board. The purpose of creating statutory bodies is to provide special services and to entrust or delegate to them certain functions and duties within the broad lines of policy laid down by Government which they are expected to carry out in a manner they consider best and which, with their attention to detail and administrative routine, they can more efficiently carry out. It is therefore, Sir, not conducive to good administration for Government or the Minister himself to interfere with the execution by the Board of their ordinary functions and their day-to-day administration. With regard to the Bukit Panjang Estate, I replied this morning to the Member for Queenstown that at least three of the complaints put forward by the residents of Bukit Panjang Estate are being attended to. I can tell the hon. Member this, Sir - it was not as a result of the protest meeting, but it was as a direct result of the visits made by the Acting Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing and the Assistant Minister, together with the Chairman of the Singapore Improvement Trust. In other words, the protest meeting which took place at Bukit Panjang about a fortnight ago had nothing at all to do with the repairs and alterations which are now being carried out by the S.I.T. There was of course the question of heat. Here again, Sir, I do not know whether the Member for Queenstown is aware about it, but there are in Singapore today probably over 200 houses built by the P.W.D. for labourers and also for the other ranks of the police force, and there are some also at the Guillemard Road side of the Kallang Airport, which have no ceilings: neither the P.W.D. nor the S.I.T. have received any complaints from the residents of these houses. Coming to the question of allocation. I would like to refer the Member for Queenstown to a report of he Housing Management Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee published by H.M. Stationery Office. London, page 8, paragraph 23. Now that reads: "We recommend that whatever method of selection is used, local authorities should generally make known the principles on which tenants are selected and the general practice of which account is taken on individual applications. The primary importance of this, in present circumstances especially, is self-evident. The precise weight given to the particuar factors should not necessarily be disclosed. Moreover, we doubt whether it is wise to make any general practice o informing applicants exactly what their position on the waiting list is at the particular date, as it is to be expected that the circumstances of applicants, and therefore their position in relation to one another on the list, will be constantly changing." Sir, this is the present policy of the Trust and it is based broadly on these conclusions. The applicant is informed of the points awarded at the time of the registration and of the general practice which takes into account the assessment of points. The fixed or confirmed value of points is assessed after investigation of the case and is not disclosed. The allocation list of applicants and their points are circulated for the approval of the Estates Committee and are confidential to members of the Board. This provides some safeguard against injustice to other tenants not selected.

On a point of information, Sir.

If the Minister will give way. Inche Abdul Hamid resumed his seat.

If the assessment of the confirmed points is not to be disclosed, what is the purpose of giving the number of points on the receipt of the application?

I think the points given on the receipt of the application is before investigation and not after investigation. The actual confirmed points are given after investigation and, in some cases, it may not be recorded on the receipt. Then, Sir, there was one point about corruption. Of course, this is a never-ending accusation which comes up whenever the question of the Trust crops up, but I must thank the Member for Queenstown for having brought to my notice this question of allocation of the house in Dorset Road. I hope, Sir, that the hon. Member would co-operate with me in giving all the necessary information and all the correspondence with the S.I.T. so that I could look further into the case and in all probability hand it over to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.

On a point of information, Sir.

If the Minister will give way. He has only one and a half minutes left.

Finally, Sir, I must point out that, in reply to an earlier question of the Member for Queenstown, I did assure him that if he had any suggestions for the improvement of the allocation system, both I and the S.I.T. would give them consideration. I have yet to receive any suggestions from the hon. Member.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved. That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes to Six o'clock p.m. to 13th August, 1958.

Wednesday, 16th July, 1958

asked the Chief Minister if he will state the total number of days the Chief Minister and each Minister (other than ex-officio Ministers) and Assistant Minister have been away from Singapore from 1st January, 1956 to 30th June, 1958; and whether a Minister or Assistant Minister is in receipt of acting pay or allowance when performing the duties of another Minister or Assistant Minister in the latter's absence.

The total numbers of days the Chief Minister, Ministers (other than ex-officio Ministers) and Assistant Ministers have been away from Singapore from 1st January, 1956, to 30th June, 1958, are as follows:-- No. of No. of days on days on Total No. Official Vacation of days Business Leave Chief Minister ... 93 12 105 Minister for Labour and Welfare ... 111 1 112 Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing ... 131 52 183 Minister for Education ... 81 11 92 Minister for Health ... 69 34 103 Minister for Communications and Works ... 47 30 77 Minister for Commerce and Industry ... 89 27 116 Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary ... - 14 14 Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare ... 35 48 83 Assistant Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing ... 37 15 52 Assistant Minister for Education ... 11 4 15 With regard to the second part of the question, a Minister or Assistant Minister is not given any acting pay or allowance when performing the duties of another Minister or Assistant Minister in the latter's absence.

asked the Chief Secretary to state the number of vacancies in all Government Departments as at 30th June, 1958, giving the number of vacant posts in each Department which are to be filled immediately due to the exigencies of the service, those which are not likely to be filled, and the amount of money the Government will save this year as a result of the non-filling of such vacancies.

An examination is currently taking place of the staffing position in all Departments with a view to effecting economies. This examination is not yet complete and it is therefore not yet possible to supply the in formation required. When the information is available I will circulate it in the Official Report.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing to state the number of properties allocated by the Singapore Im provement Trust during the period 1st January to 30th June, 1958, excluding those allocated to fire victims and persons served with demolition orders and shop houses, showing the names and the number of points awarded in respect of each of the successful applicants together with the house numbers (addresses) of the premises allocated to each of the applicants.

I am informed by the Trust that 1,144 dwelling units and 66 business premises were allocated during the period 1st January, 1958, to 30th June, 1958. Of these, 543 units were allocated to applicants from the housing register, while the balance of 671 units were allocations to rehousing cases (including fire victims), families from clearance areas, transferees, etc. With regard to the request for names and points awarded, I would refer the Member for Queenstown to my written answer to his previous question on the same subject on the 17th July, 1957; also to my oral answer to his question on public inspection of the applications register. I have nothing to add to these answers.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry if he will state-

Since the information the Honourable Member seeks requires considerable research into the records at the disposal of the Ministry, it would take some time to reframe this information in a presentable form. The information will be circulated in the Official Report in due course. ANNEX A - SKETCH OF PANDAN NATURE RESERVE Col(0543-0544)