Hansard, 1958-08-13

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: Mr J. M. Mason (Nominated) - from 5th to 11th August, 1958.

I have received two messages from His Excellency the Governor. The first message dated the 23rd July, 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 Malayan Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (Amendment) Bill. The second message also dated the 23rd July, 1958, states that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 62 (2) of the Singapore Colony Orders in Council, 1955 and 1956, His Excellency had that day assented to the following Bills: (i) Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Quarantine and Prevention of Disease (Amendment) Bill; (iii) Light Dues (Amendment) Bill; (iv) Singapore Sailors' Institute Incorporation (Amendment) Bill; (v) Local Government (Amendment) Bill; (vi) Indian Immigration Fund (Winding Up) Bill; (vii) Federation of Malaya Customs Duties Collection Bill.

asked the Chief Secretary-

Yes, Sir. The primary object of "Police Week" was to encourage the general public to familiarise themselves with those sections of the Police Force which are concerned with direct service to the public when they wish to make a report for a request for assistance. The C.I.D. and Special Branch do not come in this category. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr Speaker, Sir, by barring the public from visiting the C.I.D. and the Special Branch, would this not give rise to more suspicion that the allegations of torture are true?

I do not agree with the hon. Member's insinuations.

It would be a matter of opinion.

asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware of the increasing use of acid bombs by gangsters in gang clashes in which innocent persons have been blinded or injured; and what measures the Government has taken or proposes to take against the use or possession of acid bombs.

asked the Chief Secretary to state the number of cases of acid throwing which have taken place since 1st January, 1958, the number of convictions in such cases; and whether this form of crime is on the increase.

With your permission, Sir, I will answer questions Nos. 2 and 3 together. The crime of using acid to cause hurt is on the increase. Between 1st January and 10th August this year, there were 15 known instances of such use. During the same period, three persons were convicted of offences under the Corrosive Substances Ordinance, 1955. Under this Ordinance, the carrying of acid for the purpose of causing hurt is subject to a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment and using it for the same purpose a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life and whipping. Acid is very widely used for legitimate commercial purposes and it is extremely difficult therefore to prevent small quantities falling into the wrong hands. The Government is considering, however, whether any practical and effective measures are possible to control its possession and storage. The Government is also considering the imposition of the death penalty for the use of acid to cause hurt.

asked the Attorney-General, with reference to his showing cause in Divorce Suit No. 32 of 1957, why the decree nisi pronounced by the Honourable Mr Justice Tan Ah Tah on the 22nd July, 1957, should not be made absolute, to state the grounds upon which he acted; and whether full and proper investigations were duly conducted in Singapore, Port Dickson and Kuala Lumpur with the assistance of experienced officers of the Police Force prior to and after showing cause.

I intervened in this Divorce Suit, Sir, because, as a result of information I had received and enquiries I made, I believed the decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage had been obtained by reason of material facts not being brought before the Court. Both before and after I intervened, investigations were made in Singapore, Port Dickson and Kuala Lumpur with the assistance of the Police Force and I have no reason to suppose that those enquiries were not both full and proper. Since the decree was made absolute, that is since the adjudication on my intervention, I have made no further investigation into the matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Attorney-General aware that by his intervention in this Suit, he has caused damage to the reputation of the petitioner?

It is a matter of opinion.

asked the Financial Secretary whether the Malayan Board of Income Tax has recommended any changes to be made in the Income Tax Ordinance (Cap. 166); and when an amending Bill will be presented to this House.

The Malayan Board of Income Tax has made certain recommendations for the amendment of the Income Tax Ordinance. These recommendations have been incorporated in a draft Bill which it is hoped to introduce at the September sitting of the Assembly.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing if the Government will consider introducing amending legislation with a view to bringing premises built after September, 1947, under the provisions of the Control of Rent Ordinance (Cap. 242).

The answer is no, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that landlords are taking advantage by charging fantastic rentals and issuing notices to quit because no control of rents is being enforced?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would suggest to the Member for Queenstown two considerations. First, the houses which are now subject to the provisions of the Control of Rent Ordinance were almost all erected prewar at cheaper cost and the controlled rentals can be said to represent a not unreasonable return on capital. Second, premises built or completed after 7th September, 1947 were built in the expectation that there would be no control of rents and the relationship between landlords and their tenants was one freely established on such understanding. There is no special reason or emergency (such as existed when rent control was introduced for prewar properties) to justify control of properties erected after September, 1947. Such control would indeed result in stifling private enterprise in building more houses and would merely aggravate the housing situation.

Is the Minister aware that an amount of $500 increase in rentals is demanded by such landlords to exploit their tenants?

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether he will make a statement on the office buildings being constructed and the staff so far made available for the purposes of operating the new District Councils; and whether he is satisfied that the new regional offices are working satisfactorily.

Mr Speaker, Sir, temporary District Council Offices have already been erected for Serangoon and Katong District Councils and are open for inspection. Each building has a meeting room, secretariat and departmental offices for engineering and building staff, the health and cleansing staff and the assessment and revenue staff. For the Jurong/Bukit Panjang District Council, there is already a permanent office which later will be extended. The staffing needs as well as other problems arising from the establishment of District Councils were studied by a working party, which, in its reports recommended additions to the present available Rural Board staff. The report was adopted by Government and the financial provision for the additional staff was approved by this Assembly in April this year. Once the District Councils have been in operation for a few months, it will be possible to review the position to ascertain if all the provisions made are in fact adequate. From the measures taken, the District Councils should work satisfactorily.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that the horse now seems to be ready before the cart?

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, with reference to paragraphs 12 to 17 of the Final Report from the Public Accounts Committee ( Sessional Paper No. L.A. 14 of 1957), if he will state -

Mr Speaker, Sir, the arrears of rates as at 31st January, 1957 including the arrears carried over from the past year amounted to $1,697,468.

28. Arrears for 1957 collected from 1st January to 30th June, 1958 amounted to $772,087.12 and to the end of July $889,339.

58. This sum is nearly equal to the sum of $940,006.67 which was the amount of arrears collected for the whole of last year. This improvement was made possible by reorganisation of work and the recruitment towards the end of last year of five of the required new seven bailiffs. Regarding (b), 1,771 properties were assessed or re-assessed during the period January to June 1958, at an annual value of just over $1 million, yielding an additional revenue of just over $200,000. As regards remaining properties yet to be assessed, it is estimated that there are about 2,000 permanent buildings yet to be assessed of which about 1,500 are new houses in such housing estates as Opera Estate, Glasgow Road, Jalan Kayu, Spring Hill Estate, Sembawang Road, 13½ m.s. Sembawang Road, Sembawang Hill Estate, Thomson Ridge, Bukit Timah Estate and Hong-Kong Park. It is on these properties that the Rates Officers, including three newly recruited assistant rates officers, are now concentrating their efforts. This will leave resettlement areas throughout the Rural Board area and many attap houses situated well away from the main roads yet to be assessed. Assessment and reassessment on these localities will follow after the large estates have been completed.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing what portion of the 832 acres withdrawn from the Pandan Forest Reserve has been set aside for allocation to persons whose prawn ponds in areas required for development have been or will be acquired by Government.

The answer to the Member's question is that no portion of the area excised from the Pandan Forest Reserve has been set aside for such allocation, as the manner of allocation has not yet been decided. Due consideration will be given, however, to requests or applications from persons whose prawn ponds are affected by Government acquisitions.

Sir, will the Hon. the Minister give an assurance that their claims would have prior consideration?

Mr Speaker, Sir, at this juncture, I cannot give such an undertaking.

asked the Minister for Education whether he gave instructions to the principals and staff of schools in connection with the City Council's mass health movement; and whether he will make a statement in connection with those instructions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 4th July, 1958, the Mayor wrote direct to the school principals asking from one to twenty representatives to attend a meeting at the Victoria Memorial Hall on 7th July, 1958. He did this before any permission was granted to him by me. As the anti-spitting campaign has been conducted in all schools for some years now, it is nothing new and in view of the improper procedure adopted by the Mayor, I gave instructions to the principals not to send representatives to the scheduled meeting. Any campaign in the school should be conducted by my Ministry through the principals who are individually responsible for the administration of their own schools.

Does it follow that the Minister is not in principle against the mass health movement, but that he has taken offence because he has not been first consulted before the schools were approached?

In principle, I am not against the mass health movement nor against the anti-spitting campaign.

In that case, does he see any objection to students writing essays in a competition to show why spitting is a bad and pernicious habit?

It does not form part of the question.

May I put it more bluntly to the not very alert Minister? Does he find any objection to school children writing essays on spitting, if he in fact opposes spitting?

The Minister has answered that it does not form part of the question. It is another question.

asked the Minister for Health to state the number of doctors attached to the Out-Patient Department of the General Hospital and the daily average number of patients who attend that Department.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are 16 doctors attached to the Out-Patient Department of the General Hospital out of which ten are on full-time duty and the remaining six work part-time in the afternoons for a period of two hours. The daily average number of patients who attend the Out-Patient Department is 2,300. Of this figure, 1,600 are seen by the Medical Officers of that Department. The remaining 700 attend for repeat treatment such as injections, dressings, etc.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister tell us the number of hours a full-time doctor works in a day?

I must have notice of that question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister consider that the ten full-time and six part-time doctors are able to cope with 2,300 patients in one day?

As I have already said, 1,600 patients attend in the morning and 700 in the afternoon. For the 16 doctors to deal with this vast number is, I agree, a very heavy task but even if staff can be made available, which is hardly possible at the present time, there is at the moment not sufficient accommodation available for consultation purposes.

Can the Minister then tell us what action he proposes to take or has taken to rectify the position?

Mr Speaker, Sir, despite all our efforts and despite the introduction of a system of appointments of times, patients insist on arriving early in the morning and there is in consequence an unnatural and severe overcrowding. We are however developing more and more out-patient services and deviating those who seek the services of the General Hospital to new out-patient departments. To this end, Government has so far increased the number of outpatient departments from six in 1954 to 15 during its term of office to date and are constructing three new out-patient clinics, one at Pegu Road, one at Queenstown and another at Bukit Panjang, which should be ready for use by the end of this year. In 1959, three more out-patient departments will be constructed at Buona Vista, Yio Chu Kang Road at the junction of Jalan Kayu, and the third at Nee Soon.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works whether the leading airlines using the Paya Lebar Airport require funds to be spent on a new airport terminal to be constructed to deal expeditiously with the increasing number of passengers and freight carried by air; and whether he will give an undertaking that work on the construction of the proposed new terminal will be started with the least possible delay.

Sir, planning for the improvement or extension of the terminal facilities for the Singapore Airport has been in progress for the past two years. In the course of this, the Director of Civil Aviation has been in close consultation with the airline operators and is fully aware of their needs and requirements in the matter of passengers and baggage handling facilities. To the extent that the provision of such facilities will entail the expenditure of public funds, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. In answer to the second part of the question, I can assure the hon. Member that within the financial means of Government, it has always been and still is our intention that terminal facilities will be provided with the least possible delay.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister state when the work will start on this building and how long it will take to complete it?

At a later stage this morning, Sir, I will be making a statement on the development of the Airport. To avoid repetition, I suggest that the hon. Member seek clarification after that.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works what is the monthly rent payable by the Singapore Airport Hotel Ltd, for the use of the Paya Lebar Airport restaurant premises; whether there are any arrears of rent payable by the tenants and what is the amount.

The concession under which the Singapore Hotel Ltd, operated ended on 30th April this year. Their rent during the period of their concession was $2,833 per month until July 1957 and thereafter $2,874 per month. When the concession terminated, the arrears of rent totalled $51,834.16.

Will the Minister state how these arrears were allowed to accumulate and whether they are recoverable in full?

With regard to their recoverability, the company has gone into voluntary liquidation and what this will produce towards arrears is not yet clear. With regard to how they were allowed to accumulate, the hon. Member will appreciate that the Airport Hotel is different in its nature from the ordinary run of hotels. It is not for guests coming to stay at the place in the normal way; the Airport Hotel is catering for the passengers who are passing through. Consequently, it is closely tied up with the airline operators and it cannot therefore be allowed to close even for a single day. In these circumstances, and bearing in mind that the concessionaire had been successfully operating at the Kallang Airport since 1937, it was thought desirable to give every opportunity of meeting liabilities and by so doing to avoid what might have been urgent difficulties in finding a replacement.

Does the Minister not feel that that reply is thoroughly unsatisfactory? Will he state whether the Singapore taxpayer has to pay for Government's incompetence in not collecting arrears or has the Minister other remedies?

I cannot ask a question in reply to the question. I am not quite sure what the hon. Member means by the Government paying. The Government has suffered a loss but there is no charge that the Government has to meet. The bill has not yet been collected and I cannot say how far it will be collected.

Sir, is the Minister aware that this concessionaire, apart from the legal person in the Singapore Airport Hotel Ltd. - the person behind it - has since 1937 accumulated a fairly vast fortune as a result of work in the old Airport Hotel at the Kallang Airport? Should he not take steps to see that fortunes are not salted away while revenue is owing to the Government?

I am aware of the other interests of the proprietors of the Singapore Airport Hotel but I cannot answer for what the law provides on the question of recovering the arrears. That is in the hands of the liquidator and is being dealt with for the Government by the Treasury. I have no doubt that whatever can and should be collected will be collected but it is not for me at this stage to describe the procedure that will have to be followed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister state whether it was the fault of the Treasury that money was not collected month by month or the fault of his Ministry?

I had better perhaps put the hon. Member in the picture as to the general structure of the control and management of such concessions. The day-to-day control and management are exercised by the Airport manager who until recently had an assistant manager to help him. The contracts such as the concessions for the Singapore Hotel are negotiated and completed by the Commissioner of Lands who is the Government's agent for this matter. The accounts are subject to audit scrutiny and the Treasury has, of course, an overall interest in the financial aspects of these contracts. The system is satisfactory, I think, in so far as it distributes responsibility and ensures that proper scrutiny is made. It is perhaps less satisfactory from the point of view of commercial operation as compared with the ordinary run of Government business.

Sir, will the Minister tell us whether any Minister in the Government was approached by the proprietor of the Singapore Airport Hotel Ltd. with a view to writing off the arrears of rent?

Certainly nobody has approached me with such a request and I should imagine that it is inconceivable that anybody would be approached with it.

Does the Minister accept full responsibility for this deplorable state of affairs?

Certainly I do, Sir, I accept full responsibility for everything that falls within my Ministry and for the actions of all officers within my Ministry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the termination of this concession, can the Minister tell us how the present premises are let out since the Singapore Airport Hotel Ltd. has gone into liquidation?

A new concession has been let out which separates the previous concession into two parts: the restaurant and bar form one part and what I think we can call the coffee room on the ground floor is a separate concession now. Up-to-date the concessionaires are both paying their rent punctually.

Mr Speaker, Sir, why is it then that a public tender is not called for instead of giving it out on a concessional contract?

It seems to be a different question but if the Minister wishes to answer, he may do so.

I think it is a different matter, Sir.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works whether, and when, it is proposed to introduce a one-way system of traffic along Bukit Timah and Dunearn Roads.

Sir, it is planned that a one-way system for traffic should be introduced along Dunearn and Bukit Timah Roads. This cannot, however, be done until adequate bridges are built across the Bukit Timah Canal. The planning and construction of these bridges is intimately related to a drainage scheme for the whole area. The execution of the drainage scheme depends on the availability of very considerable funds and I am afraid that there is little likelihood that the drainage scheme will go forward in the near future.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry if he will make a statement on the policy the Government proposes to adopt to protect and encourage local industry.

Yes, Sir. I shall do so immediately before the commencement of public business.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether he will make a statement on the plans formulated by the Director of Tourism to develop Singapore's tourist industry; and whether he will outline how it is intended to spend the sum of $300,000 voted by this House for this purpose in the 1958 Estimates.

Sir, the Director of Tourism has completed a survey of the Colony's present tourist facilities and has formulated a plan for the continuing development of tourism over an extended period. Appropriate markets have been selected as initial targets for overseas advertising and a tourist promotion campaign is scheduled to commence in September in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Four descriptive folders will be printed for overseas distribution, primarily for backing up direct inquiries resulting from the above advertising, and for distribution to travel agents, airlines and shipping companies. A series of posters is being designed for distribution to travel organisations for display purposes. A comprehensive mailing list is being prepared to cover four thousand travel agents, shipping and airline companies, travel editors, and others actively engaged in the tourist industry overseas. A monthly News Letter has been started and copies of all issues and other productions will be sent to these outlets. A copy of the Director's report is available to all interested parties and this report outlines in complete detail the plan evolved. Since the details of the planned expenditure of $300,000 voted for tourist promotion in 1958 would involve reference to detailed figures, I propose to circulate this information in the Official Report. Broadly speaking, however, approximately two-thirds of the amount is to be spent on direct advertising. Following is the information: DETAILS OF THE PLANNED EXPENDITURE OF $300,000 VOTED FOR TOURIST PROMOTION IN 1958. $ Overseas advertising: U.S.A. 90,000 (Consumer and trade) -- Australia 23,000 New Zealand 13,286 Folders for reply to direct inquiries 3,714 Brochures -- 4 colour 18" x 16" 13,000 (100,000) Handling costs paper variations 2,000 Brochures --4 colour 18" x 12" (50,000) 7,000 Brochures --4 colour 12" x 9" (50,000) 5,000 Posters --Four 10 colour, 3,000 run 18,000 Maps, Singapore and environs 4,000 Blocks, stereos, etc. 2,000 Monthly Newsletter 1,000 Printing, stationery 3,000 Souvenir certificates 1,600 Press releases, photo-news stories 1,800 Mailing, phones, cables 3,000 Travel and entertainment expenses 2,800 -------- carried forward 194,200 $ $ $ brought forward 194,200 Subscriptions to travel organisations 1,720 P.A.T.A. Research expenses 5,000 P.A.T.A. Advertising Programme 6,000 -------- 206,920 Office equipment, premises etc. 15,472 Staff 35,228 Amount spent on 30th April, 1958 17,206 Savings on staff, first half year 25,174 -------- 300,000

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry if he will make a statement regarding the setting up of a central wholesale fish market.

Sir, various sites have been considered by the Government for the proposed Central Wholesale Fish Market. A site in the delta between the Rochore and Kallang Rivers was first considered but when the Merdeka Bridge project was under way it was found that the bridge had to be built further seaward and the head-room under the bridge in this location was not sufficient to permit access to the delta by the larger fishing vessels. A second site at the southern end of Merdeka Bridge was then considered but it was found to be too costly to build the wholesale fish market here. A third site, at the end of the old runway at Kallang, also considered to be suitable, has, however, been earmarked for the development of a public park. Finally, it has been proposed that the Central Wholesale Fish Market should be temporarily sited at the Telok Ayer Basin. This proposal has not received any support from the Singapore Port Commission and would involve the finding of alternative accommodation for the M.R.N.V.R. which would in itself be very costly. Until, therefore, a suitable permanent site can be found for the central wholesale fish market, there is very little hope of this project materialising.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister tell us whether finance is also one of the questions for the delay in establishing this market?

Finance is now a question but this matter has been pending for the last four or five years and finance was not a question until recently.

Since finance is now the question and in view of Government's policy to curtail all expenditure, will the Government encourage private enterprise to set up this central market?

Sir, the question of private enterprise entering into this is one that requires consideration and offhand I cannot answer that question but the question of finance coming into it now may not continue in the future: we hope finances might improve.

Subject to rent control!

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Port of Singapore (Sessional Paper No. S 10 of 1957); and whether he will make a statement on the Government's intentions regarding their implementation.

Sir, the comments of Government Departments and public bodies which are affected have now been received, and at a meeting I held recently with all interested parties - I myself took the chair there - certain points if difficulty arising out of their comments on the Report have been resolved. The labour recommendations of the Report, however, raise problems of considerable complexity, and their implications are being examined in consultation with the Ministry of Labour and Welfare. I regret, therefore, that it is not yet possible for me to make a statement on Government's intentions regarding the implementation of this Report.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Minister state whether the Government accepts the recommendations of the Commission in principle?

Sir, the recommendations in the Report are still with the Ministry. They have not been put to the Council of Ministers.

10.36 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Government has been very much concerned with the fact that the present structure of our economy based largely on our entrepot trading activities would not seem to have the capacity to give employment to our increasing population in the years ahead. Government has therefore emphasised all along the need to create and develop secondary industries which could not only provide employment to at least a part of our increasing population but also be instrumental in cutting down to some extent our imports for home consumption purposes. Government has therefore recognised the necessary role that capital, both local and outside, can play in achieving industrial development. With a view therefore to encouraging outside capital for industrial development certain assurances were given by me to outside capital in a statement I made to this House on the 7th November, 1956. Financial assistance is being given to local capital through the Industrial Promotion Board and legislation to provide for income tax exemptions to new or additional industries considered to be of economic benefit to Singapore is now in the course of preparation as an inducement to both local and outside capital. Although there has been some response from outside and local capital, Government notes with regret that its efforts to meet the unemployment threat by encouragement of investment in industries are being frustrated by irresponsible politicians who do not care what harm they do to the people of Singapore. Government therefore considers that the time has now come for more positive action. It is now approximately two years, Sir, since I gave an indication that some measure of protection might have to be considered for our industries, but only as a last resort. After careful consideration Government has come to the conclusion that the principle of protection must be recognised for our industries and Government will therefore commence taking immediately all such steps as are necessary for this policy to be implemented. Government recognises that entrepot trade will always continue to play a major part in our economy and is therefore determined that the operation of protection should be carried out with the minimum possible damage to, or dislocation of, the entrepot trade. I wish to make it very clear therefore that the operation of protection is envisaged on a strictly selective basis: that is, only where the benefit accruing to Singapore through the industry concerned outweighs any possible harm to the entrepot trade. Under no circumstances will the operation of protection be allowed to interfere in any way with the entrepot trade in produce, processed produce and textiles or raw materials. Government will also have to be satisfied that any protection granted will not be abused and that the undertaking concerned is operating or is expected to operate in an efficient manner and that protection would not result in the continued marketing of goods of inferior quality at excessive prices by comparison with the standards and prices of similar imported goods. The incidence and degree of protection will have to be related to the capacity of the local industry to meet the requirements of the local market. Outside manufacturers wishing to manufacture their products here will, as a general rule, be required to come to an arrangement with a local manufacturer or intending local manufacturer, if any, of the same product, or failing which with interested Singapore citizens. Such arrangement should either be on a partnership basis with at least 49 per cent of the shares being held by the local interest or on the basis of the local interest manufacturing under licence of the outside manufacturer. If after a reasonable time there is lack of response from local interests or if such arrangements cannot be made for reasons proved to the satisfaction of the Minister for Commerce and Industry, the outside manufacturer will be given permission to set up his own undertaking. Outside manufacturers are invited to apply to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry if they desire to manufacture their products in Singapore and the Ministry will give them every assistance to make the necessary local contacts and to carry out negotiations with a view Lo entering into the arrangements mentioned above. This restriction on outside manufacturers is necessary in order to encourage and safeguard local industrial investment. However, a certain amount of flexibility will be employed in the application of this general policy according to the circumstances of each case. In order that Government may have the necessary powers, I am introducing a Bill this morning making it necessary for manufacturers to obtain a licence from me before they can engage in any manufacture in Singapore. Further measures to implement vigorously Government's policy to encourage industrial development are under examination.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister state what form of protection is intended? Has he under contemplation the introduction of quotas on imports to protect local manufacturers.

I contemplate, Sir, using both forms of protection wherever either is suitable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Minister be a little more explicit as to what he means by both forms?

There are two forms of protection: one is by quantitative restrictions and the other is by tariffs.

10.41 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to a question by the Member for Tanglin (Mr John Ede) at the last sitting of this Assembly, I promised to make a statement on the expansion at our international Airport. I must start by giving you, Sir, an explanation in connection with certain reports on this subject which have been published in the local press since I gave that promise. Having promised to make a statement in the Assembly, I felt myself bound to make it to the Assembly and not to enquiring reporters beforehand. Consequently, I refused all requests by reporters for a preview of what I proposed to say, telling them to wait until my statement. Nevertheless, some reports anticipating my statement did in fact appear in the press. There is no objection to that. Newspapers have a right, and indeed a duty, to collect information, to disseminate it and to comment on and even to guess about information. Unfortunately, some reports went beyond this. One newspaper, in particular, tried to present itself to the public as having had prior access through official sources to the information I am this morning going to give the House. It said that it had 'learned that the Council of Ministers took a decision on Tuesday' to go ahead with a new Terminal building. In the same report, this newspaper attributed to 'a Civil Aviation source' alleged information about Council discussions on the matter and it also made a reference to the Director of Civil Aviation in the same report. Sir, if I had given secret information about Council affairs to a newspaper, or if any senior officer had done so, the strictest disciplinary action would have been deserved. I have, however, made the most careful investigation and I do not believe that this newspaper had any access to such secret information, nor any information at all about the matters in my statement. I believe that its report was no more than what reporters call 'intelligent guesswork' plus a rehash of information already available to the public. I am not concerned, Sir, to express an opinion of the journalistic morality of a newspaper proceeding in this way. Hon. Members can judge that for themselves. I do wish to make it absolutely clear that I have not derogated from the proper dignity of this House by giving to the Press prior access to information which I had promised to give to the House. Such action could only be justified in circumstances of grave urgency, such as have not arisen in this matter. Sir, successive governments, both before and since the outbreak of that international insanity usually called World War II, have recognised the importance of maintaining Singapore as a centre for air travel. The result, based on wise and forethoughtful planning and fruitful consultation with the airline operators, is that today Singapore has a first-rate basic Airport with heavy and increasing traffic. We have a good, though not a final, picture of the probable traffic developments over the next few years. Planning is quite up-to-date. We know the suitable next steps to take. We propose to go ahead according to plan. We had intended to let tenders for the next stage of development during May of this year. Owing to the recession, I decided that letting should be deferred for a short period. I did not like doing that; it imposes a hardship on the contractors who have tendered. It was necessary to give time for a re-examination of certain technical and accommodation aspects. Following re-examination, we are going to defer for a while one section of the building proposals costing approximately $375,000. Apart from that, we have found nothing that ought to be varied or deferred. We have, of course, lost two months of development rime, which I regret. When one is dealing with very closely-knit plans, it is not safe to excise one part without most careful examination of the whole. Such examination takes time, which has reduced our margin, but that must be accepted as one of the results of the recession. The proposals now to go forward are the erection of a building from which the operational control functions of the Airport will be exercised, together with the installation of the necessary equipment. Hon, members had better understand the context in which this takes place. Operational controls cover two fields. The first is the Flight Information Region, an area of about 140,000 square miles, centred on Singapore. All aircraft movements within this region, both Civil and Military, are rigorously controlled so as to maintain safe aircraft route-patterns and to avoid the generation of aerial hazards. The second field is the Singapore Terminal Area of about 150 miles radial distance from Singapore, in which even more precise and positive disciplines have to be imposed on the movements of aircraft. The average number of movements in the Area is approximately 10,000 a month. In peak periods it may rise as high as 50 movements per hour. The existing system of control has worked well, but will not much longer be adequate to cover the increasing frequency and rapidity of movements. Civil and military planes using our airspace and the area around continually progress in numbers and speeds. Hon. members will appreciate that if a plane flying south at 500 miles per hour confronts another plane flying north at the same speed, they approach each other at 1,000 miles an hour. This leaves no margin for emergency decisions and introduces an element of risk that cannot be accepted. The risk can only be avoided by having a first-rate system of controls operating through first-rate equipment. This we mean to have. We are going to provide a new Control Tower approximately 120 feet high, plus a seven-storey building giving rather more than 40,000 square feet of floor space. Very roughly, 50 per cent of this space will be used for installation of, operational equipment; 15 per cent will be used for the officers dealing with the equipment and its product; and 35 per cent will be rentable space for the Operations Rooms of the airlines. The building will house the Area Joint Air Traffic Control Centre, the Area Communications Centre, the Air Information Centre, a Military Air Movement Section, and the main Aviation-Meteorological Office in South-East Asia. Its equipment consists of a completely overhauled, integrated and up-to-date Air Fixed Telecommunications Network, an Airport exchange, and the terminals of the operational aids installed at the airport's periphery. These aids include a Visual Omni-Range beacon, which gives a pilot the assurance that he is precisely on the course given him, and Surveillance Radar, which tells the Airport if he gets off this course so that they can correct him. Approximately and without allowance for unforeseeable de1ays or circumstances beyond our control, construction of this building will be complete about the third quarter of 1959, and installation of the equipment about four months later. The whole project should be in operation about February, 1960. As near as I can forecast, this is about the date that our present control system will become inadequate for traffic needs, and the new system will be needed. The cost of the building will be about. $2,000,000. This includes special feature necessary for the technical installations. It works out at about $25 per square foot of total floor space. Cost of the equipment and plant of all kinds to go into the building and at the periphery will be about $2,000,000. An important point which has been provided for in this building is that one roof houses both the airlines' operational teams and the specialist departments on whose services they depend. As the time available for flight-planning and for briefing of air-crews is limited, especially for jets whose economic operation calls for minimum time on the ground, this is an important factor of efficiency. The building is designed to enable the fullest co-operation of the airport staff and of the operators with offices in the same building. Besides this development which I have described in some detail, we must also provide additional length for the runway, additional taxi-tracks, and special aprons. These are under engineering study, and I am not going to be specific about them. I can say that we may not be able to keep their cost below $2,000,000; the cost could be a good deal more. These works and installations may be called Phase II of the current development at Paya Lebar. Phase I was the International Posts Building. When we deferred letting tenders for Phase II Part One, some ill-informed rumours got round that the Government was going to postpone development indefinitely. I do not think anyone who knew anything about the matter thought these rumours were true or were likely to be true, but they were repeated in the Press. I therefore issued a release on 25th June, in which I said: "The Airport is essential to Singapore's prosperity and the Government will see that it fully meets the needs of our expanding air traffic. Rumours to the contrary are damaging to Singapore and I categorically deny them". In case similar silly rumours get about again, I repeat that denial and I reassert Government's intention to see that our international Airport is equipped to provoke adequate services. At Question Time, the Member for Tanglin asked about new construction for expeditious handling of passengers and freight, that is for what we may call Phase III, that aspect of the Airport which deals with the people and goods once they have through the Operational Controls been brought safely down to earth. For this aspect, we must have airline processing offices; accommodation for Customs, Immigration and Health controls; public concourses, restaurants, lavatories and enquiry desks; shops and stands; Press and V.I.P. rooms; and a mass of similar accommodation. The buildings at present used for these purposes were designed for early transfer to engineering and stores use, with a new Terminal Building to take their place. This transfer cannot be indefinitely deferred. The present buildings are getting to be chock-a-block. Plans for the new Phase III buildings have been kept continuously up to date, with considerable modifications from the first proposals, chiefly in the direction of simplicity and economy. It may be possible or desirable to modify them further. In their present form, they would cost between 2 and 3 million dollars to erect. Hon. Members understand that we are faced with a possibly serious diminution of national revenue due to the recession. In such circumstances, all investments on public account must be carefully scrutinised and their desirability weighed against other possible investments of limited funds. Hon. Members will also accept that large sections of public spending ought not to be cut down, and that certain types of investment - different Members may favour different types - must go on. An investment of 2 or 3 million dollars for Phase III at Paya Lebar will have to be weighed against other needs and given priority within the context of available funds. I am not going to be more specific than that at present. I should like now to make a point about the value of the Government's investment in the International Airport. We can describe ourselves as being in the entrepot business for passengers in much the same way as we are for goods. We receive passengers in bulk and distribute them in small parcels throughout South East Asia, and, similarly, we collect small parcels of passengers and bulk them for delivery to major points overseas. That is the major business at Paya Lebar. The proportion of through or transit passengers, that is those who stay in Singapore only for an hour or two, is about 15 per cent of the total. The other 85 per cent stop over in Singapore for varying periods, and thus bring us a valuable inflow of cash. The volume of passengers is steadily increasing and during the first six months of 1958 was 134,124, an increase of 15 per cent over the same period in 1957. This is a very valuable item in Singapore's balance of payments. Hon. Members will also be aware of the direct revenue aspect of our Airport - indeed, a question earlier this morning has focused attention on it. Returns on our large investment at Paya Lebar need not be measured solely in terms of tourist revenue. We can also set off direct revenue received at the Airport against its recurrent costs. Items such as landing fees, concessions and rents bring cash which helps to meet the costs of running the airport. I do not know that we can at present expect that we can from this source look for to a direct profit on our investment. To set direct profit on the investment as an objective might defeat the objects for which the investment was made. We are, however, aiming to get a revenue sufficient to cover the costs of operating the Airport, that is to ensure that, taking one year with another, we do not have a loss on working account. We have not reached that point of revenue yet, and in order to reach it, we must have, as in the Phase II building, investment in the sort of accommodation that makes it possible to earn revenue. It is an interesting point of public finance to argue whether in a period of financial stringency one should make one's national investments in directly wealth-producing projects or in others of greater social value. I am not going to argue that point here and now. I only want to assure hon. Members that in considering the future development of our international Airport that aspect has not been forgotten and will not be neglected.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for his lengthy exposition but I would like to ask him whether - you will agree it is a fact that the Airport is a revenue producing asset - Phase III of the operation is more important or just as important as Phase II and is it proper that it should be delayed?

This is indeed, Sir, the very point to which I referred in my peroration. It is a question of in what you should invest, possibly in social investments which have a very long term fluctuation period or in immediately productive investments by which you can perhaps reduce the amount of taxation that has to be imposed and I do not think it will be helpful to discuss those points now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it will be extremely helpful. The Minister has posed the question; will he give the answer?

"to make provision for the regulation and control of the manufacture of goods", presented by the Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 10th September, 1958, and to be printed.

"to constitute a Housing and Development Board for the Colony of Singapore", 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, 10th September, 1958, and to be printed.

"to provide for the planning and improvement of Singapore", presented by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 10th September, 1958, and to be printed.

"to make to certain Ordinances of the Colony amendments consequential on the provisions for the establishment of District Councils made by the Local Government Ordinance, 1957", presented by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 10th September, 1958, and to be printed.

"to amend the Customs Ordinance (Chapter 160 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Financial Secretary (Mr T. M. Hart); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 10th September, 1958, and to be printed.

11.02 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Governor in respect of a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions.) Ordinance, 1955". Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. 1955 (No. 26 of 1955)." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Sir, in order to give hon. Members a little time to examine the Bill, I propose to take the Second Reading at 2.30 this afternoon.

2.30 p.m. it will be.

11.04 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Pineapple Industry Ordinance, 1957 (No. 15 of 1957)." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I have with me a Certificate of Urgency issued by His Excellency the Governor to proceed with the Bill throughout all its stages. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

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

Yes, Sir. In addition, I have also previously circulated them to hon. Members. Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr, speaker, Sir, under the existing Ordinances both in the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, the affairs of the pineapple industry are entrusted to the Malayan Pineapple Industry Board, which is a Pan-Malayan statutory body with a membership of 20, of which 8 represent canners and can-suppliers. The Chairman of the Board is elected from amongst the members and, like the other members, works in an honorary capacity only. Sir, the pineapple industry in this country during the postwar years and particularly since the latter part of 1956 has encountered many difficulties in the face of ever-increasing competition from other producing countries in overseas markets, and it has become apparent that a continuous and energetic direction is necessary in the conduct of the affairs of this industry, particularly in promoting effective co-ordination in the production, processing and marketing aspects of the industry. It is for this reason, Sir, that this Bill is designed to provide for the joint appointment by the Governor and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of an independent Chairman on a salary basis in place of the present elected Chairman. This measure will also serve to remove the objection which can legitimately be raised to the election of a Chairman who may be said to be the nominee of a particular section of the industry. It is further considered essential by the two Governments that representation on the Board should appropriately reflect the importance of the different interests concerned in the pineapple industry. Under the present Ordinance the Board is now composed as follows: One representative of the Singapore Government; One representative of the Federation Government; Three representatives of State Governments; The Director of Agriculture, Federation of Malaya; The Commissioner for Co-operative Development, Federation of Malaya; The Chairman of the Canners Representative Association, who is from Singapore; Six representatives of canners, two of whom are from Singapore; Two representatives of exporters, both from Singapore; One representative of can suppliers, also from Singapore; Three representatives of small growers, all from the Federation. It is thought that a more equitable representation of the various interests on the Board would be achieved by the proposals in the Bill to delete paragraphs (f) and (j) of section 3 (2) of the present Ordinance, which provides for the appointment on the Board of the Chairman of the Canners Representative Association and a representative of can suppliers respectively. This will have the effect of reducing the canners' representatives by one and will make it unnecessary for a representative of can suppliers to be appointed to the Board. The other amendments contained in the Bill are merely consequential. As the Board is Pan-Malayan, parallel action has been taken by the Federation to introduce an amending Bill on identical lines, and the Federation Bill has already been passed at a meeting of the Federal Legislative Council on 31st July. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it. Question proposed. 11.10 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to say that I think it is a very happy move to set on its feet what I believe is the third largest industry in Malaya. During the last few years this industry has received very serious competition from countries like Australia, Africa and, also I think, Taiwan. It is now time for this industry to be set on a Pan-Malayan basis so that all the troubles of the growers and the canners can be solved by one body which I hope and trust will lead to the prosperity of this industry and of Malaya. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

In reply, Mr Minister?

It is a point of clarification, Sir. I think the hon. Member for Paya Lebar is not aware that the industry has already been set on a Pan-Malayan basis since some time back, because a Pan-Malayan Board has already been constituted. This amending Bill is directed at readjusting the number of representatives on the Board and the interests represented. It has been Said by the Federation that the small growers are very much outnumbered and this probably would readjust that.

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.

11.14 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Pensions Ordinance, 1956." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Governor in respect of the Pensions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1958. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

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

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time" This Bill seeks to make two amendments to section 7 of the Pensions Ordinance, 1956, which governs, inter alia, the retirement of public officers from the public service in order to stand for election as a member of any legislative body or any local government authority in Singapore. The present regulations which provide for retirement of public officers to take up a political career were drawn up in 1955. Under these regulations, the public service is divided into two classes of what are known as the restricted and the unrestricted class. The restricted class, which embodies all officers employed in an administrative or executive capacity, as well as other officers whose duties bring them into contact with the formulation and execution of policy, comprises all officers in Divisions I and II of the public service and a proportion of officers in Division III. These officers are not subject to any restriction on their right of private exercise of the franchise or of their liberty to be members of a political party, but they are otherwise prohibited from engaging in any political activity whatsoever and are required to maintain complete reserve in all political matters or matters of public controversy. Officers in the unrestricted class, which comprises all officers in Division IV of the public service, as well as daily-rated employees and a limited number of officers in Division III whose duties are essentially of a technical nature, are permitted to stand as candidates for election to the Legislative Assembly or to any local government authority as well as to hold office in political organisations. Any such officer who is nominated as a candidate for election to the Legislative Assembly or a local government authority is granted the leave due to him together with any additional unrecorded leave without pay which may be necessary to cover the period up to Polling Day. If he is elected, such an officer is required to retire from the service with effect from Polling Day. On his ceasing to be a member of the Assembly or a local government authority, as the case may be, he is eligible for re-employment in the public service subject to certain conditions, and he is then permitted to count his service prior to and after the break as continuous for the purposes of the Pensions Ordinance. Under section 7 (3) of that Ordinance, he is eligible, whether or not he is subsequently reemployed in the public service, for the award of a pension on his attaining the age of 50, in the case of a man, and 45, in the case of a woman. If such an officer fails to obtain election, he is immediately re-employed in the public service and he is required to return to duty on the day following that on which the result of the election is declared. The first amendment in the Bill before the House seeks to remove one minor anomaly in connection with the provision for awarding pensions to such officers. As the law stands, they do not become eligible for the award of a pension until they reach the ages which I have mentioned, i.e., 50 years for a man and 45 years for a woman. This, however, fails to take account of the fact that there are certain categories of officers whose minimum age of retirement under subsection (2) of section 7 of the Pensions Ordinance is lower than these ages. The effect of the amendment is therefore to bring the age of eligibility for the award of a pension in the case of an officer in the unrestricted class who retires to take up political activities into line with the minimum age at which he would be eligible for a pension if he retired in other circumstances. The second amendment proposed in the Bill now before the House relates to officers in the restricted category. There are a number of officers in this category with considerable lengths of service who joined the public service at a time when the opportunity of a political career did not exist. While it is desired to maintain the strict principle that officers in the administrative and executive grades of the public service, since they constitute the machinery through which the elected government of the day carries out its policies, should properly be debarred from participating in political activities, it is considered reasonable, in connection with the first elections to the Legislative Assembly under the constitution which will confer internal self-government on Singapore, to give an opportunity to officers in this class also, who have a genuine desire to serve their country in the political field, to retire from the public service in order to do so. It is not proposed to perpetuate this concession but to make it a single, once and for all opportunity, and hereafter the principle to which I have referred of debarring the administrative ranks of the civil service from political activities will be strictly maintained. The amendment in this Bill seeks to provide for the award of pensions to such officers even though they have not reached the minimum retiring age. They are required to have completed 15 years' public service or ten years' public service and to have attained the age of 40 years. Such officers will not be eligible for reinstatement in the public service whether they succeed in obtaining election to the Legislative Assembly or not; and the amendment to the Ordinance consequently provides that a pension can be awarded to them without waiting until they have attained the normal minimum age of retirement. It is also to be noted that a similar concession to public officers was made in the Federation on the occasion of their last general election. I should finally add that the arrangements made on this occasion and which necessitate these amendments to the Pensions Ordinance have been adopted after negotiations with the Staff Side of the Singapore Civil Service Joint Council. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I beg to second. Question proposed. 11.25 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Party most likely to benefit from this amendment, we welcome the Bill. It is not a habit which we should encourage in the civil service, but once in the lifetime of the Colony of Singapore, particularly when one period of that life is coming to a close in the next few months, we should give this opportunity to people who have shown from their past activities, qualities of leadership, political courage and moral convictions. Sir, I am aware that some members of the civil service are unhappy at some very senior officers leaving the service in order to participate in the open political fight. But the choice which this country is facing is either to have honest and able Ministers to lead, or to have honest and able civil servants led by not so honest and not so able Ministers. The position of those who are concerned with the welfare and well-being of this country is one which cannot be avoided. Those who are retiring under this amending Bill could well sit back in the security and the comfort of a well-paid civil service. But because they are fully aware of what is going on with the fortunes of the government and the people, they cannot just be spectators, or, worse, unwilling tools in the destruction of a happy and prosperous community. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a matter for regret, of course, that other political Parties are unlikely to be able to take advantage of this Bill. I would back the Government, and I think in this instance it is not the Labour Front Coalition faction of the Government which has decided this particular Bill, but more those who, because they are not concerned with the inter-party day-to-day trends of the country, are therefore able to take a more disinterested and dispassionate view of the ultimate fight in this country, whether the democratic system survives, or whether it goes under because of ineptitude, stupidities and corruption. I welcome this Bill and I would like to say, for the record of this Assembly, that those who are given this opportunity will do credit to the community which they are seeking to serve. Mr David rose -

In reply, Mr David?

Sir, just a very few brief words. I welcome the support for this Bill which has been given by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, but he will perhaps understand if I do not associate myself entirely with some of his remarks. I would also like to emphasise that the decision which has been taken in this case is a collective one by the present Government and no individual Minister is more responsible for it than any other.

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

11.36 a.m.

In connection with the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, I take it that there are sufficient typed copies available, and if the Chief Secretary will hand that bundle to the Clerk, they will be made available to Members in due course. Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk.

I have directed the Clerk to transmit that bundle to the C.P.A. room.

11.37 a.m. Introduction and First Reading

Sir, I rise to move, That leave be given to introduce a Bill to incorporate the Reverend Mother Superior of the Congregation of Good Shepherd Nuns in Malaya. Sir, the Good Shepherd Nuns have been conducting their work of care for adolescents and young people in their Homes at Thomson Road in Singapore and at Ampang Road in Kuala Lumpur. Their good work has extended and they have acquired properties. They have also built more homes. At the present moment, all the properties which they have acquired are in the names of trustees and, as the list of properties increases, it is extremely inconvenient for the trustees to be called every time to sign title deeds. It is therefore sought to incorporate the Reverend Mother Superior of the Congregation of Good Shepherd Nuns in Malaya, so that all the homes and properties of the Good Shepherd Nuns can be dealt by a corporation sole. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That leave be given to introduce a Bill to incorporate the Reverend Mother Superior of the Congregation of Good Shepherd Nuns in Malaya.

Who is prepared to introduce the Bill?

I am, Sir. I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to incorporate the Reverend Mother Superior of the Congregation of Good Shepherd Nuns in Malaya." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

10th September, 1958, Sir.

11.39 am Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In the days when we had a Legislative Council it was customary to refer to the "laying before" that Council of subsidiary legislation, and the form of words then appropriate still appears in many Ordinances of the Colony. Now it is proper to speak not of "laying" but of "presenting" papers to the Assembly and Standing Order No. 12 says explicitly how this should be done. Then another aspect in which the phraseology used in some Ordinances is now inappropriate is that some contain references to action which may be taken by the Assembly by way of approval or annulment at some meeting subsequent to the meeting at which they are laid. These references to meetings are now misleading and it is clear that when the legislature enacted these various Ordinances, it had in mind what we now refer to as sittings. I do not think I need embark on a detailed exposition of the technical difference between the meaning of the word "meeting", as used in the days of the Legislative Council, and the words "meeting" and "sitting", as used now in relation to the procedure of this House. The words "sitting" and "sitting days" are, I think, fully understood by all hon. Members present and I do not wish to take up their time unnecessarily. As indicated, perhaps too briefly, in the explanatory statement appended to the Bill, the main object of the Bill is to bring the now old-fashioned provisions of the various Ordinances referred to in the Schedule up to date in the respects I have indicated, and to ensure that the Ordinances of the Colony will be in line with the present procedure of this House. But the matter is perhaps just a little more complicated than I have so far indicated. Some Ordinances provide for subsidiary legislation to be laid as soon as possible after the meeting thereof, without reference to publication in the Gazette; others for laying at the first meeting after publication. Some provide for approval or annulment by a resolution passed within a particular period of time - variously one, two or three months. Others provide for approval or annulment without specifying any particular time. Some say merely "at some meeting subsequent to the meeting at which they are laid". Now while the exact form of words used must necessarily vary from Ordinance to Ordinance, unless there is to be a comprehensive revision, which would be a major undertaking, it is desirable that there should be some uniformity and, particularly, that the Assembly should know with certainty its powers in respect of subsidiary legislation for which it is directly responsible, by reason of the need for affirmative approval, and in respect of legislation which it has express powers to annul or vary by resolution. To these ends, therefore, this Bill proposes the achievement of such uniformity as is readily possible by the adoption of a common form of words and the insertion, where none exists at present, of a specific period within which the Assembly may act. The principle on which the Schedule to this Bill has been prepared is that where no period is at present mentioned, it shall be not later than the first available sitting day next after the expiry of one month from presentation. Where a period is already specified in an Ordinance, that same period - be it one, two or three months - should have been adopted. Unfortunately I now find that in the course of seeking further uniformity, some errors have crept into the drafting and, in some instances, the periods have been incorrectly set out. In respect of these errors, I shall at the Committee stage seek the approval of the House to correct them and also to delete a reference to one Ordinance which has been repealed since the first draft of this Bill was prepared and to insert another that' was overlooked. But these, together with other matters brought to my notice since the Bill was published, for which I am most grateful, are not major matters of principle. The principles of the Bill are, as I have said, to bring our legislation up to date and to seek to achieve some uniformity and clear certainty as to the powers of the House. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Committee Wednesday, 10th September, 1958.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.43 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come up before this House. It is drafted primarily to implement those of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections which have been accepted by Government. Although the Report itself was not debated by this Assembly, it formed the basis of a debate on a motion by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar at the last Assembly sitting. It was gratifying to note then that whilst some speakers criticised the Report in varying degrees, none criticised the recommendations of the Report. For ten years now, Sir, the people of Singapore have had experience of elections, and it has become apparent, during the course of these experiences, that as the years go by certain unimaginable and disruptive forces have crept into the machinery of elections. On the one hand, you have the element of corruption, thuggery and intimidation; on the other, the insidious infiltration into our lawful political arena of Communism and Communist tactics. Though the Bill, as drafted, is designed to wipe out the former, it would inevitably lead to a lessening of the threat of the latter, for Communism cannot thrive without thuggery and intimidation. Sir, the question before this House and before the people of Singapore is simple: Do we want clean elections or not? It is in our hands to decide, for what we decide today will surely affect the future of Singapore and the future of our children. We certainly do not want their fate to be tossed about from one gang boss to another; still less do we want their future to be left in the hands of corrupt politicians. This Bill will help to bring about a change for the better. There are actually two parts to it, although they are not so identified. The first are amendments not connected with the Elias Report, but which Government feels should be included in the legislation for reasons which I shall enumerate. Clause 2 of the Bill changes the date from which residence in Singapore is to be counted for the purpose of preparing registers of electors from 1st April to 1st February. This follows a similar change which has been made to the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance and makes it easier for those doing the work of compiling to publish both registers about the same time. Clauses 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Bill remove the mandatory provisions of the Ordinance which require the publication in newspapers of various election notices. The publication of the notices in the form required by the Ordinance in newspapers has entailed heavy costs in advertisement charges. It is intended, Sir, that for the future a short advertisement will be inserted in the newspapers which will refer to the detailed notices in the Gazette. Clause 5 of the Bill will make it unnecessary to undertake a revision of the register of electors in 1958 or in any year in which the register is newly prepared. Clause 13 of the Bill amends section 57 of the Local Government Elections Ordinance, 1957, to make it clear that although prosecutions for corrupt practices can only be instituted with the sanction of the Attorney-General, the police may, nevertheless, take immediate action to investigate any alleged corrupt practice or to prevent the continuance of any corrupt practice. This, Sir, is the first part of the Bill. The second part of the Bill deals primarily with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Clause 11 of the Bill seeks to expand and simplify the provision regarding "treating". It implements the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry that the offence of treating should be extended to include the provision of food, drink, refreshment, cigarettes or entertainment to any person for the purpose of inducing such person to attend or remain at an election meeting. Clause 12 of the Bill implements the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry that there should be added to the several forms of bribery under section 56 of the Local Government Elections Ordinance, 1957, a provision making it an offence for any person to bribe any other person who is assisting or has promised to assist a candidate at an election in order to induce him not to assist that candidate. Clause 16 of the Bill prohibits the use of motor vehicles for conveying voters to the poll. This implements the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry as contained in paragraph 93 of their Report. In this connection, it will be necessary to provide more polling stations so that voters will not be compelled to walk long distances to cast their votes, particularly in the rural areas. Clause 17 of the Bill implements the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry that on Polling Day no vehicle should be permitted to carry or display anything (including any rosette or favour) which would indicate connection with any candidate or his political Party. In order to make the provisions effective, a contravention of them is made seizable. Clause 18 adds five new sections. The first section prohibits canvassing on Polling Day to implement the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry in paragraph 90 of their Report. The second section prohibits, inter alia, (a) the checking of names of persons entering polling stations, and (b) loitering within 200 yards of any polling station. These provisions implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in paragraphs 98 and 99 of their Report. The third section defines election activity and prohibits any person under 21 years of age conducting any election activity. It also implements the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry that no person should be allowed to conduct an election activity on behalf of a candidate without being appointed in writing to do so by the candidate and that the Commissioner of Police may require the cancellation of any authority given to a person by a candidate. The fourth section provides that an assembly of five or more persons whose intention is to disrupt an election meeting shall be an unlawful assembly. The fifth section makes it a seizable offence to operate a loudspeaker so as to interfere with the election meeting or maliciously to deface election posters. These two sections implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in paragraph 106 of their Report. There is, however, one major and controversial recommendation which is not included in the Bill, and that is the question of compulsory voting. Various views have been expressed on this issue and although the Bill does not include this recommendation, Government does not wish to prevent it from being aired in this Assembly, nor does it wish to bind itself for the time being without properly sounding public opinion and weighing its pros and cons. Sir, it is Government's intention to commit the Bill to a Select Committee, and at the appropriate time I shall beg leave to move the motion. I have already given notice of two minor amendments in clauses 11 and 17 which will be made in Committee, but there is, however, one other amendment which Government will introduce at the Committee stage in connection with clause 18 of the Bill, making the new clause 73c subsections (1) and (2) of the Principal Ordinance seizable. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.54 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill marks a great change in the election system of this country. In the past we have had elections of a nature where people or supporters of the candidates crowded around the polling stations. This Bill will also give a chance to those who wish to stand for election but who cannot afford heavy expenses. Also with the introduction of this Bill there will be no more allegations of secret society activities on election day. The Minister has said that this Bill is framed in two parts. One part, according to the explanatory statement, is that this Bill is designed primarily to amend the Local Government Elections Ordinance, 1957, in order to implement certain recommendations of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections. The second part is "Another change is the removal of mandatory nature of provisions requiring the publication in newspapers of various election notices." Sir, according to clauses 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9, they seek to do away with advertisements in any local newspaper. This, I understand, is for the purpose of economy. The Minister, when introducing this Bill, has said that in the past the Government has entailed heavy advertisement costs. If this Bill becomes law, Sir, then the notices will only appear in the Gazette and not in the local newspapers. May I know from the Minister, Sir, how many people in Singapore actually read the Gazette or subscribe to the Gazette? Except for Government departments and a few big firms which actually subscribe to the Gazette, I am quite sure that many people will be deprived of the opportunity to know about the notices of elections. A large majority of the public do not even know where to get the Gazette. Then how can they be aware of notices of elections? If the present practice is discontinued, Sir, the public will be deprived of the opportunity of claiming their names on the electoral registers if their names have been omitted. It will also deprive those who would like to object to some names that appear on the registers of an opportunity to do so. According to the Budget, the Government spends huge sums of money every year. By doing away with advertisements in the local newspapers, the saving effected is very small, and if the Government thinks that it is essential, then it is penny wise and pound foolish. For the benefit of the general public, Sir, I still say that advertisements should appear in the newspapers and they should be widely publicised. Instead of the term as contained in the Bill - "in one or more newspapers" - I would suggest that it should be amended to read "in all leading English and vernacular daily newspapers". Coming to the implementation of the recommendations made by the Elias Commission, it is surprising to note that the Government is only taking into consideration certain recommendations. Why only certain recommendations? When the Elias Commission framed their recommendations, they took the whole aspect of the election machinery into consideration and not a part of it. For instance, Sir, clause 16 of the Bill is a new provision by adding section 66A after section 66 of the principal Ordinance. This section prohibits the use of motor vehicles on election day. Clause 18 of the Bill seeks to prohibit canvassing on polling day. I take it this is to prevent secret society activities on election day. I agree that these recommendations or amendments are good, but can they be considered adequate? The framing of this Bill will only allow a certain section of the public to take part in election activities - may I say, professional politicians only? Sir, the Minister has said that our experience of elections goes back to 1948 - 10 years ago. We should be considered an advanced country where elections are concerned. But there are still people in Singapore who do not want to be dragged into a political warfare. Normally a friend of a candidate will willingly offer his car or his assistance during an election campaign; but if this Bill is passed, then such an offer of a car or assistance will be an offence. According to clause 18, that friend will have to be registered before he can help a candidate during election day or during the election campaign. This is a most cumbersome procedure, Sir. As supporters of a candidate will now be subject to screening by the police if they offer their assistance to him, it is then up to the police to say whether or not the supporters can take part in the election campaign. Furthermore, people with a high sense of responsibility - and therefore good citizens of Singapore - will no longer discuss openly the good or bad points of a candidate of a certain political Party. The interpretation of the new sections 73A, 73B and 73C in clause 18 may only be a technical point in the eyes of the Government, but the man in the street does not understand what the legislation is and he does not wish to be involved in any political complications because he is afraid of committing an offence under these sections in clause 18. There would then be very few people who would be prepared to come forward to assist a candidate during his election campaign. So when this Bill becomes law, it will mean that voters will have to go to the polls voluntarily either in their own transport, if they have it, or, if they have not, walk there. It is encouraging to note that the Minister is prepared to have more polling stations, especially in the rural areas, so that people will have only a very short distance to walk. On the face of it, the amendments appear to be good and I am sure every Member in this House will support them, having regard to the recent Kallang by-election. But does the Government visualise the percentage of voters who will go to the polls? Every voter will have to make up his own mind voluntarily that he should go to the polls and exercise his right to vote. I recall to this House, Sir, what happened at the Kallang by-election. The Government claimed to have a record poll at this by-election, and it was only slightly above 50 per cent. The political Parties and their candidates took great pains to persuade people to go to the polls. Had it not been for this. I am sure the percentage of voters at this by-election would have been much lower. I must also give credit to the Department of Information Services during the Kallang by-election. A van toured the division every evening with neon lights appealing to the people to go to the polls and telling them that they must exercise their franchise right. Yet in spite of all this, only slightly over 50 per cent of the voters, as I have said, voted. Without all this work by the Government, the percentage might have been 20 or 30 per cent only. With the introduction of this Bill, Sir, there will be no more cars roaming about the streets with badges, posters or symbols. There will be no more canvassing by supporters and, what is more important, no more annoyance will be caused to the voters by supporters coming to their doors every half-hour or 15 minutes. If Government wants to implement the Elias Commission's recommendations, why not take all of them into consideration rather than some of them? I am glad that the Government is prepared to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. If it were not prepared to do so, I would have done it. My reason for wishing this Bill to go to a Select Committee is so that more amendments could be introduced to implement adequately the recommendations of the Elias Commission. At the Committee stage I hope the Government will also consider the point I have raised - that advertisements of notices of election should appear in all English and vernacular daily newspapers. 12.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I felt dismayed after having listened to the mover of this motion, but after hearing the flow of words from the Member for Queenstown, I have forgotten my dismay. Sir, the pious and sanctimonious incantation of democracy, in order to rig election laws for the benefit of those who hope that they will win the next election, leaves me aghast. We are told that the whole purpose of these amendments to the Ordinance is to have clean and honest elections so that clean and honest men would be elected to this Assembly, and that they have done no more than just adopt what the Elias Commission recommended. In the first place, Sir, the recommendations that were made were inter-related. One of the recommendations said, "Polling day a public holiday". Another said compulsory voting, no canvassing. Sir, everybody knows that a public holiday will increase the votes of the candidate who has the support of the working class. Everybody knows that at every election the workers jam the polling booths between half-past six and eight p.m. Therefore we welcomed the recommendation to make polling day a public holiday. That is part of the recommendation of the Report, but I am sorry to see that the Labour Front, which professes to be a Labour party and therefore should hope to get the support of the working class, has decided not to make polling day a public holiday, although it is part of the recommendations. We were told that the Government is considering the question of compulsory voting. Let us be honest about it. Let us not be hypocritical. For about two months we were reading in the newspapers every day about the hue and cry from the Chief Minister being actively opposed by his Deputy Chief Minister, both of whom were actively opposed by the ex-Chief Minister, and they were all running around in excited circles. We took a completely disinterested and dispassionate view and said, "Come what may, we will still win, whether you have compulsory voting or not." Everybody now knows that compulsory voting is off, because the Deputy Chief Minister believes that if there is compulsory voting, there will be very few areas where U.M.N.O. supporters and the Malays will outnumber everybody else and therefore win. Therefore he is anti-compulsory voting. And therefore the Chief Minister is in a bit of a difficulty, because he may be left without sufficient Members to form a government. All this in the name of democracy! Sir, the recommendation not to have canvassing on polling day is tied up with compulsory voting. If you have compulsory voting, then it is unnecessary to canvass. But, of course, because they do not expect to be able to bear again the enormous expenditure of men, money and materials which was put in at Kallang, it is better not to have canvassing on polling day. It is a very expensive and a very exhausting process. Particularly if one could also throughout the whole election, block all those under 21 - presumably the governing Parties do not expect to get anybody under 21 to work for them. They do not expect to be able to muster sufficient people to canvass votes for them - therefore nobody under 21 should participate in election activities. Therefore no canvassing on polling day. But no compulsory voting, because that would work adversely against the interests of the ruling Parties Sir, when this Bill was first published, I informed one of my Branch Committee members that it is intended that in future nobody under 21 could participate in election activities. He said to me, "How can that be? People over the age of 18 are asked to take a gun to do national service in defence of Queen and country, and you say they cannot participate in election activities? They are prepared to send them to the front-line in order that they may be shot, to defend politicians as their institutions, but they are not allowed to participate in election activities?" Further, is this 21-year limit recommended in the Elias Report? Who thought it out? Sir, regarding the screening of election workers, it is a good and reasonable suggestion. Anybody with a secret society record, with a card in the Criminal Records Office - and this Office keeps a card of those suspected of being secret society gangsters, with pictures and ten thumb-prints - should be debarred. But clause 18, section 73C (4) says: "A candidate or election agent shall if so required by the Commissioner of Police withdraw and deliver to the Returning Officer the written authority given by him to any person who is stated by the Commissioner of Police to be a person in respect of whom an order has been made under subsection (4) of section 22 of the Societies Ordinance for the photograph and finger impressions of such person to be taken." Sir, we saw - and this is about 17 days ago - Assistant Ministers running around with gangsters in Kallang and here we have this pious provision to say that it shall all be illegal. We are asked to accept with equanimity and calm the suggestion that the Commissioner of Police can just say no to any election worker, when we know that the 24 Gang was all massed on behalf of the Labour Front at Kallang! Sir, first of all, in principle, we object to this procedure of registering, because it is an infringement of the democratic rights. If I choose to canvass for a person, if I speak to another friend and say, "Vote for that person", that is an election activity. And you cannot curb that. The definition of "election activity" in section 73C (5) of clause 18 reads: 'For the purposes of this section "election activity" includes any activity which is done for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election other than clerical work wholly performed within enclosed premises.' I visit friend X in Rayman Avenue and ask him to vote for the P.A.P., because it is an honest and clean Party, and do not vote for the Labour Front, because I think they do not know where they are going anyway, and because they are going to dissolve themselves. And I am committing an offence. What is the purpose of all this? Has the Government seriously considered the effect of section 73C (5)? On principle, we object to it. In practice, we say that what is going to happen is that all the gangsters will be allowed to have the authority to help certain Parties, and all the good and honest men may be suspected of being gangsters because they are going to help the Opposition Parties. In the Select Committee to which this Bill is going to be committed, we will have certain amendments to make as to, firstly, the feasibility of introducing this scheme; secondly, if it is to be introduced for the purpose of eliminating secret society gangsters - and if that is the manifest and specific intention of the Government and no other - then we can work out a provision whereby secret society gangsters, although suspected to be members of such gangs by the Registrar of Societies, can be eliminated altogether. But there should be no infringement on the right of a private citizen to canvass, to denounce, or to bring about a change in government by bringing about the non-election of any of the candidates of a party that he dislikes. In any case, such powers cannot be vested in the Commissioner of Police. They must be subject to a judicial authority reviewing his actions and either approving or negating them. Sir, on the question of transport. It is true that we suggested two years ago that there should be a restriction on the use of cars. Because the Government Parties and the Liberal-Socialists then believed that as they could muster more cars they could have more advantage out of this factor, our proposal was rejected. The consequent result is that every polling day sees a motorcade in every constituency. Sir, in Kallang I do not imagine there were less than 1,000 cars milling around a very small area. According to results, not more than 8,000 people went to the polls. According to our analysis, at each polling station no more than 4,000 voters were carried there in cars. In other words, 4,000 people went by themselves and voted. In case the Labour Front are wondering how they lost, let me tell them that the people walked there, slipped through the polling station gates and voted against them, despite all the high pressure tactics of using cars and gangsters. We think clause 16 - an amendment to add section 66A (2) - is inadequate. It reads: "Nothing in this section shall prevent any person employing a motor vehicle for the purpose of conveying to or from the poll himself or any member of the same household or borrowing a motor vehicle from a member of the same household to be employed for that purpose." Sir, the English law on this point has been tested for quite a long time, and it says that nobody can give anybody a lift, be he a member of the same household or otherwise. If we allow this to go in, then we will have a lot of cars running around, or which have been borrowed, by members of the same household. It may well be that the provision of public transport along some of the main roads in a constituency could be a solution to all the difficulties over transport. In the rural areas - let us face the facts - the position is, of course, difficult unless one puts up many more polling booths than are contemplated at present. The difficulty could be overcome by providing public transport along main roads, but there is then the administrative difficulty of seeing that such transport is confined only to voters for the purpose of going to and from the polling stations. But if we are to ban transport altogether, then it must be an effective and conclusive ban. It cannot be one with a loophole which allows for members of a household. "Members of a household" can mean anything - because you can have a house which has a hundred persons living in it, and they are all members of the same household. Lastly, Sir, I have this to add to my strictures on the conduct of the Government in this Bill. Clean elections can only be brought about if the main political Parties are clean. I will give an illustration of this. The days of the Independents are over and those who have not got a Party had better look around quickly for one. When one Party adopts tactics which do not abide by the Queensbury Rules, so to speak, the other Party must either counter them or succumb. For instance, if one Party puts up a large number of people outside the polling station for the purposes of: (1) Morale, and (2) Gentle persuasion, albeit bordering on intimidation, the other Party is compelled to do likewise. When therefore, for the purposes of avoiding an incident in the Kallang by-election, we invited all Parties voluntarily to agree not to have canvassing within a hundred yards of any polling station, great reluctance was shown from the Labour Front. The ex-Chief Minister, for his own selfish motives, because his Workers Party probably had nobody to put outside the polling stations - I think he has only got a gang named 304 now - cornered his successor in a public interview, into agreeing to this, and yet, despite that agreement, the following day at Rayman School up to half-past one we saw masses -

Of P.A.P.

- of young men wearing Labour Front badges, Hawaiian shirts and drainpipe trousers - we have pictures to prove it too - and because it could not be stopped, at 2 o'clock we gave orders to our workers. And we have workers who are bigger chaps, strapping people, man for man, S.T.C. bus conductors and drivers - not gangsters. The result was to neutralise the position. Let them remember this: that every dirty tactic and every bit of foul play can be countered by a Party which has an organisation and has facilities to back the resources of large masses of people in the unions. If you have that, then you have much more resources than if you have money to buy gangsters, because, after all, a man who is paid to do a job is not going to exert himself more than what is necessary to earn the money. But if a man comes into the field because he feels it to be his duty, and because he wants to return a favour done for him and his union, then he is going to go out and do his level best to see that his side wins. If the Government really wants to see a clean election, then, first of all, let us have clean and fair play during the whole course of the election. Let us discuss these amendments not with the purpose of trying to cripple another Party, but with the purpose of getting the gangsters and other undesirable elements out of it. But so long as we see in this Bill an intention to take some advantage and cripple the other side, we shall fight it.

I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.24 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.31 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Hon. Members will need a little reminder from me of the current situation in regard to the enforcement of law and order in Singapore due to the activities of secret societies. Every day they pick up their newspapers and read of gang fights or other crimes committed by members of these gangs in pursuit of their object of terrorising the law-abiding people in this island. Moreover, there has of recent weeks, as hon. Members will be aware, a serious increase in this form of crime owing to two groups of these societies having come into violent conflict. This is only the culmination of a steady increase in gangsterism over a period of time and which has led to the adoption of a number of measures with the approval of this House which it was hoped would have enabled the police to reassert the authority of the law and bring the criminals to justice or at least to restrict their activities. I should like to give the House some statistics to show not only the steady increase in this form of crime which has been going on for some time, but also the serious deterioration which has taken place recently. In 1954, there were 30 secret society gang fights; in 1955, there were 24; in 1956, there were 25; in 1957, there were 150; and in the first six months of this year, there were 157 - double the rate for last year. Even allowing for the fact that a change of classification came into being last year and certain minor fights which had previously been classified as affrays are now brought into the category of secret society gang fights, hon. Members will see that there has been a very serious rise in this type Of crime. During the six weeks since 1st July this year, there have been not only 51 gang fights, but also six murders, either committed in the course of these fights or for reasons concerned with membership of those societies. In addition, the incidence of house-breaking and thefts in 1958 has been double that of previous years. Sir, the first question which naturally has to be answered is why cannot the police, whose duty it is, detect the criminals and bring them before the Courts to be dealt with under the ordinary law of the land? Hon. Members are, I know, already aware of the difficulties with which the police are faced, but I should like to repeat them in order to explain why the Government feels it necessary to seek the special powers which are embodied in the Bill before the House. When a crime is committed, whether it be a gang fight, an assault or a murder, those who are responsible do not commit their crimes before the eyes of the police so enabling the police not only to arrest the offenders there and then, but also to furnish eye-witness evidence to bring a charge before the Court. On the contrary, they take very good care to ensure that there are no police officers present before they embark on a crime. The police consequently only obtain knowledge of the crime some time and, in certain cases, a quite considerable time, after it has been committed. The perpetrators have disappeared and the only method of detection open to the police is to question those members of the public who may have been witnesses to the crime or for some other reason have knowledge of it. This interrogation, coupled with any deductions which can be made from any material evidence to be found at the scene of the crime, is the only way of obtaining information which may lead to identifying the criminals. They have in addition their own knowledge, culled over a period of time, of the members of the secret societies involved - who are the fighters and so on - but that is of little value when it comes to the second stage of the proceedings, which is to bring the accused persons before a Court and produce first-hand evidence to satisfy the Court that the persons are guilty of the offence with which they are charged. At both stages of this procedure - detection and prosecution - it has unfortunately to be recognised that they seldom receive the assistance from members of the public to which they are entitled and without which it is quite impossible for them to carry out their task. The reason is a simple one - that those concerned are too frightened of reprisals from other members of the gang if they furnish any information which would lead to the arrest of a member of the gang. These gangs have in short succeeded in establishing a very widespread form of terrorism which inhibits the law-abiding citizen from carrying out his duty in assisting in the enforcement of the law. Even if they are prepared, as they sometimes are prepared, to provide information in secret in such a way that they are satisfied that it will not become known that they have done so, nothing will induce them to stand up and give their evidence in open court or in the presence of the accused persons. In these circumstances, there is little if anything the police can do to detect and prosecute the criminals. They can only exercise the limited powers open to them in other directions - to have members of unlawful societies placed on record under the Societies Ordinance, or, in a very limited number of cases where they can produce sufficient material to satisfy the Court, to have them bound over under the provision in the law to which the House assented earlier this year. But these measures are only palliatives and, as is apparent from the events of the last few weeks, are quite inadequate to stem the rising tide of lawlessness. It is in these circumstances that the Government has decided that more drastic steps must be taken to protect the public from the activities of these gangs, and that since, for the reasons I have given, it is not possible to achieve that protection through the normal judicial processes of the Courts, these safeguards, which are adequate in ordinary times, must, in the present abnormal crime-wave, be supplemented by executive action. It is not only the duty of the Government to do this in discharge of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and good order, but I believe that there is a wide public demand that such action should be taken and that it will meet with wholehearted support from all law-abiding members of the community. The powers, Sir, which it is sought to take under this Bill, to detain for a limited period without trial, are designed to be used against the ringleaders of these gangs and those who are primarily responsible for their activities. I would emphasise that it is not intended to use these powers indiscriminately. They will be used selectively to break the gang organisation and to remove the leaders to a place where they can no longer coerce the less vicious members of their gangs as well as the general public. As the House knows, one of the worst features of the present situation is the extent to which young boys have been drawn into the coils of these organisations, in the long run this trend can be countered by measures to direct the leisures and energies of our youths into useful and productive channels, but that is of no immediate help and the need is for effective action now. Before I come, Sir, to the details of the Bill, I should like to touch briefly on two other matters. The first is that the necessary powers which it is now sought to take, I already exist under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, but the Government does not think it proper that they should be invoked for the present purpose, firstly, because that Ordinance was enacted for a different purpose and, secondly, because the Government considers it only proper that it should obtain the specific endorsement of the House to the use of executive powers to meet the current threat presented by these criminals. The second matter to which I wish to refer, Sir, is the life of the parent Ordinance to which this Bill seeks to make amendments. As the House is aware, this Ordinance will lapse in two months' time. It is the intention of the Government to seek the approval of the House to an extension of the life of this Ordinance at the appropriate time. This will also give the House a further opportunity of considering these provisions in common with the other provision of the Ordinance. I turn now, Sir, to the provisions of this Bill. The new Clause 47 empowers the Chief Secretary to make an order of detention for a period not exceeding six months. I have already given the House an assurance that this power will be used selectively and only for the purposes I have mentioned. It has, however, been represented to me since this Bill was drafted that the wording of the new clause 47 is exceptionally wide, and I do propose at the Committee stage to move an amendment to this clause with the object of relating it more restrictively to the persons against whom it is aimed. The amendment which I shall be moving to this clause is to insert, after "custody," in the fourth line of the new clause 47, the words "that such person has been associated with activities of a criminal nature and" that it is necessary, etc. These powers, Sir, can be used selectively since the police have much information regarding the leadership and many of the members of these gangs even though they cannot bring that information before the Courts. The maximum period for the duration of an order is limited to six months since it is hoped that within that time it will have proved possible to break the back of this problem. Nevertheless, it is not possible to count on that measure of success, and provision is made, in new clause 50, for such orders to be extended by the Governor in Council. The new clause 48 provides for every order made by the Chief Secretary to be referred within a period of 28 days to an Advisory Committee for report and recommendation. It is intended that the Committee, in discharging this task, should be at liberty to carry out the fullest enquiry, and every facility will be made available to enable it to do so. The report and recommendations of the Committee are finally considered by the Governor in Council, which has power to confirm or cancel the order. New clause 49 provides for the suspension of orders on conditions. This provision, Sir, is very desirable in that it will facilitate releases at an earlier date than could otherwise be justified. New clauses 51 and 52 provide for the appointment and functioning of the Advisory Committees. The Government has considered, Sir, whether provision should be made for one member of the Committee to have judicial qualifications, but the Government feels that this would be placing an undue burden on a limited class of persons many of whom are already carrying out other public duties. Nevertheless, if the House feels that this additional safeguard would be an important one, the Government would be prepared to accept a suitable amendment at the Committee stage. Clause 53 is inserted to protect the sources of information where it is necessary. Clause 54 provides for the custody and movement of detained persons. Clause 55 gives the police power to arrest and hold persons in custody for a limited period, while any further necessary investigations are carried out before it is decided to apply for an order. Clauses 56 and 57 concern powers of arrest in pursuance of these provisions. Clause 58 should be read in conjunction with the provision in clause 47, that no order can be made without the consent of the Public Prosecutor. I have already given an assurance that these powers of detention will not be used indiscriminately. This provision is designed to ensure also that they will not be used as a substitute for prosecution in accordance with the ordinary processes of law. In any case where it is possible to bring a prosecution, it will be brought and, on the facts presented, the Public Prosecutor will not give his consent to an order unless he is satisfied that the individual concerned cannot be prosecuted. Sir, there is one further minor amendment I shall be moving at the Committee stage, both to clauses 57 and 59. As these clauses are at present drafted, the powers conferred under them are applicable to all the provisions of the main Ordinance. It is not intended or desired to extend the powers of the police or the Government in relation to the other provisions of the Ordinance and I therefore propose to move an amendment which will have the effect of restricting the application of these two clauses to the new Part VII of the Ordinance which is contained in this Bill. Finally, Sir, I should like to reiterate that it is only the exceptional gravity of the present state of gang lawlessness which compels the Government to seek these exceptional powers for immediate use. No democratic government will lightly curtail the liberty of any individual by executive action, nor would it wish to curtail that liberty for a moment longer than is absolutely necessary. This Government is no exception but when there is no other means of restoring peace and good order to the island, and removing the dark shadow of terrorism which is spreading over the lives of innocent citizens, then the Government has not only no alternative, but a positive duty to the public to take that action. So long as the public fails to give their full co-operation in the enforcement of the law, the ordinary judicial processes are stultified. So long as the criminals concerned cannot be brought to justice, the public will continue to live in fear, and that fear will inhibit their co-operation. This vicious circle must be broken. With the slowly increasing mutual confidence between the police and the public following Police Week, and other measures to promote that confidence, there are encouraging signs, and information received by the police has resulted in the recovery of substantial quantities of weapons and other material stored away against gang fights. But this process is slow and it may well wither away if the present level of gang activity is allowed to continue. It needs a catalytic agent. I believe this measure will provide one, and I sincerely hope that if we can accelerate this process and prevail on the public to give more and more assistance to the police, it would not be very long before the conditions in which these gangsters can flourish will no longer obtain, the normal processes of law will once more be adequate to detect and punish crimes, and these special powers can be thankfully surrendered. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second the motion. Question proposed. 2.53 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I read in the newspapers this morning that Government is to introduce legislation to give the police more powers to wipe out gangsterism, I was very happy and, with a determined mind, I came here to give full support. When I came to this sitting this morning, I was handed a copy of this Bill by the Hon, the Chief Secretary, but on reading through it, I felt rather disappointed and will now have to change my mind. Although I am not a lawyer, while going through the contents of the Bill it appears to me that its wording is more or less identical with that of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. Sir, any extra powers to be given to the police to stamp out gangsterism should be most welcome to the public. I am sure everyone will support these extra powers because gangsterism has been on the rise recently. In fact Government should have introduced such powers long, long before. This Bill is long overdue. And if Government had done so, I am sure it would have saved a few lives. Within a period of only three months, we find that seven people were killed and a number of persons injured arising out of gangster or secret society clashes. The people of Singapore must be happy to read that more than 70 people have now been arrested and detained, but when they come to know the contents of this Bill, I am sure they will feel as disappointed as I am. An hon. Member: Hm! Hm!

This is certainly true; there is no "Hm! Hm!" about it. The police claim to know the identities of the big gangster chiefs, and even their hideouts. The police even have a list prepared of the wanted persons. What surprises the man in the street is this: that although the police know full well who the gangsters are and their hideouts, no action has been taken so far. Why all this delay? According to a report in the newspapers, it appears to me that the police do have powers under section 12 of the Secret Society Ordinance. I have an extract here, Sir. Section 12 of the Secret Society Ordinance reads -

Societies Ordinance.

Societies Ordinance - section 12 reads: (1) Any person who is or acts as a member of an unlawful society, or attends a meeting of an unlawful society, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or to imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or to both. (2) Every offence against the provisions of subsection (1) shall be deemed to be a non-bailable offence and a seizable case within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sir, if the police do have powers under this section, why not introduce legislation to amend this Ordinance rather than introduce amendments in line with the provisions of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance? We can increase the term of imprisonment under the Societies Ordinance from six months to six years, or even to 10 years, 20 years, if the Chief Secretary, so desires. Introducing an amending Bill of .this nature is most undemocratic. It is a departure from the principles of normal procedure that a man is not brought to court for open trial. The Preservation of Public Security Ordinance gives powers to the police to detain persons suspected of subversive activities. These offences I take to be political, but under the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Bill, powers are to be given to the police to deal with criminal offences. Gangsterism is a criminal offence, and there is a difference between the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and this Bill on criminal law, as explained by the Chief Secretary in moving the Second Reading. Why then, Sir, put the contents of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance into this Bill dealing with criminal offences? When subversive elements are detained, it is a matter of political affairs and, may be for security reasons, the Government is not prepared to bring them to court for open trial. But where criminal offences are concerned, what is there to hide? If a person has committed a criminal offence, let us bring him to court for open trial and judge if he has in fact committed an offence. Democratic justice must be given to the accused and if anybody is arrested under any criminal law, he must be tried in open court and the matter should not be kept secret. If he is found guilty, the penalties, as I said, can be increased to imprisonment for any number of years that is deemed necessary. If the Bill is accepted, Sir, may I say that there will be abuse or misuse by some police officers in enforcing or implementing it. The Chief Secretary has given an assurance that this Bill will be used selectively and that every care will be taken to implement it. In the past I have brought to the attention of the Government so many allegations of torture, of abuse of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. So if this Bill becomes law, I am afraid that the same thing will happen. There are still many people who are brought to the C.I.D., where they are subject to torture -

Nonsense!

- though this has been denied by the Government. Whether it is right or wrong or whether it is true or not - "nonsense", I hear from the opposite Benches - it is left to the detainees and to the Government's conscience to say. I am not prepared to argue further on that. What is there, then, to stop the police from arresting anybody? One day it may be the Chief Minister when he is no more Chief Minister, or may be I myself; the police officers concerned may have a grudge against one of us. By taking advantage of the provisions of this Bill, they will just pull us into the C.I.D.

I hope you get a walloping too!

Oh, you hope! I certainly do not, but if I do I will know where the cause is - this Bill. Sir, under the new clause 47, if the Chief Secretary is satisfied that a person is detrimental to the interests of good order, public safety or peace, then he can be detained. 'If the Chief Secretary is satisfied' - now, Sir, that will be a matter of opinion by the Chief Secretary. Who is there to argue against him? On many occasions in this House, we hear that this or that is just a matter of opinion. In this case, Sir, it is to be only a matter of opinion - the personal opinion of the Chief Secretary. I must emphasise, Sir, that I am not actually against the introduction of any new legislation giving more powers to the police to stamp out this gangsterism. I am all for it. But what I am against is this: that a man is detained without open trial. Why should a man be detained without open trial? Give him a chance; where criminal cases are concerned, I say again that democratic justice must be shown. If he is really guilty of the offence, punish him as heavily as we can. An hon. Member: As we can?

Or as the Government can, or as the Court can - even the Government has no right to punish; it is for the Court to punish. What is going to happen to the many schoolboys who are thrown out of school when they have completed Form IV? After reaching Form IV they will have to sit for an entrance examination to go into Form V, and if they fail that entrance examination they are denied further education. They will then be thrown on to the streets and so may be led into gang-land by gangsters or secret society organisations. The C.S. in framing this new legislation must have thought that where Europeans are concerned, there are very few European youths in this country, so he is not in the least interested. No European youth will be dragged in under the provisions of this Bill.

Order. I have no knowledge of a Member of the Assembly being named "C.S."

I beg your pardon, Sir - I mean the Hon. the Chief Secretary! Here in Singapore, Sir, the majority of the people are Asians. We the Chinese the Malays and the Indians, have sons of youthful age. When they are denied education, they may be dragged in for no reason at all. What is there to protect them? Some form of employment, then, must be offered to them. What has the Government done in helping these young people to get employment? If the Government can do something to help them to get employment, I am sure that gangsterism will not be as bad as it is today. The City Council, Sir, has started a mass health anti-spitting campaign - An hon. Member: Hear! Hear!

"Hear! Hear!" - and Government should now start an anti-gangsters campaign. An hon. Member: Hear! Hear!

"Hear! Hear! I think the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary has in mind something about this question of starting an anti-gangsters campaign. I hope that while going through this Bill, he will declare what is in his mind. The Government in organising this anti-gangsters campaign can form divisional good citizens committees. In the Federation, there are good-citizens committees. Why cannot we form such committees here? The Assemblyman for each division should volunteer his service and lead such committees. The public can also co-operate by joining such committees, and Members can go out in their respective divisions to detect gangsters or bad hats within them. Instead of being handed straightaway to the police for arrest, I think they must be given a chance. They should be told that crime does not pay and that they should change their mode of life. They should be encouraged to join youth clubs, community centres or organisations of a similar nature. Then they will feel that they are wanted by the public and are not real criminals. In fact when they join such youth clubs or community centres, they can get education on what a good citizen's life is. Reformatory schools also should be started by the Government where some sort of trade or handiwork could be taught. The products of the handiwork of these youths could be sold in the market, and that work will at least form some sort of employment or temporary employment -

On a point of order, Sir. Must we be plagued by all these irrelevancies and trivialities?

I have not found anything irrelevant; as to matters being trivial, I cannot say that that is out of order.

It is - it is completely unconnected with what we are debating.

Well, I find that there is nothing irrelevant being uttered by the Member so far.

Thank you very much, Sir. I was just making suggestions to the Government to introduce more powers to stamp out gangsterism, and I think it is up to Government to accept or reject them. I cannot see where the question of order comes in.

It is not in good order.

Certainly it is in very good order.

Will the hon. Member address his remarks to the Chair?

I am much obliged, Mr Speaker. Sir, as I said, the products of these reformatory schools could be sold to the public and provide some sort of temporary occupation or employment for these so-called gangsters or youths. And if after serving a number of months or years in a reformatory they pass out with a trade, Government can find employment for them in the particular trade in which they are qualified. By educating such people I think we can slowly wipe out gangsterism. It should not be, as stated in the press, a question of meeting violence with violence; if we do so, I am sure bloodshed will come. But if we deal with it in a passive way, I am sure we will be able to wipe out gangsterism very soon.

3.07 p.m.

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 it.

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.

3.08 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 10th September, 1958.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to 10th September, 1958.

Debate resumed. 3.09 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of democrats there are in this House who are so intent on remaining unsophisticated and preserving the unsophisticated rights of non-democrats often astounds me. I sometimes wish that we could all conduct a little experiment and, at the end of the experiment, go back to the status quo. What I would like to see happen to the Member for Queenstown is to let him be a victim of his policies and his fond and false beliefs about democratic rights and dealing - if I heard him right - passively with active gangster elements. Then, when the whole thing has fallen down like a ton of bricks over his ears, we can sit back where we are in this House and pass this legislation. Let us face the facts: either we bring these gangsters to trial, or we do nothing, or we lock them up without trial. Well, we prefer to bring them to trial if we could. As I know, and I think every practising lawyer in town knows, the point is now reached when police officers frankly admit that gangsters are not scared of the police any more. They keep on arresting them, lock them up for 24 hours. The gangsters know the procedure by heart. They are produced before a police court, they get bail, they get two chaps to stand guarantee, $5,000, case postponed four months. They engage a lawyer, lawyer goes to court. On the day proceedings commence, they fix a few witnesses who decide that it is healthier not to say anything, and they are acquitted. Now quite frankly either you surrender and say, well, the judicial process is inadequate and therefore we have been beaten by gangsters, or we say, well what do we do about it? I say, well, if there is no other way, then we had better deal with them firmly. But at the same time I would like to point out to the Government that there is no use passing Bills of this nature when they get Assistant Ministers running around with gangsters in Kallang. I mean what -

Order. I think the hon. Member was guilty of making the same reference this morning and I did not pull him up, but I must remind him there is a Standing Order which prevents any Member from referring to the personal conduct of Members except upon a substantive motion. The Standing Order is 31(9), which reads: The personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I put it this way: it is really no use for the Government in power to have important Party personages romping round Kallang with known secret society personages.

Order. That of course perhaps is inferring an improper motive to Members of the Assembly who are members of the Government.

I was referring, Mr Speaker, Sir, to members of the Labour Front who may not necessarily be members of this Assembly. But nevertheless it makes a mockery of the whole thing. The whole solemnity of the judicial process, of the legislative process, is gone through to nab the gangsters to bring law and order, and the police know that the gangsters are often seen in the company of important political personages. Now where are we headed for? I say if we want to get to the bottom of this, let us establish some morality, some standards of dos and don'ts, and one of the don'ts is: don't get mixed up with gangsters in public life. Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the powers themselves; in fact I was remarking to the Chief Secretary that he is a little bit kinder to gangsters than he is to political subversives - he locks up political subversives for two years, he is going to lock up gangsters for six months at a time. But I would like to make this extra plea to distinguish between those who are locked up for ideological and other political matters, from those who are locked up for more mundane and matter of fact reasons of dollars and cents, of extortion, of pick-pocketing, and bashing and acid-throwing. Let us not have any distinction in the treatment they receive in the places to which he has the power to direct them. I see that the provisions in this Bill for the detention and the places of detention are similar to those under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. But we should make it clear that these men should not be detained in the same places or in contiguous places with political detainees. Political detainees are a class apart. In 19501 believe there was a practice sometimes of putting the gangsters with these political subversives. The idea originally was that the gangsters would break down the morale of the political subversives and then corrupt them. I was told the practice was subsequently dropped because some of the gangsters were converted to more effective and purposeful methods of employing their energies and spare time. I hope not only for the sake of the gangsters and the conscience of this House, but generally for the distinction which you must keep clear in the public mind between political and other forms of subversion, that this is a class apart - we are dealing with thugs here, we are not dealing with ideals, ideas or convictions be they right or wrong. And when we deal with thugs, we cannot deal passively, as the Member for Queenstown suggested we ought to do. Nevertheless one should be careful that none of the allegations which the Member for Queenstown so often repeats in this Assembly ever come to life; they should never be true. There should never be a situation in which it is generally believed, rightly or wrongly, that force is being used. That is a matter of the utmost importance in the preservation of the morale not only of the police force, but the morale of the public generally. If it is believed that members of the police and Secret Societies Sub-Branch do in fact beat up secret society detainees, and that belief generally prevails throughout the whole community, then I say you have a very ugly situation developing in which loss of confidence and public morale, and general alarm and despondency at the executive powers of the Government will undermine the whole basis of the democratic state. And with that reminder to the Government, I would say that any responsible political Party, however distasteful extraordinary powers may be, must give its support to this Bill. 3.16 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after two such flights of rhetoric I am rather reluctant to get on my feet but there is one point which I feel I must protest against, and that was a statement made that, sooner or later, if these powers are granted to the police, a police officer will abuse them. Now Mr Speaker, in the last year or so, with the idea of preparing themselves for the responsibilities of self-government, the Governments of this Island and of the Federation of Malaya have very rightly insisted on many sweeping changes. Amongst those changes, we have seen a large change in the makeup of the Singapore Police Force. Many previous officers who came from overseas to serve in this Island have been pensioned off on very generous terms. Their places have been taken by the local boy - if I may refer in such a lighthearted phrase to the very highly-trained, highly capable and highly efficient Asian police officers which we have today. I cannot believe for one moment that any of those officers or the men under them will abuse any powers that are granted them by this House. I feel when it comes to voting, I really hope to see a unanimous vote in favour of this Bill, which would be tantamount to a vote of confidence in our own police force, which police force, I think I may say, if this House cannot claim paternity it can claim at least to be its godfather. 3.19 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Queenstown might have changed his mind after he listened to the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar regarding so-called democratic open trials. Sir, the hon. Member for Queenstown really represents the man-in-the-street, and we know he is really one of them - the hawkers, the workers, the ordinary people - he is very popular among them, and I am sure he can learn from them a great deal how gangsters get off through so-called justice and fair trial in open court. Sir, I give my hearty support for the statement made by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar who opposed these too greedy, unscrupulous lawyers who want to make money quick and who fix witnesses. As what the Member of the Bar -

Point of explanation, Sir,I do not want to be quoted to the Bar Committee, through the honorary offices of the Member for Changi, that I have suggested that members of the Bar fix witnesses against persons. I do not believe that they would be so rash and stupid as to do such a thing and, secondly, I did not say that. What I did say was that usually when the trial comes on, between the time when the case was first mentioned in court, in the two or three months before the trial, somebody, somewhere, at some place, at some time, got at some witnesses. And they are not lawyers who do this, because I do not believe, having seen the members of the Bar and the recent recruits to it, that they have the physical necessity, the requirements, the prerequisites to instil the kind of fear which I think one secret society gangster can instil in another.

Sir, I must express my thanks for the explanation given by the Member for Tanjong Pagar in that he admitted that there are a few people who, somewhere and at some time, unscrupulously, greedily, fix witnesses and help gangsters to get off. Sir, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar has admitted that he is a member of the Bar Committee, I wish he would assure this House that he would bring this matter to the Bar Committee to discuss whether even one unscrupulous lawyer is practising such things. Sir, my next comment is on the statement by the hon. Member Mr Mason about abuse of power by police officers. Sir, I think this point is worth considering more. Yes, all along we respect the integrity and high ability of the police force in this country, but as I mentioned during the April sitting, police officers may be misled into misusing and abusing their powers; they may not do this purposely but because they are misled into it. Why? - the C.I.D. forces are unreliable, untrustworthy. This is known not only to many honourable Members of this House, but, I think, even to the police themselves. So it is high time, Sir, for the Hon. the Chief Secretary to consider whether the police force should set up a new branch, say a juvenile section, to deal with delinquents; to clean out the bad hats among the plainclothes men; and immediately to recruit a new force of plainclothes men to build up the confidence and trust of the people. Sir, I fully support Mr Mason that this Bill should be supported unanimously by this House. It is not only timely but already overdue. Anyhow, despite its importance and timeliness, I have a few comments. A patient is told by a doctor he suffers from high blood pressure. From time to time he has headaches. We know too well that he suffers from high-blood pressure. But he only relies on Aw Boon Haw's "Tiger Balm". Every day he rubs this "Tiger Balm" to try a cure. Sir, that is useless. Similarly, to me this Bill can only cure temporary headaches but not the high-blood pressure. We Chinese say, "Yao tzu pen pu nen ke tzu piao; tzu pen pu nen ke tzu piao."

What does that mean?

Translated - you must get to the root of the trouble. You can never have a cure by just rubbing any oil or any ointment into the skin. Sir, I appeal as an Independent Member: all political Parties, hands off gangsters! This is most important. As long as any politician belonging to any Party tries to seek support from gangsters, the gangsters will continue. Sir, we talk about the unemployment problem. I think now is the right time for the Hon, the Minister for Labour and Welfare to give us an exact figure of the unemployed in Singapore. Many a time when I asked him please to quote the figure of unemployment in this Colony, he mentioned only a few thousand registered unemployed at the Labour Exchange. Sir, this is not true -

Order. I think if the Minister for Labour and Welfare attempts to do that, I must rule him out of order because there is nothing in the Bill about figures of unemployment.

Sir, I am trying to cure the high-blood pressure, but not by this "Tiger Balm" type of Bill. It is useless, Sir. The problem of gangsters is not only a social one but, to me, an economic and political one as well. Simply by empowering the police to have the vital right to make arrests and detention, you cannot expect the gangster problem to die. To me, Sir, the fundamental problem will still remain, not solved. Give us the real figure of how many unemployed there are in this Colony, including hawkers, for many of them are also unemployed. The Hon. the Minister for Commerce and Industry made a very timely and constructive statement this morning but we know that, despite his hard work and sincerity to try to improve industrialisation and promote the entrepot trade, his hands are tied, and that even time is against him. How to promote industrialisation when even at the Causeway the tariffs are so high against him? As for the entrepot trade, does the Indonesian and Chinese trade improve or decline? Sir, in my conclusion I wish to make a point. This Bill is introduced by an expatriate officer, the Hon. the Chief Secretary, to meet the problem of gangsters, but if Whitehall in London insists on dividing our people into the Bornean, Singaporeans and Malayans, the three territories will forever not be able to enjoy either economic or political stability, and as long as there is economic and political instability, gangsterism can never die. Sir, I think it is high time for Whitehall to consider. Do not divide us. Let these three territories become one. We cry about unemployment in this Colony, yet North Borneo makes an announcement inviting Hongkong farmers and workers to open up its territory. Sir, of course you are going to rule me out as being irrelevant, but it is the only remedy to solve this problem.

The hon. Member has anticipated me! 3.30 p.m

Sir, when I was handed a copy of this Bill this morning - I have had a short time with which to look through it - I was very unhappy and uneasy in my mind to know the additional powers that were asked for by Government to be given to the Police. This Bill curbs to a certain extent the liberties of the people of Singapore and certain clauses make me almost feel that I should oppose this Bill, particularly clause 55 which reads: "...if an officer of or above the rank of Superintendent of Police is satisfied that the necessary enquiries cannot be completed within the aforesaid period of forty-eight hours he may authorise the further detention of such person for an additional period not exceeding fourteen days...". This indeed is a very wide power given to a Police Officer but the manner in which the Hon, the Chief Secretary delivered his speech this afternoon stressing upon the gravity of the situation that confronts us today, quoting us figures showing the incidence of crime, murders, burglaries and thefts connected with gangsterism, then I must say that my mind is changed and I have no hesitation in supporting this Bill this afternoon. I am very glad indeed that he has assured us that the purpose of this Bill is to get at the leaders and not at the small men because it is the leaders who must be detained and I hope that all efforts will be concentrated on them so that the smaller fry will then be given a chance to know that Government and the public of Singapore are prepared to resort to extreme measures to make this place suitable for us to live in. I am glad also to note that in two months' time, the parent Ordinance, that is the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, will come up again before this Assembly for us to approve or to deny its extension. By that time I hope a full statement will be made to us and we shall be able to judge whether the provisions of this Bill which gives so much power to the Police should be extended or not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems to me that the newspapers during the last week have focused their attention on gangsterism which made us feel that gangsterism is a new problem that has just cropped up; but I would like to remind this House that gangsterism has existed for a very long time. Since the founding of Singapore, there has been gangsterism. All along, the Government has had in its armory many types of laws to curb this undesirable activity. All along, it has had plenty of time and money that it could spend usefully to prevent an occurrence of this type of gangsterism and yet today we find that the Government comes to this House to ask for extraordinary powers. I do not say that that is wrong but I would say that the Government has been caught on the wrong foot and that we must now support Government in this measure in order to bring to Singapore the peace that we enjoyed before. This problem of gangsterism, I believe, is not due to people just wanting to become gangsters at once but there are a lot of contributory causes. Many of the Members in this House have rightly pointed out that one of the causes is unemployment. I agree with them wholeheartedly. I agree that due to the present trend of events, many people are afraid of operating their businesses here. They are chased away by the uttering of very irresponsible politicians. They close down factories; they refuse to expand their businesses and they refuse to start new businesses. This, of course, has increased unemployment on a greater scale than ever. If this situation is not rectified soon enough, I believe that the law will have to be prolonged for a longer period than necessary. The Minister for Commerce and Industry has come out with a little plan. I wish his plan success but it will only succeed if all politicians will be less irresponsible. Again, Sir, gangsterism is not merely due to unemployment. There are so many young people in Singapore who have not been given the education they deserved. They have been turned out on to the streets at an early age - an age too young for employment and with knowledge far too meagre to be wanted. Something must be done to bridge this gap and although the Government, through the Welfare Department, is doing what it can, yet I think it has not done enough. More assistance in this direction will help Singapore on its way to get rid of this menace. If money is not spent to help our youths to occupy their time usefully to learn a trade or get themselves into organisations and help themselves usefully until such time when they are of an age that would be acceptable for employment, then we will have to spend more money on other departments like the Police and the Prisons Departments. I know we have these troubles all these years; when every time a vote comes before the Hon. the Financial Secretary, invariably he cuts out or reduces the assistance given to these youths by the Welfare Department. Further, I have read about the utterings of many important people in Singapore on gangsterism in the papers during the whole of last week. Everybody said, "It is a terrible thing. We must curb it. We must do something about it." But I notice one thing. All these prominent people will only shout their heads off but will not do anything that is useful to help correct the situation! I wish the people of Singapore would not just shout but would come out to help in this direction. Politicians should not just condemn one thing or another but should come out to work and contribute something towards the well-being of this country. We have today a situation whereby gangsterism is slowly taking over the powers of the Police. The people are more afraid of gangsters than they are of the Police. The gangsters, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) said, know the law by heart. We have to do a few things to improve the situation. There was the "Police Week" that was staged not so very long ago. I visited a number of police stations and I was amazed by the courtesy shown by them. I was glad to see the change of heart of the policemen. They were all ready to serve but they were only ready to serve during Police Week! Once the Police Week was switched off their readiness for cooperation also dimmed. I hope that the Police Week staged not so long ago will be staged 365 days a year. The courtesy shown to the public should be shown every day of the year. If the people know that they can run to the Police every time they are in trouble, for protection, they will invariably choose the path which is lawful. But if they know that running to the Police means endangering themselves or their opinions falling on unsympathetic ears, then gangsterism will be on the rise. I heard what the Member for Tanjong Pagar said about gangsters; how they know the law, how they know that they can be detained for 24 hours and later on brought before a Court to be charged, get themselves bailed and then come up before the Court again in a few months' time for the case to be heard. But he missed out one very important thing and that is, usually at such hearings, there will be a willing lawyer to defend them. As a member of the Bar Committee, I wish he could bring this matter up before their attention so that they should not only count the dollars and cents that they can rake in, but should also consider the moral behind a case and see whether it should be defended or not. If there is cooperation again in this direction, then we will not have too many of these gangsters or murderers getting free! I think that is a very important point for the Member for Tanjong Pagar to press home. Today, before us we have this law, a law to curtail the liberty of the individual. We know that it is impossible not to have this law; this law is not welcome if it is considered in the light of democracy. But we say we support this Bill reluctantly and we like to see this Bill repealed as soon as it has served its usefulness. I hope that the period for this Bill will be about a year or less. After that, it should be rescinded. We love our ways of life. We love freedom - freedom of the person - and we must come to a compromise, either to give such powers to Government or the gangsters taking over. As soon as we have the upper hand, then we should want to reclaim our liberty. I recall one very interesting statement in a paper last week. There was a very prominent visitor to Singapore in the person of Mr Ogata who was the Police Commissioner here during the Japanese occupation. He told us, "During my time, Singapore was all peaceful. You could sleep with open doors. There were no gangsters. It was just peaceful." But I would like Mr Ogata to know that we do not relish that type of a peace. We lived in fear. We lost all our personal liberties. We resented their being here. We resented their method of arresting anybody they liked and of administering the law in the way they did. We have never welcomed them; we have never loved them; we have not forgotten them and we will not forget them! 3.47 p.m.

Words, words and words, Sir, and pretences! "We support this Bill with reluctance." Why not come out in the open and admit that emergency circumstances require emergency measures? There is no need to hide behind the bush and to talk of "democracy", the "freedom of the person", "the rights of the citizen" and "liberties". What price liberty next year when a backseat driver of the Member for Tanjong Pagar might be Prime Minister? Have you ever thought of that? Talk of liberties and this and that! Freedom from gangsters during the Japanese occupation is all right, but what about the Government then? Freedom from gangsters next year probably, but what about the Government that you are going to get? Think of that first. What price liberty! And that, Sir, is the weakness of democracy. Democracy nibbles at the problem. A totalitarian political party gets its candidate in, whereas a democratic party talks about fairness in fighting an election, and this and that. Yet in spite of all that you get people coming out and posing as virtuous ones, like the Member for Tanjong Pagar, by admonishing politicians and telling them not to have anything to do with gangsters. Only, he would not say what part his Party had to do with gangsters though in the Elias Report there was some mention of gangsters being tied up in the Tanjong Pagar by-election. Sir, the whole problem boils down to this. Do we or do we not have confidence in the Police? There might be some members in the Police Force who might abuse these powers, but as a whole if we have confidence in the Police, then the individual has nothing to fear. If we do not have confidence in the Police, let us say so now in which case we should not pass this Bill. Sir, there are basic reasons we admit, but in spite of education and in spite of all the necessities that a human being wants we still have gangsters in many countries and gangsters need not be only the poor. They need not be gangsters because of force of circumstance. You have examples of rich gangsters, gangsters who sit high in society. They are big names and they move in the best of circles but basically they are gangsters. Their method of gangsterism is different; that is all. In some places, they call them capitalists, in some places they call them vested interests but there it is still gangsterism. However, today we are trying to pin down the gangster who uses physical violence and intimidation. Of course, politicians too use intimidation in getting votes and getting themselves returned. In Singapore, Sir, I am afraid that economic conditions are not going to get better. Employment is going to get more and more difficult and even if I have to say it, I think I should be open and frank about it. Our population is increasing at a terrific pace and we have not a hope of catching up with the employment problem unless everyone in Singapore works towards it and the only way to work towards it and to save our rice bowl is to get united and fight these politicians who are frightening away all forms of investments. Let us not talk about capitalism. Let us not talk about democracy. Words, words and words! When your stomach is empty, all these words do not mean a thing to you. What you want is first a job, a house, to get your children married, and so on, and that is not going to come about by mere platitudes sounded in this Assembly and on the election platform. If we are going to have honest politics, Sir, and if we are going to do something to save Singapore from destruction, let us forget all these platitudes, and let us get united and work to save Singapore - I say to save Singapore and to save our rice bowl.

Mr Chief Secretary, in reply? 3.51 p.m.

In reply, Sir. I welcome the general support which has been given by previous speakers with possibly one exception to the Bill which is now before the House. I would like also to offer my congratulations to the hon. Mr Mason on his maiden speech in this House and to say that I am sure the Commissioner of Police and his officers will welcome the very generous tribute which he paid to them in the course of that speech. The Member for Tanjong Pagar suggested that it was important that there should be no grounds which would shake the confidence of the public in the Police and the way in which they exercise their powers. I entirely concur with him on that and I could only wish that certain Members of this House did not seize every opportunity to continue to refer to allegations of that kind. Much of the debate on this Bill, Sir, has ranged over the economic reasons which lie behind unemployment and what gives cause for persons to take to crime in desperation. That, Sir, is something on which I do not propose to embark. As far as this measure is concerned, the Government is introducing it as a temporary measure to meet an immediate threat and as soon as the circumstances are such that the threat no longer exists, then it is not desired to retain the powers. The Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) sought, if I understood him correctly, to draw a distinction between the Police Force and the C.I.D. He also, if I understood him correctly, suggested that I should sack the whole of the C.I.D.

On a point of clarification, Sir. I mean part of the C.I.D. which consists of undesirable elements - among the plainclothes men. They are not only known to Members of this House but they are also known to the Police themselves. These people have been recruited from bad hats and ex-convicts.

I thank the hon. Member for the clarification, Sir. This is a matter which was discussed at very considerable length in a motion before the House in April and I do not propose to follow him on it now. I would only remind him of what I said then that the members of the C.I.D. and the members of the other branches of the Police Force - the uniformed branch - are now interchangeable.

Thank you.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar accused me of adopting a less hard-hearted attitude towards these gangsters in the provisions of this Bill than those who are detained under the provisions of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance in that the provision in this Bill only provides for orders to be made for a period of six months. As I explained in introducing this Bill, Sir, it is the Government's sincere hope that during the first six months, we shall see some substantial improvement in the present state of law and order and that if it is necessary to continue in certain cases the validity of those orders then the provision is made in the Bill for the Governor in Council to do so. I will also have very much in my mind the matter to which he drew my attention on the necessity of segregating persons detained under this Bill from those who are detained under the provisions of the other Ordinance. The Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) expressed the hope that the attitude and courtesy shown by the Police during Police Week towards members of the public would be continued during the remainder of the year and would not just be turned on and off for the one week. There I am entirely in agreement with him and I can assure him that everything possible will be done to see that whatever can be done by the Police to build up this mutual confidence between the Police and the public will in fact be done. I was, I confess, a little surprised to hear the remarks he made when commenting on the speech by the Member for Tanjong Pagar as regards the defence of these gangsters when they are brought and charged before the Court. I am, of course, speaking only as a layman but I had always understood that it was the etiquette of the legal profession that counsel for the accused does not concern himself with the merits of the case of his client in deciding whether or not it is his duty to represent him before the Court. And if I may conclude, Sir, by coming to the speech of the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng), I realise, Sir, that he has not had very much opportunity to study the provisions of this Bill and I therefore appreciate that some of his remarks such as the one that detention under this Bill will be entirely a matter for the opinion of the Chief Secretary were perhaps made because he has not so far had the time to read on a little further in the Bill and to see that the order of the Chief Secretary has not only to be referred to an advisory committee but it is subject to confirmation by the Governor in Council. But even though he has not had sufficient opportunity to read the Bill, I think he has had ample opportunity to hear what I had to say in introducing it and I confess I was extremely disappointed when he quite patently ignored the difficulties which I had been at such pains to stress over the problem of bringing these criminals before the Courts and charging them under the ordinary processes of law. If the only solution that the Member for Queenstown can suggest to this problem is to increase the penalties under the various Ordinances that, as I made plain in introducing this Bill, can be no answer to the present problem. I would just conclude, Sir, by saying that I agree with what was said by the Member for Serangoon, that this problem of gangsterism is one with which Singapore is familiar and it has had its ups and downs in the extent of the lawlessness to which it has given rise but I think it has been shown on more than one occasion that in the last resort the only effective method by which this gangsterism when it is beginning to get out of hand can be curbed is by removing those primarily responsible from the community. Question put.

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 2; Abstention, Nil. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Lazarous, A. R. Haji Jumat. Lee Choon Eng Ahmad bin Ibrahim Braga, A. J. Abstention. Chew Swee Kee. David, E. B. Nil. Goh Chew Chua. Goh Tong Liang. Absent. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy, J. M. Ede, John Jumabhoy, R. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Ching Siong. Lim Choon Mong. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Mason, J. M. 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. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr David.] Bill considered in Committee. 4.09 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Certain amendments are to be moved by the Chief Secretary. Perhaps hon. Members may have amendments to suggest. So I propose to take the clause, section by section, referring to each section as new section so and so. Hon. Members are reminded that if an amendment is moved to one particular line, no Member can move an amendment to a previous line; so that if the Chief Secretary moves an amendment to, shall we say, line 4 of the new section 47, it will mean that if an hon. Member wishes to move an amendment before that, he should rise and do so, otherwise he will be debarred. I trust I have made myself clear. We are now on new section 47.

Sir, I beg to move, In line 4 of new section 47, after "custody,", to insert "that such person has been associated with activities of a criminal nature and". The reason for proposing this amendment, Sir, is to restrict the width of this section for the reasons I gave in introducing the Bill. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In lines 7 and 8 of new section 47, to leave out "the Public Prosecutor" and insert "a judge". Sir, the Public Prosecutor is the man to whom the police will pass on information. It is he who will ask the police whether to institute proceedings in court or not. Therefore, when it comes to a detention order, he has already had his mind made up in going through the case. I think there is no necessity for the Public Prosecutor to be consulted, because he has already made up his mind on the matter. 4.15 p.m. This concerns the detention of a man not proved in court, and it should be done with the greatest of care. We do not want to give the person who issues that order of detention the power to do so unless there are safeguards. All Government servants, except the judges, come under the jurisdiction of the Ministers; whereas the judges are independent of the Executive and carry out the order according to what they think is right. A person who is going to suffer detention should deserve full sympathy and his case should be fully considered in the first instance. I know that later on there will be a reference of the detention order to an Advisory Committee. This probably would be done some time after the man has been detained. The Advisory Committee may consist of a judge with some responsible prominent citizens. I think it would be much better to have the case fully justified before the man is sent to detention, rather than send him to detention and then have his case confirmed by a person who always deals with that aspect of the law. I say put a judge in instead of the Public Prosecutor and you can have any other man on the Advisory Committee.

Sir, the Government cannot accept this proposed amendment. The hon. Member for Serangoon appears to have misunderstood the reasons for the inclusion of this phrase in section 47. I would like to repeat, for his benefit, what I said in introducing the Bill - that the sole object of inserting this provision for the consent of the Public Prosecutor to be required before an order is made is to ensure that the provisions of this Bill and the detention provided thereunder should not be used as a substitute for using the ordinary judicial processes of law. It is therefore a safeguard against the police, or in this case it might be myself, making an order as being an easier thing to do under this Ordinance than to bring a prosecution. That is the purpose of inserting this phrase in section 47 and the subsequent section 58. The hon. Member for Serangoon, if his amendment were accepted, is seeking to incorporate into this section a further level of safeguard against an order being made on inadequate grounds. We have already provided in this Bill for the order to be made originally by the Chief Secretary, for the Chief Secretary's order to be subject to review, report and recommendations by an Advisory Committee, and subsequently to be confirmed or cancelled by the Governor in Council. Now, Sir, I suggest that those three levels of safeguards are quite adequate to provide what is necessary. Furthermore, in my view, it would be quite inappropriate to bring the judiciary into this system of safeguards at all. We are dealing here with executive powers, and it is undesirable, save in very exceptional circumstances, that the judiciary should be associated with the exercise or non-exercise of those powers. It also seems to me that it would be extremely undesirable that a judge of the High Court should be brought into these proceedings at the stage which the hon. Member proposes. If he gives his consent, it means that the judge's estimate and his summing-up of the case that is put before him is then subject to review by an Advisory Committee and finally by the Governor in Council. Sir, to obtain a judicial decision and make it subject to review by the Advisory Committee which may no doubt consist of two prominent unofficial citizens would, in my view, also be quite wrong. As to the hon. Member's reference to the period between the time when the order is made by the Chief Secretary and when it comes before the Advisory Committee for review, I would assure him that that period of 28 days is intended to be a maximum period within which the reference must be made, and in every case the reference will be made as soon as it is practical and convenient for him to do so.

I think, Sir, that it is desirable that I should say something here about the position of the Public Prosecutor. The moving of this amendment discloses what is to my mind a most lamentable misunderstanding of the responsibilities of the Public Prosecutor, and while this is no occasion to explain in detail what those responsibilities are, I think it is important that the hon. Member for Serangoon and other Members who are considering this, amendment should understand that the Public Prosecutor performs his functions subject to no direction. The fact that he is a Government servant does not mean that in performing his functions he does as he is told by any government or any Minister. He has to act judicially in the exercise of those functions. If that is properly appreciated, as it should be, I think that, on reflection, the Member for Serangoon will understand that there are against this amendment not only the compelling explanation given by my friend the Hon, the Chief Secretary but also the fact that it is quite unnecessary.

Sir, so far as the position of the Public Prosecutor is concerned, I know that he will be independent after the next election. During the life of this Government, however, that office is also held by the Attorney-General - two offices in one. However, with the explanation given by the Hon, the Chief Secretary, I am quite satisfied with the whole matter and would beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, In line 9 of new section 57, after "provisions", to insert "of this part". The object of this amendment, Sir, is to confine the powers conferred by this section to this Part of the Ordinance. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In line 3 of new section 59, after "provisions", to insert "of this Part". The object of this amendment is the same as the previous one which has just been agreed. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

Resumption of debate on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 4.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections was tabled on 14th April, 1958. I cannot understand why the Government is moving at this snail's pace. It could have brought up these things much earlier and not in August. In any case, these have been brought up, but there is no decision as to when the Select Committee will end its de1iberation. I do sincerely hope that the Third Reading of this Bill will take place on 10th September. Sir, if the intention of the Government is to go slow and delay the introduction of the new constitution, I will tell them that they are sadly mistaken if they think that they can oppose the will of the people of Singapore. On the other hand, the holding of elections to the District Councils is not inter-dependent with the holding of the general elections to this Assembly. Sir, I have to pass some remarks on the age of persons canvassing and taking part in the elections. The age limit is set at 21. On what basis, and why? The Member for Tanjong Pagar said this morning that you are asking our boys to take up national training at the age of 18 and yet you are not giving them the right to participate in election activities. I will go further than that, Sir. Is there any restriction if a boy or a girl wants to get married at the age of 18? I do not think there is any. If a person of either sex can set up house at the age of 18, why cannot he or she be eligible to take part in the elections? Sir, the right thing should have been that teenagers, or Secondary school students under 17, be debarred, but those students who are above the age of 17 or who are doing post school certificate studies should not be debarred at all. After all, we should not forget that the population of Singapore consists more of youngsters than others and it is their inherent right to take part in politics and select a Government of the type they want. Sir, finally, I hope that the Government will not delay in getting this Bill to the Select Committee and have the Bill ready for Third Reading on 10th September. 4.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Queenstown brought up the subject of advertisements in the local newspapers in respect of certain sections of the Local Government Elections Ordinance, and he criticised the proposed amendments in the Bill. Sir, it is considered by Government that it is a waste of public expenditure to advertise in the way that is required by the law. It is felt that this could be achieved by just a general advertisement of, say, relevant particulars, such as the electoral districts, the polling stations, and the names of the candidates, instead of going through the usual legal jargon and having to put in an insertion for each and every division that is to be contested. In the case of the last City Council elections in December, Sir, it cost the Government $15,700 just to insert advertisements in two newspapers. For the Kallang by-election, just one insertion in one Chinese, one Malay and one Tamil newspaper cost the Government $800. Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, as usual, made wild accusations against the Labour Front in regard to what he says the use of gangsters in the Kallang by-election. He also made those allegations some time ago in this Assembly. As a result of such allegations, the Elias Commission was appointed and its Report did, of course, reveal some astonishing disclosures regarding his own Party. Sir, the hon. Member criticised the Government for inserting the age of 21 in regard to the prohibition of persons from taking part in election campaigns. That age, Sir, was fixed for the purpose of a debate. The Minister in charge of this Bill, Sir, in moving its Second Reading, said that it would be referred to a Select Committee and all the points raised by hon. Members of the Opposition will of course be considered in greater detail there. So I hope that the Members who spoke on this Bill will be appointed to the Select Committee. Sir, while levelling charges at the Labour Front, the Member for Tanjong Pagar made an astonishing disclosure indeed when he said that those who came out to support his Party during the Kallang by-election did so for favours done. It would seem, Sir, that one must curry favour with his political Party and that those who come out and support his Party are those who have received favours from it. It was therefore not surprising, Sir, for me to see one Sunday before Polling Day a very senior official of the City Council who, because of favours done perhaps by the Mayor, was canvassing for his Party. 4.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Labour Front believes in clean elections. The Labour Front itself is clean. The P.A.P. has always claimed that it is the only Party which is clean, but the P.A.P. has its own dictionary and it has a different meaning for the word "clean". I heard with great interest the analysis made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar on the Kallang by-election which a P.A.P. candidate contested. He said that the P.A.P. had no cars and that the voters all went to the polling stations by walking -

On a point of clarification. I did not say -

If the hon. Member will give way. Mr Nair resumed his seat.

I did not say we had no cars. What I said was they walked there and voted for us, in spite of the intimidation.

He may have said that he had some cars, but he definitely said that many people went to the polls by walking and by cycling. But anyone who - Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose -

If the hon. Member will give way.

- was in Kallang on polling day would not have lost sight of the hundreds of cars bearing their symbols carrying voters. I was told, Sir, that they even persuaded car drivers for the Workers Party to tear off their symbols depicting a hammer and paste the P.A.P. symbols in their place. In fact, the P.A.P. had the largest number of cars and big American cars were used.. The hon. Member stated that the P.A.P. wanted to avoid incidents and that they were compelled to make an agreement with other political Parties not to put Party men within 200 yards, of the polling stations. Here they tried to be clean. Please refer to the P.A.P. dictionary again for its meaning. The P.A.P. tried every means to catch votes. They held more public meetings than any other Party. They insisted that the Labour Front is a capitalist Party, that Mr Lim Yew Hock is a colonial stooge, and that Mr Chew Swee Kee is against Chinese education. They encouraged personal hatred. They even brought a colonial agent to one of their polling meetings.

Order. Is not the hon. Member going into too great detail? He is at liberty, of course, to generalise but if he goes into detail I will have to say it is irrelevant.

Sir, I was just explaining how clean the P.A.P. was in the by-election. Sir, the P.A.P. even thought -

Order. I think if the hon. Member says "unclean", perhaps that would be sufficient.

Sir, I think this is a very serious matter in which I have to bring in more facts to prove that we have been clean.

If the hon. Member insists on going into detail, I must rule him out of order.

Sir, what I was trying to say was that the P.A.P. used more unclean methods in this by-election than the Labour Front. Sir, the reference was made by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar to canvassing for votes. He referred to an agreement made before the polling day to the effect that Party men should not canvass within 200 yards of the polling stations. Sir, what happened really was that half an hour before the polling commenced, very many P.A.P. supporters who wore no badges came outside the polling stations and had their places ready. At about 10 a.m. when they found that the going was not very heavy, they all wore their badges and they took up positions. Later, when they found that P.A.P. supporters were already there, Labour Front supporters came and complained to us and said, 'Now we have made an agreement; we have not put in any men; but why are the P.A.P. putting men outside the polling stations?' Therefore, Sir, you will see that that agreement was not carried out by the Party itself. Sir, it has become a practice in this Assembly to make allegations against Assistant Ministers without making any mention of the name whatsoever. I think, Sir, we all must agree we must respect each other and we must treat people as equals and human beings. It is not fair to anybody to accuse unnecessarily and without substantiation. I do hope that the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar will have his facts clear first before he makes any allegations. 4.45 p.m.

I wonder, Mr Speaker, if I might perhaps try and steer the motoring part of this debate back to clause 16 of the Bill. I understood the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar to say this morning that the proposed new section 66A contained in clause 16 of the Bill differed from the English provisions in that in England a person could not even use a car for the conveyance of his own family.

No; household, not family.

Household - I beg his pardon, I understood him to say family. I would suggest that the Select Committee, in considering this clause, should have careful regard to the corresponding provisions of the English Representation of the People Act from which I think they will find that the restrictions to be imposed are probably greater under the Bill before this House than they are in England, where, for example, the expression "member of the same household" includes a visitor spending the night before or after the day of the poll. And far from being less fierce, I think the provisions of the Bill will be found to be much more restrictive than the corresponding provisions in the United Kingdom. 4.48 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must confess I enjoy very much having the privilege of being an Independent Member belonging to no political Party after listening to A Party accusing B Party, and B Party accusing C Party, of corrupt practices during the by-election at Kallang. Sir, I think it is an open secret to the people of Singapore that that by election was a fight between the samsengs and haksengs, i.e. gangsters versus students; gangsters versus gangsters; students versus gangsters; English school students versus Chinese school students; the 08 Group versus the 24 Group. Therefore when I speak on this Bill, I must extend my congratulations to its mover. It is timely and important, although of course many amendments should be made to it especially about the age limit and the so many troublesome and cumbersome procedures which could be easily abused by the Party in power to disqualify a candidate. Secondly, I wish the Government to assure that the Select Committee will be established as soon as possible and give a target date for the completion of this Bill, in order to fulfil the promise that District Council elections will be held. Thirdly, I wish the Government Party have the same confidence as the leader of the P.A.P. - face them, do not suffer from a certain degree of inferiority complex, challenge them. 4.51 p.m.

In reply, Sir, I do not think I have very many points to clear. Although the Chief Minister mentioned, in passing, the remarks of the Member for Queenstown, I would like to say a few words with regard to his comment on the advertisements in the press. He would appear to me to fear that lack of advertisement in the press would result in the public not knowing that there is an election and, consequently, that not very many people would go to the polls. Well, Sir, I disagree with him. My experience has been that very few people read such advertisement. They have no news value except when presented as a news item in pure journalese. Secondly, as the recent by-election at Kallang had indicated, it all depends on the virility of political Parties and their supporters to make people conscious that there is an election on. The point raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar with regard to holiday on polling day is a point again which needs clarification. The Bill which is before this House only deals with the machinery of local government elections. Government has accepted the principle of a holiday on polling day but the appropriate legislation is not the Local Government Elections Ordinance but the Holidays Ordinance which empowers the Governor to declare from time to time any day a holiday in addition to those which are already embodied in the schedules. The reasons given by the Member for Tanjong Pagar with regard to what he calls U.M.N.O. opposition to compulsory voting, are quite incorrect. My Party, Sir -

Is it democratic?

- it is very, very democratic, Sir, it is more democratic than the People's Action Party, because we are anti-Communist and they are non-Communist. My Party, Sir, did not oppose compulsory voting for communal reasons, but because of other reasons which cut right through the rights of the individual. Even so, we are prepared to be persuaded to the contrary if there can be sufficient safeguards with regard to prosecutions and so on. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.-[Inche Abdul Hamid].

4.54 p.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's consent to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $30 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 23 of 1958. Sir, you will recall that last year this Assembly approved a revised salary structure for Division IV officers in the Government service. It was not possible at that time to include the Revenue Officers of the Customs Service, as had been intended, because negotiations with their Union had not been completed. These negotiations have now been completed. Agreement has been reached with the Union on the scales shown in the Schedule to the Sessional Paper, to be introduced with effect from 1st January, 1958, subject to the approval of the Assembly. You will note, Sir, that the new scales which are shown in the Schedule are part of the salary structure of Division IV which has already been approved. The additional cost in 1958 is calculated to be $44,400, and the general effect, I am informed, will be to give Revenue Officers an increase of about $9 per mensem on the average. This is in line with the general run of increases resulting from the revision of salaries of Division IV officers already approved. Sir, I beg to move.

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

4.56 p.m. Schedule-

The summary is at page 2. Head 27- Question proposed, "That the sum of $30 for Head 27 stand part of the Schedule."

Sir, the agreement to which the Financial Secretary referred, which was arrived at between the Union and the Government was in March this year, and the Union has been waiting anxiously for the new scales to be implemented. I would be obliged if the Financial Secretary could tell the House why it has taken five months before this matter has come to the Assembly.

The answer, Sir, is that I myself wished to examine the implications of the agreement which had been reached between the Union and the Establishment Branch, and I must accept full responsibility for the delay which has been caused.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $30 for Head 27 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sum of $30 for the Head 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 $30 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 23 of 1958.

4.59 p.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's authority to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1,219,777 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. 21 of 1958. Sir, the items in the Schedule are fully explained in the Paper and I will be happy, of course, to add any further explanations which are required. Sir, I beg to move.

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

5.00 p.m. Schedule-

The summary is at page 8. Head 11- Question proposed, "That the sum of $46,522 for Head 11 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am somewhat bewildered to find under Head 11 - Subhead 4, new item... $12,000 in respect of the Royal Malayan Navy. It says here: "Housing allowance for married locally commissioned officers". Sir, I understood the Singapore Government handed over the Royal Malayan Navy, together with its personnel, to the Federation of Malaya Government. In fact, there was a ceremonial handing over of the crafts involved, together with, I think, the changing of the colours on the crafts. I would like to know why we are being asked to incur this expenditure.

Part of the agreement entered into with the Federation Government for the handing over of the Royal Malayan Navy was that we would be responsible for expenditure for the remainder of 1958.

The remainder of 1958 means up to 31st December, 1958, I take it. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is right and proper that information regarding conditions and terms of the hand-over which were agreed should be disclosed to this House. We were under the impression - and I think we were entitled to draw the inference which we all did - that the Navy had been handed over lock, stock and barrel. If, in fact, we were asked to pay for the expenses for the rest of the year, we should be so informed. I do not think we would seriously object to it. We are quite relieved that the Federation of Malaya Government has taken over this Navy which was going to cost us millions of dollars a year, but at least we were entitled to know.

I was under the impression that hon. Members were aware of this. There was certainly no secret about it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under "AUXILIARY FIRE SERVICE, subhead 171 (1) - Personal Emoluments:- Staff Officer, Reimbursement to City Council ... $17,052", may I know for what period this amount is required?

The period in question is for 1957.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I take it then that it is required for twelve months, which works out at $1,421 per month, and I take it that this was the salary of this Staff Officer. Can the Government not recruit a Staff Officer on their own rather than have a secondment from the City Council?

It was considered to be more appropriate and more desirable to make use of the services of an expert on the City Council Fire Establishment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is there no one in Singapore who has the qualifications of a Staff Officer of the Fire Service, whose salary per month is $1,421? The Airport do recruit Fire Officers on their own. Why should we, as the Government, have to recruit this officer seconded from the City Council?

I think I have already answered the question, Sir, in so far as I have said that it was considered more appropriate and more desirable to make use of the services of an officer of the City Council. We merely pay him the emoluments which he would normally draw from the City Council.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $46,522 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 17- The sum of $5,100 for Head 17 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 18- The sum of $115 for Head 18 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 24- The sum of $100,000 for Head 24 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 26- Question proposed, "That the sum of $57,240 for Head 26 stand part of the Schedule."

Sir, under Head 26, on page 3 of the Paper, it reads "New Subhead-Crown Agents' Agency Fees ... $57,240", which is a large sum. The explanation reads: "The Crown Agents have found it necessary to make a one per cent charge on all payments in respect of salaries, allotments, pensions and passages, with effect from 1st April, 1958, to enable them to meet increased costs of operation. These services have hitherto been performed without charge, but necessitate the employment of a large staff. On the basis of previous payments, the cost of this charge is expected to average $6,360 per month." The question arises, Sir, why a service that has been performed without charge up to the 1st of April this year should suddenly require such a tremendous charge. We would like to know whether bulk purchases through the Crown Agents have fallen to such a low figure that it is not remunerative any more for the Crown Agents to perform such services for us, which they have done for the last 50 odd years, I believe. This is a very large sum, Sir, and I think we should require quite a lot of explanation before we can part with $57,000.

I want to know further, Mr Chairman, Sir, whether this charge has been made in respect of only certain colonies or whether it is a general provision now. If, in fact, it is a general provision and not one directed at Singapore alone, and if I understand what is intended by the explanatory note, we can easily avoid paying this $57,240 by making all salaries, allotments, pensions and passages payable from Singapore. If anybody wants to collect his salary or pension in the United Kingdom, then he pays the one per cent. Why should the Government pay for him?

The Crown Agents, Sir, have performed many services for this Government as well as for the other governments in the Commonwealth and for many governments outside the Commonwealth. In respect of the various services which they perform, they normally charge a fee. For example, if they purchase materials on our behalf and inspect the materials while they are being manufactured and inspect them on delivery, they charge a fee. Similarly, they charge a small fee for supervising the operation of our loans, or surplus balances in London and for the handling of our cash balances in London. Hitherto, they have not made a charge in respect of the payment of salaries, allotments, pensions and passages and other matters which are connected with personnel. They have managed to meet the proportion of their total charges which these services represent from income from other sources; but with the very considerable increase in their overhead charges in recent months - an increase in the salaries of the staff employed in London, and increases in staff to deal with the increased volume of business - they have found it necessary to levy a charge on the various governments who make use of their services for the performance of these services. They made an approach to the Secretary of State who considered the matter, and it was subsequently recommended to all the governments that this charge was an appropriate charge for the services performed in this connection. We were then asked by the Secretary of State if we would agree to this levy, and in the circumstances, we considered that we had no option but to do so. We have been into this matter with considerable care and do feel that it is a legitimate charge in all the circumstances of the case. When you consider the volume of business which the Crown Agents do for us, I do not think that it is an inappropriate amount to pay and I hope that hon. Members of the Assembly will agree to provide money for its payment. With regard to the point raised by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, for many years it has been the practice for officers of this service of the Government of Singapore and of all the other governments in the Commonwealth to have their leave salaries, pensions and other emoluments drawn from Government paid in London. The question of making a charge for these payments has never hitherto been raised. I do not think we would be justified at this particular juncture to say to these officers that, if they wish to have their pensions or salaries to be continued to be paid in London, or in the case of the local officers who are doing courses in London or in the British Isles generally, they should pay this one per cent charge levied by the Crown Agents. I think it is an appropriate charge on Government and I hope that hon. Members will agree with me in that respect.

Mr Chairman, Sir, there was no charge before for paying people their leave pay, pensions, and so on in the United Kingdom, because nobody charged us for it. But if we are going to be charged by the British Government for making use of their services to pay pensions and salaries while officers are on leave, it is only appropriate that these officers or retired officers either agree to pay the one per cent charge, or arrange to have their pensions collected in Singapore. I see nothing immoral in standing on our rights. In fact, I think it will be immoral on the part of this Assembly to incur further charges just for the convenience of these officers, and because the British Government have decided that they will no longer bear the expense of the distribution of the money.

Sir, from the Hon. Minister's reply, I take it that the volume of purchases through the Crown Agents has not diminished at all; possibly it is still increasing because the price of goods has increased. The only justification so far is that this sum is required to meet the increased cost of salaries of the staff; but to my mind the volume of business that they get from us has a very important bearing on this question whether we should agree to this one per cent charge. In any case, I think that one per cent for just payment of salaries and pensions is a very high charge. Why is it not possible for the Treasury here to arrange with one of the local banks, say the Chartered Bank or the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank - or one of the very efficient banks here - for their accounts to be paid locally into the officer's account and let the banks handle it? We can save three-quarters of this money. I am quite sure that the banks would not charge more than a quarter per cent for collecting salaries and pensions on behalf of government servants on leave.

Sir, I am not in a position to say what the banks would charge for this particular function, but I think I am right in saying that we guarantee pensions under the Pensions Ordinance to be paid at 2s. 4d to a dollar. If pensions were paid locally, or if the salaries or any other payments to be made to officers in Britain were paid locally and the money remitted to London, they would do so at a loss to themselves and Government would fail to meet its obligation to pay their salaries or their pensions or any other emoluments at the rate of 2s. 4d to a dollar. As I say, Sir, it could be argued that the officers themselves should bear this new charge. On the other hand, I am of the opinion that this is a charge which Government, as a fair and benevolent employer, should bear on behalf of the officers.

Sir, I must say that this point has not been thoroughly ventilated yet. I would like the answer to my question to be made more fully. I would like the banks to quote us rates for the collection of monies. I am quite sure that there will not be any loss to the Government servant. I think the exchange rate is less 1/8 th of one per cent, in which case there would be no loss at all to the Government servant: whereas we can save something of this large sum every year. Sir, may I move that this item be held over to the next sitting? May I move an amendment?

Notice of an amendment needs two days. I think all that the hon. Member can do is to vote against the Question. The other alternative, of course, is to request the Estimates Committee to look into the matter, but in so far as this Committee is concerned, I must put the Question and take a vote.

Possibly, Sir, may I suggest that the Hon. the Financial Secretary might like to ask this matter to be adjourned?

I do not think our procedure allows a splitting of a matter of this nature. All I can do now is to take a vote on the Head.

May I suggest, Sir, that hon. Members vote for the sum required on the understanding that we will examine the whole matter and perhaps report to the Estimates Committee? We merely have to vote money for the rest of the year.

Those are details which really should not be ventilated in this Committee. I have allowed details to be mentioned for information, but in so far as a debate is concerned, it must be on the principle of the service for which the money is required, and all I can do now is to put the Question to the House and take a vote.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $57,240 for Head 26 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 8- The sum of $715 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 48- The sum of $23,669 for Head 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D43- The sum of $176,545 for Head D43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D48- The sum of $1,038,038 for Head D48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sum of $1,219,777 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the motion. Motion and Schedule reported, without amendment. Question on the Motion put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1,219,777 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. 21 of 1958.

5.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 490 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 207), resolves that the Singapore Port (Amendment) Rules, 1958, published as Notification No. S 168 in the Gazette Supplement No. 49 dated 25th July, 1958, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 33 of 1958, be approved. Sir, these Rules amend Schedules 1 and 2 of the principal Rules which relate to anchorages. Parts of the Eastern Principal Quarantine and Immigration Anchorage have been found to be too deep for vessels to anchor; other parts are too shallow and dangerous reefs obtrude into them. The useable space of the existing anchorage is inadequate; hence a new area is being defined for this anchorage, the whole of which will be useful to shipping. As the Eastern Explosives Dangerous Goods and Petroleum Anchorage has been found to be too exposed and not used by ships, the definition of its area as an anchorage is being deleted from the Rules. The Eastern Prohibited Anchorage is to be enlarged to protect underwater cables within the new prohibited area. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 490 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 207), resolves that the Singapore Port (Amendment) Rules, 1958, published as Notification No. S 168 in the Gazette Supplement No. 49 dated 25th July, 1958, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 33 of 1958, be approved.

5.22 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the Report from the Select Committee on the Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital (Amendment) Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 3 of 1958, be adopted.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Report from the Select Committee on the Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital (Amendment) Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 3 of 1958, be adopted.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time." As I said in the Second Reading of this Bill, the main purpose of this Bill is to increase the number of Committee members of the Hospital from 40 to 60. The reasons appear in the Explanatory Note to this Bill and these were subsequently substantiated by a statutory declaration made by the President of the Board of Trustees for the Hospital. A copy of that declaration is contained in the Report. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

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

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Mr Thomas.] Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes past Five o'clock p.m. to Wednesday, 10th September, 1958.

Wednesday, 13th August, 1958

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare whether the Department of Social Welfare have plans to build a Community Centre in the Joo Chiat area of Katong; and if he will state the exact location of the site and how far this development has progressed.

The Department of Social Welfare have such a plan and a sum of $130,000 has been provided in the 1958 Estimates for the purpose. The building will be constructed on the vacant land adjoining the Joo Chiat Community Centre. The Director of Public Works has been requested to proceed with the planning of the project and a brief has already been submitted to him by the Director of Social Welfare in June 1958.

asked the Financial Secretary whether any Member of the Opposition Benches in this Assembly had been out of Malaya at Government expense between 1948 and 1954, stating, in each case, -

One Member of the Opposition Benches in the present Assembly represented the Government of Singapore at three conferences and at the Coronation of Her Majesty the Queen between 1948 and 1954. In May 1950, the Member concerned represented the Government of Singapore at the E.C.A.F.E. Conference in Bangkok. He was absent from Singapore for 9 days and the cost to Government was $601. In January/February, 1953, he attended an E.C.A.F.E. Conference on Industry and Trade at Bandung. He was absent for 22 days and the cost to Government was $709.

12. In February/March, 1953, he attended an E.C.A.F.E. Conference on Trade Promotion at Manila. He was absent for 10 days and the cost to Government was $770.

27. In June, 1953, accompanied by his wife, he attended the Coronation of Her Majesty the Queen. He was absent for 20 days and the cost to Government was $8,673. The Member concerned did not at any time hold executive office in any Government Department.

asked the Financial Secretary to state the total number of unofficial of the previous Legislative Councils sent at Government expense overseas to attend conferences and other events for each of the years from 1948 to 1954.

The total number of unofficial members of the previous Legislative Councils who represented the Government of Singapore at conferences overseas during the period from 1948 to 1954 is as follows:- 1948: None. 1949: 1 member at two conferences. 1950: 3 members, one of whom attended three conferences. 1951: 4 members, one of whom attended four conferences. 1952: 1 member. 1953: 4 members; one of them attended two conferences and the Coronation of H.M. the Queen, and another attended three conferences. 1954: 2 members.

asked the Minister for Education to state the number of schools of all types built during each of the years from 1948 to 1957.

If by his question the Hon. Member for Pasir Panjang refers to Government school buildings only, the figures below will give a comprehensive picture of the number of buildings completed from the year 1950 to 1957. No new buildings were put up prior to 1950 as the School Building Programme did not start before that year. Year Primary Secondary Schools Schools 1950 18 nil 1951 10 2 1952 7 + 1 extension 1 1953 2 1 + 1 extension 1954 6 2 + 1 extension 1955 11 nil 1956 23 2 (Technical) 1957 19 + 5 extensions 2 ----- ----- 96 + 6 extensions 10 + 2 extensions ----- ----- The Labour Front Coalition Government completed during the 3 years from 1955 to 1957, 53 Primary and 4 Secondary Schools and 5 extensions as compared with 43 Primary Schools and 6 Secondary Schools and 3 extensions during 1950 to 1954. In addition to the above, 9 standard type and 5 Rural type Malay Schools were built during the years 1950 to 1957.

asked the Minister for Education to state the amount of grants and subsidies given to Chinese Schools during each of the years from 1948 to 1957.

Grants-in-aid and capital grants given to Chinese Schools during each of the years from 1948 to 1957 were:- $ 1948 259,000 1949 273,000 1950 285,000 1951 1,093,000 1952 1,335,000 1953 1,638,000 1954 3,519,000 1955 6,129,000 1956 8,124,000 1957 13,150,000 The Hon. Member for Pasir Panjang will note that the total amount given during the years 1955 to 1957 was $27,403,000 whereas the total for the previous seven years, i.e., from 1948 to 1954 was only $8,402,000.

asked the Minister for Health why Government medical and dental officers will be prohibited, from 1st September, 1958, from drawing fees or retaining consultation fees hitherto allowed under the Fees (Public Officers) Regulations, 1951.

The system of payment of fees under the Fees Regulations has not proved altogether satisfactory. Its worst feature has been the disproportionate range of earnings in the various specialities although the standard of qualification and the length of training for the various special branches are much the same, and Government does not consider that it is proper that a civil servant should be advantageously placed to earn fees as a direct result of being supplied with a suitable establishment, suitable equipment and suitable ancillary and subordinate staff - all at the expense of public funds. Furthermore, the system of payment of specialist fees has been abolished in a number of other territories including the United Kingdom, Hongkong, Nigeria and Ceylon. It was for these reasons that Government felt that the system should be reviewed and that it should appropriately be considered by a Committee of Inquiry. This Committee was set up on the 28th June, 1957, with the following terms of reference:- "In order to maintain high professional and teaching standards in the Government Medical Service, to enquire into and make recommendations regarding the desirability, or otherwise, of paying an allowance or allowances to officers having specialist post-graduate qualifications who hold specialist superscale appointments in the Government Medical Service. If the recommendation is that any such allowance or allowances should be paid-

asked the Minister for Health to state the reasons for the payment of an allowance to certain medical and dental officers who are holding Administrative posts in the Medical Service; and whether such officers have hitherto been allowed to draw fees or retain consultation fees under the Fees (Public Officers) Regulations, 1951.

This question has been fully answered in my reply to the previous question of the Hon. Member.

asked the Minister for Health to state the total number of beds available in all hospitals (i) in 1954; and (ii) in 1957.

The total number of beds available in all Government hospitals in 1954 and in 1957 was 4,620 and 6,084 respectively (i.e., an increase of 1,464 beds) made up as follows:- Hospital Beds in Beds in Increase 1954 1957 General Hospital 800 1,182 382 Kandang Kerbau Hospital (Maternity) 240 316 76 Tan Tock Seng Hospital (T.B.) 578 938 360 Middleton Hospital (Infectious Dieseases) 200 250 50 Trafalgar Home (Leprosy) 642 973 331 Woodbridge Hospital (Mental) 1,800 2,040 240 St. Andrew's Orthopædic Hospital 120 120 - Middle Road Hospital (V.D.) 60 65 5 Prisons Hospital 160 160 - St. John's Island (Opium Treatment Centre) - 20 20 Police Training School 20 20 - ----- ----- ----- Total 4,620 6,084 1,464* ----- ----- ----- *It is interesting to note that the bed strength of all hospitals as at today is 6,529, i.e., an increase of 1,909 beds since the present Government assumed office in 1955. The increase in beds for the 5 years prior to 1955 was only 240.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry to state the total number of free inoculations of poultry and pigs provided by the Government Veterinary Department (i) in 1954; and (ii) in 1957.

The answer to the above question is contained in the table below:- FREE INOCULATIONS PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENT VETERINARY DEPARTMENT Year No. of Pigs No. of Poultry Inoculated Inoculated 1954 823 3,260,275 1957 5,966 6,653,966

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry to state the total production in 1954 and 1957 of (i) poultry; and (ii) pigs.

The answer to this question is contained in the table below:- TOTAL PRODUCTION OF PIGS AND POULTRY Year No. of Pigs No. of Poultry 1954 359,154 5 millions (estimated) 1957 516,063 24 millions (estimated)

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry when a complete answer to the question not for oral answer, No. 4 on the Order Paper of 16th July, 1958, can be expected; and whether he will obtain the required information from the insurance companies themselves.

The answer to Question No. 4 on the Order Paper of 16th July, 1958, has already been forwarded+(See columns 667-78, Official Report of 13-8-58.) Should it be necessary to seek further information from the insurance companies themselves, any answers received will most probably be on a confidential basis.

Mr. J. M. Jumabhoy, pursuant to his reply to the following question not for oral answer asked on 16th July, 1958 (Official Report, 16th July, 1958, Volume 6, No. 6, Columns 541 to 542):

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