Hansard, 1958-09-10

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (3) (i) of section 47 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, obtained from the Speaker permission to be or to remain absent from meetings of the Assembly: Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown) - from 26th August to 6th September, 1958. Mr John Ede (Tanglin) from 6th September to 23rd September, 1958.

I have received three messages from His Excellency the Governor, informing me that His Excellency had, in accordance with the provisions of Section 62 (2) of the Singapore Colony Orders in Council, 1955 and 1956, on the days stated assented to the following Bills: 15th August, 1958: Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill. 19th August, 1958: (i) Pineapple Industry (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Pensions (Amendment) Bill. 25th August, 1958: Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital (Amendment) Bill.

I have to inform Honourable Members that I received a report dated the 30th August, 1958, from His Lordship the Acting Chief Justice of Singapore, Mr Tan Ah Tah, informing me that the Honourable Mr Oon Khye Kiang, Acting Financial Secretary, took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance before him on the 30th August, 1958. This was done under the provisions of paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 1 (Oath of Allegiance) in order to enable the Honourable Member to attend and take part in proceedings of the Estimates Committee held between the time of his becoming a Member of this Assembly and this sitting.

Honourable Members will wish it to be recorded that this is the first occasion on which a Mace has found a place in this House, or indeed in any previous Legislative Chamber in Singapore. Our Mace is the final adjunct of the dignity and prestige of this Assembly, completing, as it does, the accoutrements of the Assembly, the trappings of the Speaker and the panoply of the Serjeant-at-Arms. We have in our Mace, first and foremost, a symbol of the authority of this Assembly, and in consequence, it is a symbol of the authority of the Speaker and an emblem of office of the Serjeant-at-Arms. I invite Honourable Members to accept that the Mace is an essential part of the equipment of this Assembly and that this Assembly cannot, in future, be considered to be properly constituted unless the Mace be first brought into the House and laid on the Table.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare whether he will consider increasing the monthly allowances granted to unemployed persons with large families under the Public Assistance Scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a Committee of officials has been appointed to consider the Report of the Committee of Minimum Standards of Livelihood and the I.L.O. Report on Social Security Measures. Among the matters considered is the revision of the public assistance rates applicable to various categories of persons eligible for relief including the unemployed. An interim Report on the proposed integrated social security system is expected to be submitted shortly by the Committee of officials when the question raised will be considered by Government.

Is the Minister for Labour and Welfare aware that at the present moment the families are undergoing financial hardships?

I have been aware of that, Sir.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare to state the total number of applications received since 1st January, 1958, for re-entry into Singapore from China of local-born children; the number of those applications approved, and the number still under consideration by the Immigration Department.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the total number of applications for re-entry into Singapore of local-born children from China for the period 1st January, 1958 to 31st August, 1958 is 524. The total number of such applications which have been approved is 143. The total number which is still under consideration and awaiting evidence from local sponsors to support claims of local birth is 315. The number of applications refused because of lack of evidence to substantiate the claims is 66.

asked the Chief Secretary what was the purpose of the presence of units of the United States Seventh Fleet in Singapore in August this year.

Sir, these ships put into Singapore for rest and recreation and were accorded the facilities normally given to friendly visiting warships.

Can the Chief Secretary inform this House whether he has any idea of the amount of money spent by the American marines during this recreational visit?

Sir, it is estimated that these ships and their personnel during their visit spent something in the neighbourhood of $650,000 in Singapore.

Can the Hon. the Chief Secretary inform this House whether the presence of the United States Seventh Fleet in Singapore may have caused alarm to our neighbouring countries?

Sir, I do not think the hon. Member can expect me to answer for neighbouring countries but as far as the purpose of these ships visiting Singapore is concerned, I would refer him to the statement made by the President of the United States on 20th August in which he said that they were purely here for rest and recreation and that was all there was to it.

asked the Chief Secretary to state whether there is any stockpile of atomic warheads and atomic missiles in Singapore.

Sir, it is not the practice to disclose defence information of this nature which is in any case primarily a matter for the United Kingdom Government.

Is the Hon. The Chief Secretary aware that the people of Singapore are entitled to know whether Singapore is being used by the United Kingdom Government as her atomic base?

Sir, I do not think that there is any country which would make available details of how her defence resources are disposed.

Sir, I wish that at least the Council of Ministers -

Question No. 5. Mr Lim Cher Kheng.

asked the Chief Secretary if he has made an assessment as to whether public opinion of Singapore is in favour or against Singapore's becoming a base of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation, and if he will make a statement on the policy of the Singapore Government with regard to that Organisation.

Sir, I have made no such assessment. Defence and external relations are the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government and the Singapore Government is not called upon to frame a policy in this matter.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, in view of the insufficiency of houses provided by the Singapore Improvement Trust to cope with the long waiting list for Improvement Trust accommodation, what steps he proposes to take to meet the housing needs of those families on the waiting list.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the steps I propose to take will be precisely the same as those I am taking now. The provision of public housing is regulated by the availability of funds, staff and sites available for development. Taking these factors into account, the production of houses for public accommodation by the Singapore Improvement Trust has proceeded as rapidly as possible. The intention of this Government is to concentrate all the resources that can be spared into building housing accommodation only for the lower income groups for which private enterprise will not provide. Government is spending, Sir, an estimated total of $23 million on such housing in 1958.

Sir, is the Minister aware that the number of people on the waiting list for Trust houses is steadily increasing?

Yes, Sir. I am also aware that the rate at which the population of Singapore is increasing is just as great.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry if he will make a statement regarding the rice stockpile.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to avail myself of this opportunity to make a statement on the rice stockpile though I am sure that most of what I am going to say is already well known to hon. Members. The stockpile of rice is part of the Singapore defence scheme and is maintained in the island to cover an emergency. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that it is imperative that Government should be in a position to issue rice to the public and to the essential services in the event of any emergency either here or in the rice producing countries which results in a temporary shortage of rice. I might add here in passing that the Federation of Malaya also holds a similar stockpile. The basic principle behind the stockpile is to ensure that adequate supplies of fresh rice are always available. It is necessary therefore that the stockpile be rotated and this is achieved by requiring importers of rice for local sale to purchase a certain amount from the stockpile on a ratio depending on the grade of rice. The ratio is two to one for imported whole-grain rice and three to one for broken rice. It will be readily seen that the whole success of this stockpile scheme is dependent on regular rotation of the stockpile to ensure freshness of the rice. A new scheme has been introduced recently which aims at a minimum off take from the stockpile of 2,500 tons per month. This will operate for a trial period of four months. Most importers of rice have individually undertaken to draw from the stockpile up to a total of 2,500 tons a month. The principal association of rice importers in Singapore has also collectively guaranteed that offtake would not fall below the minimum figure of 2,500 tons per month. This measure of co-operation by the trade will assist both the trade and the Government. As a concession to those importers of whole grain Thailand rice who have given this undertaking, they will be permitted to import up to three times the quantity which they have undertaken to purchase from the stockpile. Hon. Members will observe that the effect of this concession is to lower the stockpile obligations of the importers from two to one for whole grain and three to one for brokens to a flat rate of three to one. Additional imports from Thailand and from other sources will be subject to the normal stockpile requirements. I should conclude here by repeating that the stockpile is operated strictly on a "no profit no loss" basis.

Sir, can the Minister give us the percentage of rice which has deteriorated in the stockpile? I was told that as some of the rice could not be moved out, a very large quantity deteriorated.

As far as I know, there has been no large scale deterioration of rice but deterioration could have set in if Government had not taken this action to keep the stockpile moving.

Can the Minister explain why although the price of Chinese rice imported is cheaper by about ten cents a katty it is not included in the stockpile?

Sir, the preference of the consumers in Singapore has always been expressed for Thailand rice and Government has always bought for the stockpile a bigger quantity of Thailand rice. In fact after I became Minister for Commerce and industry I tried to introduce other rice, that is, Burma rice and Saigon rice, and we had trouble with importers here who were forced to take the other grades of rice. However, we are slowly putting into the market rice besides Thailand rice but still the greater bulk of rice that Government holds is Thailand rice because of the strong consumer preference. China has only recently entered into the rice market and the quality of the Chinese rice, I am afraid, is still unknown to the Government as to its keeping qualities, and so on and therefore Government has not thought of buying China rice up to now.

Can the Minister inform us of the quantity of the stockpile and the proportion of Saigon rice to Thailand rice taken from that stockpile?

I have the figures of the stockpile holdings but I am afraid that it would not be right for me to disclose those figures as stockpile holdings are secret. However, the quantity of Saigon rice released in proportion to Thailand rice depends on the quantity of holdings of Saigon rice by the Government stockpile. For the moment, we have about 4,000 tons of Saigon rice and since it was of an earlier import date, we wanted to release this quickly before it could deteriorate. However, we came to an agreement with the merchants only yesterday that they will get 80 per cent Saigon rice and 20 per cent Thailand rice, only for such a period until the Saigon rice is finished. I expect the Saigon rice will be finished in the course of the next month or so and then they will get mostly Thailand rice.

10.16 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, though Government welcomes investment in the industrial field from individual financiers and groups with large capital resources, Government feels that the time has come when the people as a whole should not only directly participate in but also benefit by their country's industrial development. Government realises that the working man and woman in Singapore has up to now had very little opportunity or incentive to actively participate in the ownership of industries and to benefit therefrom. Government therefore feels that it is not only necessary but also the duty of an elected Socialist Government to actively assist the people in owning and opening some industries which are profitable because they produce goods needed by the vast majority of the population. Such ownership should not be by the State with publie funds but rather directly by the people on an individual basis so that every individual shareholder benefits directly from the profits. In order to achieve this purpose, Government proposes to set up a People's Sector in industry, and some of the industries which produce goods needed by the vast majority of the people and are therefore a portable proposition will be reserved for this Sector in which at least 51 per cent of the shares shall be held locally. Holding of these shares is intended for the working man and woman on an individual basis or for the Government's Industrial Promotion Board. No large local shareholding from this percentage will be allowed. In order to organize the working man and woman for the new role of industrial ownership, a People's Investment Corporation will be set up with shares at $10 each to enable every working man and woman to participate by owning at least one $10 share. In order that the Corporation is really an organization of the people and is not monopolised by a few big shareholders, no person shall be allowed to hold more than 50 shares. Initially, as the first target, it is proposed to reserve the further manufacture of cigarettes and the manufacture of matches in Singapore for the People's Sector, and as soon as the People's Investment Corporation has sufficient finances, it will be invited by the Government's Industrial Promotion Board to participate in the setting up of a People's Cigarette Factory with an investment of 49 per cent. Government's Industrial Promotion Board will hold 2 per cent, and outside manufacturers of cigarettes of only popular brands would be invited to contribute up to 49 per cent and to manufacture cigarettes of their popular brands and to supply the technical know how. If such outside manufacturers are not willing to join in the proposal, the remaining shares in the People's Cigarette Factory will be taken up by the Industrial Promotion Board. Restriction will be placed on the import of cigarettes as soon as the factory starts production. It is not the intention of Government to restrict the operation of existing Singapore cigarette factories which were in production on the 13th August, 1958. A People's Match Factory would be set up in which the People's Investment Corporation would be invited to invest 49 per cent along with 51 per cent from the Government's Industrial Promotion Board. This factory will be given a monopoly for manufacturing matches in Singapore and imports of matches will be prohibited. The Industrial Promotion Board will start taking the necessary steps right away towards establishment of these factories. In order to encourage the people to invest in the People's Investment Corporation, a mass investment campaign will be started by the Government as soon as the machinery for setting up the People's Investment Corporation is ready.

After such a weighty statement, could the Minister inform us how much deliberation has been given to this matter before the pronouncement this morning?

Sir, the hon. Member may rest assured that due deliberation has been given before this statement was made and that it has not been made just like other mass campaigns are being made at the moment.

My question was a quantitative one, not a qualitative one. How much in point of time - when did the idea first occur?

Sir, I have been toying with this idea for more than half a year now.

When did he cease toying and seriously consider?

Since the last two months.

Is the Minister certain that subscriptions to his scheme will come in and that it will not go the same way as the City Council loan?

I am sure, Sir, in a Socialist-bent society where every politician is crying out against capitalist ownership and all that, and here is an opportunity for the public to own some profit-making industries, I am certain that the public will duly take note and take part in such a profitable proposition.

Would it not be wiser -

$10 shares for you!

- if such experiments could be undertaken by a stable government instead of by the present unstable Government?

Sir, that is a pet theme with the Member for Telok Ayer. However, we consider ourselves quite stable.

"to amend the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955", presented by the Chief Minister (Tun Lim Yew Hock); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 8th October, 1958, and to be printed.

"to amend the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955", presented by the Chief Secretary (Mr E. B. David); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 8th October, 1958, and to be printed.

"to amend the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Acting Financial Secretary (Mr Oon Khye Kiang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 8th October, 1958, and to be printed.

"to amend the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 207 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 8th October, 1958, and to be printed.

"to amend the Undesirable Publications Ordinance (Chapter 124 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Chief Secretary; read the First time; to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 8th October, 1958, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.26 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's consent to proceed with this Bill, and I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to assure hon. Members that unless radical changes in Government's economic policy are undertaken quickly, time is running out for us in Singapore and soon we will be facing a situation much worse than what we have recently seen, in the form of gangsterism, because of unemployment, and other anti-social activities. Hon. Members will recall that I outlined Government's adoption of a policy of selective protection for local industries in this House on the 13th of August this year, when this Bill had its First Reading that day. I stated in this connection that outside manufacturers wishing to manufacture their products here will, as a general rule, be required to come to an arrangement with the local manufacturer or intending local manufacturer, if any, of the same product or failing which with interested Singapore citizens. I further indicated that such an arrangement should either be on a partnership basis with at least 49 per cent of the shares 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 a lack of response from local interests or if such an arrangement cannot be made to my satisfaction, the outside manufacturer will be given permission to set up his own undertaking. It might well be asked why Government considers it necessary at this stage to introduce legislation to control the manufacture of goods. The reason, Sir, is simple. It will be quite obvious that if protection is given, some outside manufacturers who up to now have enjoyed Singapore as a wide open market may suddenly find restrictions placed in their way. They would find that the local manufacturer who up to now was treated by the Singapore Government as an orphan, would now be in a position to capture the Singapore market from them. Also the operation of protection would act as an inducement to local capital to invest boldly in new industrial enterprises because they could now hope through Government's intervention to get a fair share of the local market. Thus it is expected that large sums will henceforth be invested by local capital in industries. The result of all this would be that some of the outside manufacturers who up to now have been satisfied with supplying Singapore from outside may either have to gradually give up the Singapore market or be forced to open a factory here. With the strong consumer preference in Singapore for imported goods, these outside manufacturers opening a factory here and manufacturing their well known brands and marketing them in Singapore again, could have a very tragic effect on local investors. Local investors who might have in the meanwhile invested huge sums and would just be getting on their feet could suddenly find the whole ground cut from underneath their feet by these outside manufacturers and their investment vanish into thin air. If no check was exercised to prevent this happening, who would dare to take the risk and invest? Up to now, Government has had no powers to check or control outside operators, especially from the sterling area, from opening factories here as and when they liked, provided they did not make big demands on immigration control. This Bill, Sir, is aimed at giving Government the necessary powers to exercise such checks. Government's aim at present is to ensure that all and sundry are carefully selected before they are allowed to come in. It is only equitable that where a local industry already exists, such local industry should not be allowed to be swamped by outside manufacturers of the same product whose sole reason for coming in at this stage would be to "jump" the protection. However, as I have already indicated, where there is no local industry and no local interest in the manufacture of a product, then the outside manufacturer will be welcomed with open arms. In practice, control will be achieved by making it a condition that no person may set up a manufacturing concern here after the 13th August, 1958, without having first obtained a licence. The issue of a licence will not of course absolve the licensee from complying with the requirements of any other written law in force. The licence will be issued on payment of a nominal fee which is not designed as a revenue measure. As investment in a manufacturing process is likely to be considerable, it is necessary to provide that a licensee is not at the mercy of politicians more than is absolutely necessary. Thus a licence is made valid for 15 years and renewable thereafter for further periods of 15 years at the discretion of the Minister. Therefore, the licensee has a clear 15 years' run provided he fulfills the conditions laid down in the licence. The Minister will have the power to refuse the issue of a licence or to issue a licence subject to such conditions as he deems fit. In case of such refusal the applicant has no grounds to grumble, because he has not made his investment yet. However, once a licence is issued it is Government's intention that there should be as little interference as possible with the industry and the investor is assured of this by the fact that the licence is to be valid for 15 years. There is provision in the Bill for the Minister to revoke a licence if the conditions stipulated therein by the Minister are not complied with, but in such cases the licensee is safeguarded by the provision that the Minister is obliged to inform the licensee in writing of such revocation and the grounds thereof and the licensee has the right of appeal to the High Court against the Minister's decision. Until the High Court makes a decision, the Minister's revocation cannot be enforced. It will be noticed that existing manufacturers on the 13th August, 1958, are exempted as regards goods they have been manufacturing as on that date, but it would be in their interest to apply and obtain a certificate to that effect under clause 12 (3) so that there could be no grounds for doubts later on. One other aspect of the Bill is that enabling the Minister to grant an exclusive franchise to a single manufacturer by restricting to him only the grant of a licence for a particular manufacture. Hon. Members will appreciate that it will be difficult to lay down hard and fast rules as to the criteria to be applied before any manufacturer may be considered for the grant of such a franchise. Each application for franchise rights will be most carefully studied and must of necessity be decided on its individual merits. However, the underlying basic principle that will be applied is whether the manufacturer concerned will find it uneconomical to operate having regard to the amount of his initial capital outlay and the size of the local market if a competitor were also to come into the field intending to manufacture the same type of goods. I should emphasise that the grant of a franchise is not by any means intended to restrict or stifle local competition but is a measure which should be available for use very sparingly and selectively as and when the occasion arises. I can, therefore, assure the House that the granting of exclusive franchise rights will be kept to a minimum and will be subject to very close scrutiny. This Bill, Sir, will also act as the instrument through which Government could enforce its industrial policy from time to time. Now, Sir, getting away from the narrow confines of the Bill to the broader policy announced recently by me on the economic front, we have accepted the principle of protection for our industries. This is a departure from the timeworn, shall we say, half-truth of maintaining the free port status of Singapore. I say that it is a half-truth because it is a half-truth that has been blown up by interested parties to an extent where it has come to be believed in as if it were gospel truth, but the fact is that Singapore has not been a perfectly free port, shall we say. We have had restrictions of all sorts. We have had restrictions on the dollar exchange. We have had restrictions on exports of certain goods to certain countries laid down by the United Nations, embargoes, and so on. An ideal free port should be a trading community which would be occupied only in trade or in matters allied to the trading activities of the place or in services to the community who are engaged in trade. An ideal free port should have no restrictions whatsoever on immigration, currency, imports and exports. That would be an ideal free port but we are far from that. In fact, we have not been an ideal free port to quite an extent, but we have maintained some sort of a semblance to a free port and I am quite sure that if my policies are applied selectively on protection, we will continue to function as an entrepot trading centre without much loss to the entrepot trade and, at the same time, we will be able to give protection and thereby bolster up our industries. However, this policy of protection has got to be administered very delicately and with a balanced outlook and there should be no fear of favouritism in the carrying out of this policy. It is only then that the policy could work. In fact, since announcing the policy and setting up the panel, I have already been swamped by various manufacturers' associations who now feel that they have the right to ask why I have not appointed members of manufacturers' associations to represent the associations on the panel. I have stood up against it and told them off that I am not going to create any vested interest on that panel. I want independent men capable of exercising independent judgment, not men representing manufacturers - otherwise the Chambers of Commerce will come forward and say, "Where is our interest?" and then you have all the trade unions sitting round a table and quarrelling with one another and you will get nowhere. That is the thing that the Minister has got to fight against in the application of this policy and if the Minister does not fight against that, then I can assure the House that the whole policy may end in Singapore losing a lot of its trade. The key to this policy is the application thereof. Manufacturers' associations have come up to me and blithely suggested that I should exclude just five words from clause 12 (2) which reads: "The provisions of this Ordinance shall not apply to any person who is engaged in the manufacture of goods on the 13th August, 1958, in respect of such goods." "in respect of such goods" - five words. They said, "Please delete those words," and I said, "No." All they want is that existing manufacturers should be given carte blanche to manufacture anything they like. A cigarette tins manufacturer could then come to some sort of an understanding with an outside cigarette manufacturer and manufacture cigarettes and torpedo Government's policy which I have just announced. I said, "No, but we are not going to touch your investments in the field in which you have invested and in which you are producing." And that is a cardinal principle. Do not touch anybody who has already invested in some industry, but when it comes to a new line of production, he is as much new as anybody else. That is the main thing, that political pressure will come to bear on the Minister, whoever the Minister may be. Favours will be asked and the Minister has got to resist it. If he resists it, then only will the policy be a success. Unfortunately, Sir, today Singapore is in a difficult position and yet the people of Singapore are not aware that the key to all their difficulties lies in the economic situation. Sometimes the newspapers use bigger headlines about gangsterism than about a drastic change in the economic policy, even though according to a certain newspaper the protection of industries might have given rise to Sir Stamford Raffles turning round in his grave. Headlines about gangsterism appear everyday in the papers - in the English papers at least -but it is time now that the people of Singapore are made to realise that there must be drastic changes in our economy, and unless those drastic changes are coming on quickly and without delay, we are heading for a bad time. I would appeal, Sir, to the Opposition that if they have got good grounds for asking me to consider the Bill going to Select Committee, I shall consider it but I am not prepared to give way to any dilly-dallying request. If there are good grounds, I shall be prepared to consider committing the Bill to Select Committee. If I have missed out certain important points, then I will be prepared to consider that, but if they are not very important points, then I say let us take the Bill through its Third Reading today and give the Government the necessary powers to enforce this policy as quickly as possible. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 10.44 a.m.

Sir, it will be a great tragedy if this Bill is pushed through all stages today. I would suggest that this Bill be committed to Select Committee. The main reason is this, that this Bill is a great departure from the free trade policy of Singapore which has been maintained throughout the last century. The other reason is this. It would be better if such a measure were to come from a fully elected Government and not from the present colonial Government. I must define why I say it is a colonial Government. The present Government runs under the Rendel Constitution which is a colonial Constitution with its ex-officio and Nominated Members. Her Majesty's Government has granted us reforms which cannot be pushed off very long. They should be implemented very soon. Then, Sir, if that is so, it is for the masses in their own interest to elect a Government and to formulate an economic policy which they want for their own benefit. Now, Sir, coming to the free trade policy, the Minister has said that Singapore is not a free port with its immigration control and other regulations. That may be so but it is a free port as far as trade is concerned. The growing unemployment and all these considerations have come about today after the present coalition Government has come into power since April 1955. Have they not at heart the interest of the people - the way they are running the Government and their heavy travelling expenditure which could have otherwise been saved for the masses! Sir, the position has been that this novice Government - I must call it "novice" - has experimented and experimented and has reached nowhere today. Now, Sir, they want to push through the Bill. The Minister has just said that if valid grounds are given, he will think of appointing a Select Committee. The most important reason is its departure from the free trade policy and when you are taking this measure, it is the public who should give their views before the Select Committee, such as manufacturers, merchants, traders and consumers. It is for them to express their views so that they can be considered by the Select Committee. On the question of protection for goods, the protection for what type of articles is not disclosed in this Bill at all. This might be disclosed when the Bill comes before the Select Committee and then the public can give their views very freely. Sir, therefore, I would suggest that Government should not force this Bill through today but that it be committed to Select Committee. 10.46 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with considerable trepidation that I follow the Minister for Commerce and Industry, and the gentleman who I think is well qualified to be a prospective Minister for Commerce and Industry. I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I would not like to say anything today which would prejudice the merits of this Bill. I fully agree with the Minister when he says that a new unencumbered approach to our economic problems is necessary - an approach not blinkered by catchwords, slogans and phrases like "free port", "free trade", in a very quickly changing South-East Asia. But I would be reluctant to pass this Bill without having had sufficient time not only for ourselves to consider it, but to consider the views and the opinions of those who are more expert than ourselves on the repercussions of such a protection system.

May I, Sir -

I think the Minister will have ample opportunity to reply. If he wishes to raise a point of order, I shall yield but if he just wishes to make an explanatory note of what he has said in his speech, then, of course, I do not think it necessary. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

If the hon. Member will give way. Mr Lee Kuan Yew resumed his seat.

Yes, Mr Jumabhoy.

Sir, I beg leave just to correct him because I think he has misunderstood the whole thing. This Bill has nothing to do with protection. Protection is enforced by administrative action.

I hasten to assure the Minister that I know exactly what he has in mind, the mechanical arrangements: (1) the right to manufacture; (2) the using of the administrative powers under the various import licences to prevent the import of goods of the kind which are being manufactured under licence. That is fully understandable but there are further repercussions arising out of this Bill. As I was going to say, my first impression on reading the Bill was that it was reminiscent of the great days of the East India Company when Queens granted to their subjects exclusive monopolies to exploit or otherwise enrich the nation by having an exclusive preserve of a certain part of the world. Since we only have a little island, then we can only grant little concessions like the exclusive right to manufacture cigarettes, soap, matches, toothpaste, toothpowder and other essentials which people must buy. They are bound to give profit to whoever manufactures them, particularly if you have a benign government that arranges that there is no competition with imported manufacture. But I was astounded to hear the Minister admit that he gave only a two-month period of consideration to this imaginative departure from normal industrial trade policies in Singapore. I ask the Minister to consider this point. The licence that is to be granted is for 15 years with an optimistic renewal option clause of another 15 years. Now, in 30 years time, I may be a very old man, and I doubt if I will be alive, whereas the system that we see existing in South-East Asia and the State of Singapore which is to come into being next year will still be here, though I wonder if there will be such a person known as the Minister for Commerce and Industry in the State of Singapore. That is beside the point. The present Government can only give manufacturers an insurance of seven months. I have said before that I do not want to have to say anything in the course of this debate which would challenge the merits of this Bill because the Bill has merits. But I do urge the Minister to send this Bill to Select Committee in order that the full implications can be considered. There is no need to hurry at this last moment in a radical departure of economic policy. I would just like to draw his attention to certain aspects of the Bill just to show him, since he has more or less invited us to give reasons for it to be committed to Select Committee, why he should do so. There are a considerable number of provisions for which rules must be made, and he has provided for them in an omnibus clause in clause 11. For instance, in clause 6, this right of appeal, the Minister revoking a licence and giving grounds for his revocation and giving the right of appeal to the aggrieved licensee to the High Court. The rules will have to be prescribed: the procedure and the issues that will have to be placed before a judge on whether to oppose the policy of the Minister, whether he is to oppose or revoke the Minister's decision, the grounds on which these things have to be done. But what is most important though not provided for in this Bill, are provisions to ensure the employment of local people. Now, Sir, we all know that the purpose of this Bill is not to create a thriving industry in Singapore to compete with Hongkong, Japan or the big industrial countries in South-East Asia and Asia. The purpose is to provide some form of local industries even though it may not be competitive, and as efficient as those in Hongkong, Japan, India or China. The essential goods listed by an economist today in one of the English newspapers are soap, sweets, matches, cigarettes and all the other non-elastic consumer goods. You can eat the best sweets in the world or Tai Hong sweets; it will come to the same. It does not make any difference. You can strike a match made in Sweden or strike a match made in Singapore. It really does not matter. But unless we are really competitive, these factors cannot become a significant factor in the economic life of South-East Asia because we can only give protection insofar as consumption by 1½ million souls in Singapore is concerned. We cannot give protection for the consumption by 7 million people in the Federation, over 1 million in the Borneo territories and 70 million in Indonesia. Now, all these factors must be carefully weighed and considered, and I recommend to the Minister that if the object is to create employment, then there must be sufficient provision in this Bill to lay down an employment policy because the object is to give employment and nothing else. His answer may well be that there are sufficient immigration controls to bring about the desired result without having it specifically set up in this Bill. All these matters we will have to discuss. We want to hear all these things and we can best hear them in Committee, not a Committee of the whole House because then we will have to rush through the Bill today but in a Select Committee. Sir, at the end of the Second Reading, I hope to catch your eye to move that this Bill be sent to Select Committee and I hope the Minister will indicate that he is sufficiently satisfied to make my motion unnecessary.

Sir, I would also like to persuade the Hon, the Minister for Commerce and Industry not to push through the Bill through the remaining stages today but to let it go to Select Committee. From what' he read out just now, it seems to me that he is suggesting a great change in the trade policy of Singapore which I feel is a good thing but then it is only his side of the story. We do not know the other side of the story and in a major change like this, we need time to study the Bill carefully before we pass it. That is why I am asking him to accede to our request. 10.58 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is seldom that I can agree with the Member for Tanjong Pagar but in this particular debate I am bound to agree with him on the major point especially that this Bill should be committed to Select Committee. The Minister has informed us that the persons selected on the panel were those who had nothing to do with the interested parties. Therefore public opinion. especially that of the interested parties should be heard in Select Committee and maybe a policy can be formulated in respect of the control of manufactured goods. Despite the lengthy and detailed statement made by the Minister for Commerce and Industry - and we know that he is able and hard-working - the most important point which he has touched upon is the failure of the local industries which is only too obvious and now he speaks of opening up new industries. I wish the Minister for Commerce and Industry will inform this House how many established industries have been forced to close down. I would draw the attention of this House - and I have said this very often - that the most important thins to solve is the economic instability of Singapore. The tariff imposed at the Johore Bahru causeway is detrimental to the development of local industries. So unless Government can assure this House that a Pan-Malayan economic policy can be formulated to include the Federation of Malaya Government and the Borneo Government whereby our products can be considered as their own, then our home market consisting of just 1½ million people, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar has pointed out, is too small for the establishment of any new industry. Already the old industries cannot maintain themselves and now we are talking about new industries. Therefore I wish the Minister can assure this House that this Pan-Malayan economic policy is under way, otherwise this Bill is only just a scrap of paper. 11.02 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say that I have the greatest respect for the Hon. the Minister for Commerce and Industry for his grasp of Singapore's economy, and especially his enthusiasm in seeking to remedy that situation. I think he has already appreciated that Singapore is too much dependent on its entrepôt trade and, in view of the increasing population and the increase in unemployment, in the years to come we must have something - that is the development of industries - to supplement that economy. This Bill - the Control of Manufacture Bill - is one of the steps which he proposes to extend to something like a quantitative import control and a customs tariff. Although the Minister did say just now that it is not to protect, I see here in the explanatory statement that it is "to protect the local manufacturer". There is an element of protection and no doubt the measures of protection will come later and that, as the Minister has indicated, will be in the form of a quantitative control or a customs tariff. Now, although the Minister has rightly diagnosed the ill, I think this is quite the wrong remedy and it is bound to do more harm than good to Singapore. As Singapore now stands, the entrepôt trade is still our mainstay and it still feeds us. Any measure of quantitative control or by a customs levy is bound to have repercussions on that entrepôt trade. We are bound, for instance, to antagonise our existing customers and we cannot afford to have their retaliation in whatever form later on. As the Chinese saying goes, I think this is a case of slashing off the flesh to remove a minor sore. Quantitative import control or a customs levy is simply going to take it out of somebody's already existing business in the hope of conferring some benefit on the other fellow who is in industry and whose interests the Minister thinks he can protect. Many hon. Members have mentioned that whatever we aim to protect is only for one and a half million persons. You cannot even protect so much because there are bound to be people who would not like to buy, for instance, locally produced cigarettes. There is only a very small section that you can possibly hope to protect and it would be, I think, a wiser policy to isolate that and give it whatever protection it deserves without disturbing the overall freedom of this entrepôt trade. We know, Sir, that, generally speaking, all sorts of controls will tend to breed corruption and inefficiency and, as the Minister has mentioned, this Bill is so much dependent on the Minister's application and honesty himself that it is quite dangerous if the powers which the Bill proposes fall into less sincere and honest hands. I see in this Bill, as the Minister has admitted himself, in clause 4 (1), it already breaks a very cherished principle on which Singapore has grown and thrived, and that is the principle of free trade and free enterprise. This clause reads: "Every application for a licence shall be made to the Minister in the prescribed form and the Minister may issue or refuse such licence." Now I think the object of the Bill is to promote industry and I do not know under what circumstances the Minister is likely to refuse a licence to manufacture. Clause 5 (1) says: "The Minister may in issuing a licence impose such conditions as he may think fit to impose and such conditions shall be set out in the licence." Now what sort of conditions does the Minister have in mind? Is it the suitability of the place or the suitability of the manufacture? Under existing laws, these are governed by other laws. Perhaps the Minister has in mind that the licensee should manufacture up to a certain quota and that he should use a certain type of machinery chosen for him by the Minister? Then clause 5 (2) reads: "When issuing a licence to engage in the manufacture of any goods the Minister may undertake that for such period as he may determine no further licence shall be issued for the manufacture of such goods." In other words, the Minister may decide on preferential treatment or even create a monopoly. It is proposed in this Bill that those who have already established business before 13th August, 1958, are to be exempted. In other words, these people who have already had their business and who are exempted from the Bill would also not be entitled to this generosity of a franchise. Sir, we have touched on controls this morning. We have also touched on the strategic stockpile of rice. This strategic stockpile is everytime running into difficulties, and in any case it is a burden on the taxpayer. It is an alternate boon and woe to the traders concerned. So controls, if they are not very necessary, should hot be imposed at all, and in this case I think they are not necessary because they are aimed at benefiting only a very small portion and they will, if imposed, have great repercussions on our entrepôt trade. Sir, the Nanyang Siang Pau of the 25th August has this to say. I quote excerpts: "If Singapore hopes to have any success in its policy of protecting its industries without at the same time seriously hurting its entrepôt trade, the first requisite must be to have the co-operation of the Federation, because Singapore's own manufactures and its imported manufactures which it is proposed to limit quantitatively or by a customs levy have hitherto all depended on the Federation as its chief consuming market. If Singapore cannot get the co-operation and support of the Federation whose consuming power is four times that of Singapore itself, whatever measures taken to protect its industries will just be a waste of effort. We question whether with only the causeway separating and Federation industries having such a big consuming market compared with Singapore's own negligible consumption anyone seeking investment would not at once reject the latter and invest in the former? Therefore, if the Federation would not regard our close economic co-operation as being important because of our propinquity and exempt Singapore industries from import tax or even concede a preferential treatment, we shall find it even hard to maintain our existing industries. To expect new industries in the circumstances would just be an extravagant hope. If the Singapore Government do not first bend their efforts toward removing this barrier and instead try to plan measures which are bound to more or less harm our entrepôt trade, in order to protect industries, it is just abandoning the body and chasing the tail. According to the Chief Economic Adviser to the Chief Minister, Dr Benham's calculations, Singapore's import of produce, foodstuffs, and industrial goods amounts to between three and four billion dollars a year. Roughly one-fifth of this is retained for own consumption. As much as two-fifths of this is re-exported to the Federation, and the remaining two-fifths is re-exported to Indonesia and other neighbouring countries. In other words, the Federation takes from Singapore imports yearly at least 1½ billion dollars. This amount is an important factor in our entrepot trade. Singapore importers of foodstuffs and consumer goods invariably take the Federation's and Singapore's consumption together into calculation in determining what and how much to buy from abroad. Of these they estimate that the Federation will take 75 per cent to Singapore's 25 per cent. If it happens that there are intermittent demands from Indonesia, Thailand or other neighbouring countries, as is the experience for quite a number of years now, their usual method is to satisfy these demands from the stocks reserved for Singapore's consumption and replace them immediately afterwards from abroad. This is the usual pattern of their trade."

Order. I would like to remind the hon. Member of Standing Order 30 (6) which reads: "A member shall not read his speech, but he may read extracts from books or papers in support of his argument, and may refresh his memory by reference to notes." I read in the word "extracts" extracts and not the whole article, and if the hon. Member can assure me that what he is reading are, in fact, extracts, then he can proceed.

I beg your pardon, Sir. It is not the whole article which I am reading, but these are very relevant points. As I have said, these are excerpts from the article. To continue, Sir: "If the intended protection of industries takes the form of quantitative limitation, there may be a shortage which could force up prices. Hitherto Singapore's entrepot goods are not higher priced than the origin of production; at the same time they can be bought in small or big lots and ready goods can always be supplied. If a quantitative limit were imposed leading to this advantage being lost, Federation customers of Singapore importers will seek to import direct from origin suppliers. Further if a custom's duty levy were imposed, goods that are intended for the Federation must be considered to be exempt; but the storage of these goods whether in public or private warehouses would present such difficulties in administrative control as to create all sorts of problems resulting in an increase of cost and thus lowering the chances of the Federation customers buying in Singapore. Generally speaking, Singapore has already lost quite a lot of entrepot business for quite a number of years to Indonesia, Thailand and other neighbours, because of these countries' policy of trading direct with origin suppliers, and if before we get the co-operation of the Federation we should pursue this protection policy with its very doubtful purpose and lose this big and reliable consuming outlet, it is in the ultimate simply not a sensible step." Sir, I will also read to you extracts from the Sin Chew Jit Poh of Monday, 8th September, 1958: "Those who say that the entrepot is slipping is talking nonsense. Our biggest entrepot is with Indonesia. In 1955 the figure was 200,000,000. In 1956 it increased to 230,000,000. In 1957 260,000,000. In the first five months of 1958 it has already amounted to 200,000,000. We sympathise with those who think we cannot entirely depend on entrepot. But they must be very careful when they think of replacing the free status of this port by a protective customs tariff. They must take in consideration the situation as a whole lest they have both hands empty. The introduction of customs tariff can easily lead to a preponderant stress on treasury revenue and lose its original objective of protecting industries. By whatever method you use, the burden will fall on the shoulders of the people. It will give rise to lobbying by the various industries and ultimately benefit a small number of industrialists and victimise the whole consuming public. A protective customs tariff is only one of the many methods to promote industries. In order to avoid this affecting our entrepot trade which is still the mainstay of Singapore, we must first try out other methods by giving direct or other indirect assistance to the industries concerned. The cost will not be small but it must be recognised that revenue from customs tariff are also borne by the people ultimately -"

Order. I hate interrupting the hon. Member, but I think I must rule that he is, in effect, reading somebody else's speech. The hon. Member could, of course, read extracts but he should then relate those extracts to his own speech. As it is, all that we have heard during the last five minutes is, as I have said, in effect, the speech of somebody else not in this Assembly.

Sir, this is in fact a translation by myself and not somebody else's speech. They are all extracts which I think are relevant to my argument. However, I am nearly finishing and if you will allow me, I will just proceed with another one or two sentences: "- and does not fall from the sky. From the standpoint of Singapore as a whole, any other method would be better than a customs tariff in order that the status of a free entrepot may not be shaken." We know, Sir, unfortunately, that the Federation is not giving us any preference or it has refused to give preference to our manufactures; but if we are to introduce some import control, quantitative or otherwise, then the articles just referred to like matches, soap and so on, we would eventually have to tax those which are coming out from the Federation. Whether that is desirable or not I do not know, but I think any customs control will have to encounter some difficulty in Empire preference which is after all reciprocal, and it is sure to intensify ill will against us and they could retaliate in more ways than one. So is it really worth while that we should pursue this measure at all? The position is like this - somewhat similar to a story which I have just been told. The story goes like this. There are two ladies travelling in the same compartment of a train. The window was open. One lady said, "The window must be closed, otherwise I will freeze to death." The other lady said, "You cannot close the window, because if you do, I will suffocate to death. In fact, I am equally sure of that and as a further precaution, I will demand that the fan should also be switched on." The other passengers said, "No, thank you both. We are quite comfortable as we are. If you switch on the fan it will be too cold, and if you close the window it will be too hot." So that is the position - what to do? I think the Minister, in proposing these protective measures, is evidently saying, "Close the window, because we have got to protect this lady from freezing." Now what will happen to the other lady is that she will immediately be suffocated to death, not to mention the extreme discomfort to the other passengers. Would it not be a more sensible thing to isolate the freezing lady than attempt to protect her on that spot? Sir, any industry in Singapore which needs this kind of protection cannot be big, because any big industry cannot just depend on its local turnover to survive. Therefore, I think it will be more justifiable, if the industry is worthy of it, if a direct subsidy or direct protection by whatever other measures could be given to it, instead of jeopardising the entire entrepôt trade in the hope of trying to confer some benefit to just a very small section of the people. As other hon. Members have suggested, I hope that this Bill will be committed to a Select Committee and studied further, and I hope that eventually the Government will see their way to withdrawing this Bill, as they have already withdrawn the Luxury Tax Bill on similar objections.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is some merit in this Bill. All of us say that Singapore is dependent on its entrepot trade, but must we always be dependent on our entrepot trade? Can we not take a second line and emulate the example of small island countries like Hongkong and embark on a programme of industrialisation? I certainly feel, Sir, that if there is work to be done and if it can be done by the people of Singapore, then the people of Singapore should be given a chance. If there is money to be made and the people of Singapore can make it themselves, then we should allow Singapore to make such money. In this world, everything must start on a small scale. In places like Japan and Hongkong which only started manufacturing early this century, they must start as small manufacturers. They must first supply their own needs, but because labour is cheap and because of other prevailing conditions they were able to start not only supplying themselves with the goods they needed but also exporting to countries that had been exporting to them. And today I think Hongkong is exporting to England the goods that England was at one time exporting to Hongkong. However, Sir, the merits of this Bill must be balanced with other points which we must consider very seriously. I feel that if we can keep our entrepot trade and yet go on with industrialisation, then I will want the two assets instead of one, but we will have to go on very cautiously weighing every fact first before we make such a move. When I look at this Bill, I see there are quite a number of flaws and loopholes which must be plugged. It will involve the Government in a great deal of work - licensing new factories, exempting many people, and issuing certificates. Then I will be thousands of certificates to be issued, many licences for new factories. This work alone is going to be tremendous. There is another point, Sir; when we talk about manufactures offered for sale to the public, even small manufacturers come in. The man in the street who probably manufactures a few bottles of sauce or some sweets or toys on a very small scale will have to come and get his licence or his exemption. It may cause him a great deal of inconvenience and it may take him a long time to understand what the Government have in mind. The second point is this, we want to keep our entrepot trade and at the same time encourage local manufacture. Let us take the example of cigarettes. We will say that all cigarettes which come in must go into bond and be re-exported. Local cigarettes can be manufactured and sold. But you must not forget, Sir, that Johore is so very near and though local cigarettes are on sale some people here prefer the brands that are imported. They might go over to Johore to buy their requirements for their own consumption. That is a loophole that we have to look after. I hope the Government will consider seriously the suggestion that a Malayan customs union would be the best solution. I have heard it said that there should be a customs union not only for Malaya and Singapore but also to include such territories as North Borneo, Sarawak and Kuching; and if we establish that, our markets will be bigger at least when we consider local consumption. That idea was mooted during the last Area meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association there and I think it should deserve support from this Assembly if ever such a move were made. I certainly feel that the points raised both by my colleagues and other speakers previous to me deserve deep consideration, and that this Bill should be sent to a Select Committee so that the people who will be greatly affected by this Bill will be able to voice their opinions on it. 11.34 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not been and am not a business man, but the House certainly knows that the Nominated Member, Mr Tan Siak Kew, is a business man of considerable experience; so I would ask the House to take heed of what he has asked it to do, and that is to send this Bill to a Select Committee for further consideration. 11.35 a.m. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

Mr Jumabhoy, in reply?

In reply, Sir, It is unfortunate, Sir, that not only are the Members of the Opposition not aware of our serious economic position but they are not even aware of the implications of this Bill. The Member for Telok Ayer talked about discussing in Select Committee the principle of protection, when there is no reference at all to protection in this Bill. Protection is going to be carried out by the Government by Administrative action. Quotas, if necessary, are going to be placed on imported goods under my authority, the authority which I have under the Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance. Customs duties are going to be imposed by the Financial Secretary under his authority which is derived from the Customs Ordinance. This Bill has nothing to do with protection as such. The only thing this Bill seeks to do is to protect the local manufacturer from being swamped by the outside manufacturer of well-known brands, because the outside manufacturer is going to lose his market. Up to now, the outside manufacturer refuses to come in and wants to employ outside labour to sell his goods to the people of Singapore. He has been cajoled, he has been asked, he has been begged by us to come in. We have given him all sorts of promises - pioneer industry status, tax exemptions, this and that - but he says, "No, I do not trust the people of Singapore and their politicians. I refuse to come in." Then some time later a local manufacturer says, "Right, I dare to invest in this thing." He puts up $500,000 and manufactures something here. Then he says, "Now, will you give me protection?" And you say, "Imports from outside are prohibited." The outside manufacturer with Brand X, which is a well-known brand, then decides to come in and manufactures Brand X here, and the local man who has invested, half a million dollars loses his investment because the outside manufacturer has a well-known brand and Singapore consumers run to buy that brand. That is all that this Bill seeks to protect - nothing else. In the Select Committee, Sir, I am doubtful whether the principle of protection can be discussed, because there is not one clause in this Bill which talks of tariff protection or quantitative restriction protection. What have my hon. friends from the Opposition side got to show to the public about their knowledge of the economics of Singapore? During election time they go to the country and shout all sorts of things. Yet what are they going to do for this country? Is what they have said about this Bill, which is of vital importance, all their knowledge? The reference to protection in the explanatory statement: "... It provides power to regulate the setting up of industries on a planned basis and to protect the local manufacturer." That is to protect the local manufacturer from the ravages of outsiders who come in to cash in on a protected market - I see now some hon. Members walking out of the House; they dare not listen. Sir, the Labour Front in its "Principles and Aims" says in paragraph 7: "To fulfill the urgent needs of the country's rapidly growing population the Labour Front stands for the reorganisation of its economy now cast in the role of a milching cow." The entrepot trade is not a milching cow, but servicing by outside manufacturers in a wide open market in a world which has closed its doors everywhere by tariff protection and quantitative restrictions - a wide open place for every manufacturer to dump his goods - that is where we are a milching cow. That is what we seek to prevent by this Bill, and hon. Members have not yet understood the full implications. "A departure from the free trade policy maintained for over a century," says the hon. Member for Telok Ayer, who is not in the room now. That century-old policy cannot be applied today. The world has changed - the fact must be realised - and we must change with the world. If we do not, we are going to be left behind. Do they realise that or not? There are people of the old generation who believe in going to races, drinking in high society, and so on, and they say, "Let us keep that century-old policy." The moment you talk of a change, they are frightened, because they believe in a conventional world, a world in which they have been brought up. They do not understand that which the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar understands very well, and that is the world has changed and we must change with the world; if not, we are doomed. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar says, "Why so late?" Exactly. In my statement, Sir, last month to the Assembly I said, "It is now approximately two years, Sir, since I gave an indication that some measure of protection might have to be considered." Sir, this policy is not a hasty one and the Member for Tanjong Pagar misunderstood me this morning. This policy of protection has been under consideration for two solid years, and I say again, that 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 necessary steps to implement this policy, and reference of this Bill to a Select Committee is not going to stop Government from giving protection to industries. This Bill merely deals with one aspect of it, and that is to protect the local manufacturer from being swamped by the outside manufacturer because of his well-known brand. Nothing else. Sir, the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar misunderstood me when he said that I answered him that the policy had been under consideration for two months. That was in respect of the statement I made this morning on the people's sector of industry, and for the last two months I have been working pretty hard on it. However, I will come to it later. Sir. I think it would be best for me to answer the Nominated Member, Mr Tan Siak Kew, first because he has raised the most points. He says that protection by quantitative restriction or by tariffs will mean taking it from one hand and giving it to somebody else. That is precisely the point, Sir. It will take the profits and the wages of labour from the outside manufacturer and give them to the man inside Singapore. It will also cut the cost of freight, because, for most of these products, the raw materials are drawn from Asia and they are carted all the way to Europe and America. Now they can be carted to Asia and the consumer goods will be produced here. So if any hon. Member has any opposition to it, let him say so now, including the Member for Tanjong Pagar, if he has any, and I am sure he has not. "Controls will tend to breed corruption and inefficiency," Mr Tan Siak Kew says, "and it will be dangerous if powers fall into less honest hands." The answer is with the citizens of Singapore. If they wish to elect corrupt, inefficient and less honest men to fill these Front Benches, they are welcome to it. Let them have such people. Why should we bother about it? We try to provide laws to be administered by efficient, honest and incorruptible Ministers as far as possible. If the people of Singapore choose otherwise, they are welcome to their choice. It is not for us to judge.

Are not you people part of the people?

We are, and we will do our best to see that they do not choose such, people! Sir, the creation of monopolies or a franchise is only an enabling clause in the Bill. In fact, nothing can bind a successive government from changing its mind. It is an enabling clause and there is nothing to it. In fact, it is just one clause in between others. I think undue stress has been laid by the Opposition on it. Mr Tan Siak Kew has quoted, Sir, the possible conditions under clause 5 (1). The condition I think would be not on the amount of protection but rather that the local manufacturer should not come to an arrangement with any foreign manufacturer in which he holds less than 49 per cent. Take, for example, a small man making, say, a thousand cigarettes a day. The foreign man comes in because he cannot bring his cigarettes in. And he says, "Look here, I will pay $500 a month. Let me manufacture cigarettes here." So the foreign man "jumps" the protection, comes here to manufacture his cigarettes and then tells the Government, "I do not care tuppence for you!" And that is where the restrictive conditions will come in. You give a licence to the local man but he cannot come to an understanding with a foreign manufacturer without the permission of the Minister, and the Minister will see that the local man gets a fair share and that it is not an eyewashing arrangement for the outside man to come in and "jump" the protection barrier. Sir, the articles in the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Poh were quoted. I think it was good that they were quoted. I have read these two articles with interest and I do not think there is any merit in both of them. "The Federation is the chief consuming market - four times the market of Singapore." That is not correct, Sir. The population of the Federation is four times that of Singapore, but the consuming power of Singapore as compared to that of the Federation is 40 to 60, because Singapore is an urban community and we have a higher purchasing power in Singapore. The Federation is mainly a rural community, and the purchasing power is less. Therefore the consuming ability is 40 for Singapore to 60 for the Federation - not 20 to 80. "Since Singapore is a negligible market, would it not be that most investors would reject Singapore and go to the Federation?" That is precisely what has happened. Factory owners who were about to go to the Federation stopped in their tracks when I made the statement about protection last month. It has been going on since the last one year. Factories have shifted to the Federation. They have had to close down because of the tariffs, but the moment I made this announcement, they stopped and we are now retaining these factories. They are thinking twice - and yet, Sir, we are told about century-old policies and asked to think about it. By the time you think about it, you will have lost all your factories. Nothing will have been left here to think about. Dr Benham was quoted by the Nanyang Siang Pau - "two-fifths of the foodstuffs go to the Federation." Exactly, Sir, and I have in my statement made it very clear that "under no circumstances will the operation of protection be allowed to interfere in any way with the entrepôt trade in produce, processed produce and textiles or raw materials". We are not going to touch foodstuffs and such things, Sir. We are only going to touch consumer goods and it might interest hon. Members of the Opposition to know this - if at all they study such things, which I do not think they do, because most of them, especially my hon. friend the Member for Tanjong Pagar, study only slogans to catch the political ears of the people. But as to the economic aspect, I do not think they have an economic policy, because they have never announced it. Sir, about 70 to 75 per cent of our trade is in these items - Arecanuts, canned pineapples, sago, sugar, raw coffee, tea, cloves, pepper, cigarettes, copra, rubber, jelutong, gum dammar, aviation spirit, kerosene, liquid fuel, palm oil, coconut oil, tapioca flour, cotton piece goods, artificial silk piece goods, tin. It varies. In 1951 it was 86 per cent. In 1956 it was 74 per cent. In 1957 it was 70 per cent. Nearly three-quarters of our entrepôt trade is not in the consumer goods which are going to be affected by protection. It is in these produce and textiles and processed goods and therefore the fear that our entrepôt trade is going to suffer, and foodstuffs - "two fifths of it go to the Federation" - are going to suffer, is unfounded and due to non-understanding on the part of the persons who make these suggestions. "Storage may be a problem." Bonded warehouses can overcome this problem. Other countries have done it. Why cannot we do it? Then the hon. Member quotes again, "Singapore has lost business in the past due to the direct trading activities of countries like Indonesia and Thailand." Exactly, that is what I have been telling the House for the last two years, and that is why we have got to open our eyes and do something about it - so that we will have something to fall back on when we lose more of our entrepôt trade - and that is coming - because in this present competitive age no country can afford to go to a middleman if it can help it. That means that if direct trade progresses, we are going to get less trade, which means that unless we do something on the industrial front we are going to be in a jam. I give figures - the hon. Member's figures were all for single months, but here are the comparisons. In 1955 our imports were 2,865,000,000 - it is not just the increase in figures we have got to see, but the difference between imports and exports, the balance of payments. Our exports were 2,781,000,000. In 1956 there was a jump in imports - 3,098,000,000; exports remained almost the same at 2,732,000,000. In 1957 imports were 3,277,000,000 - a jump again over the previous year; exports remained almost the same - 2,773,000,000. The result is that whereas exports have remained stagnant at around 2,700,000,000, imports have kept on jumping by roughly 200 million a year. The gap from 84 million in 1955 went up to 365 million in 1956 and 504 million in 1957; and that is the danger signal. As the imports increase, it shows that there is more consumption at home, and even if employment is a criterion - and employment is a big criterion, I will admit - it should not be the only criterion. We have got to produce more at home, not only just to find employment, but to cut down on our imports, because very soon you will find that you will not have enough money to import goods. Now our dollar is a dollar which operates in a whole area, but supposing later on with a Central Bank in the Federation or something else you find that you have to rely on your own prestige, your own economy - not on one that is bolstered up by the economies of surrounding countries like Malaya, Borneo, Sarawak - then you will find that your Singapore dollar will start fluctuating, if this state of affairs goes on. You have got to see that you import less and make what you can at home. The same story continues during all the months this year, if hon. Members of the Opposition care to read the statistics, which I doubt they do. Then another false argument, that is that the burden will fall on the shoulders of the people. That means the cost of living will go up. That is not so, because most of the goods that you consume here are manufactured in Europe or America, and labour there is as high as, if not higher than, in Singapore. Therefore you save on the cost of labour because Singapore labour is cheaper. You also save on freight. In many cases, you save on exorbitant profits made by these outside manufacturers because of their names. Is it desirable to have a tax on articles coming from the Federation? The Federation has decided it is desirable to have a tax on articles coming from Singapore.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

If the Minister will give way.

I would like to ask the mercantile mind how this really helps him in the argument. He says labour is cheaper here. Then we dispense with freight. Therefore the cost of living will go down. But to my non-mercantile mind, it appears to me that if that is in fact the argument, then protection is unnecessary, because we would be able to compete with the outside commodity. Where am I wrong?

The hon. Member is perfectly right and he is perfectly wrong. Where he is wrong is that though the people of Singapore can shout about Merdeka, when it comes to buying goods they stick to their prejudices. They will buy English, American or German goods. They will not touch anything made in Singapore - that is where the hon. Member is wrong - unless we force them to buy Singapore-made goods. Even India had to do it after independence, because even there the people were prejudiced, because in a hundred years of colonialism you have been brought up and steeped into that sort of thing. And you will not get out of it easily.

Nonsense!

Another false argument put up was: is it worth while to have protection? Why not have a direct subsidy? Government will give, say, a direct subsidy of $20 million to industry to keep the trade open. For whose benefit? So that the outside manufacturer can push his goods in and make his profits in the Singapore market; and the Government collects from the taxpayer, through other methods, and gives a subsidy to local factories? Now, is that the right way of doing things? You tax a local man, to pay a local factory, and you let the outside man make his money on it. Is it not fairer for the outside man to be made to pay or to be stopped? Sir, a customs union with the Federation would be a very good idea, but I do not think it is practicable in the political field as yet. If we could have a Pan-Malayan economic system, that would be the most desirable thing; but as hon. Members know, it has not been achieved. Even India, Sir, has this sort of legislation to prevent outside manufacturers from opening factories. Sir, we now come to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. He has not got any really good argument why this Bill should go to Select Committee. I suspect, Sir, that he is trying to gain time. because he is not aware of the implications himself. But if the hon. Member, as he always professes to be, is on the side of where the good of Singapore lies, then I say he should not advocate any delay in the passing of this Bill, because it is designed to assist the Singapore man. And the reply I made earlier about two months' consideration did not apply to this Bill or to the protection policy, but only to the statement I made this morning. He drew attention to one or two clauses. He says the judge will have to approve or revoke the decision of the Minister on policy. That is not true. The judge will have to decide on the case purely on factual grounds, whether the conditions laid down by the Minister have been observed or not - not on the policy. The Minister can revoke a licence if he is satisfied that the conditions which he has imposed have not been complied with, and the man can go to the Court and say, "I have complied with the conditions, but the Minister is not satisfied and has revoked the licence." The judge then has to rule factually whether the conditions have been complied with. It is a decision on facts, not on policy. Policy is a matter for the Minister, not for the judge. "Provision to provide for employment" - you cannot provide in any law provisions for so much employment to be given and that sort of thing. That is a fluid matter. Some industries can give more employment; some can give less; but you cannot force anybody to give so much employment, because then it will not be a business proposition. But as I say, it is not only employment that I have in mind, but also the creation of wealth here by additional productivity and the cutting down on imports, and the retention of that portion of the value of the goods consumed here which accrues to the outside manufacturer through the wages paid to labour. It is true that we can give protection only for the Singapore market, but an industry is like an infant - you have to give it a helping hand when it first learns to walk. Once it can walk by itself, it can learn to run by itself. If you can give an industry a helping hand in the initial stages by giving it a market - even though it may be small - on which it can rely, then you will give it an opportunity of expanding later and entering a foreign market. But let me assure hon. Members this. While we are having compunctions about protection and putting up barriers here, other countries have gone right ahead. Sarawak has recently raised the duty on soap, and when the local manufacturers wrote to Sarawak, they said, "Sorry, that is our policy." And here we are, thinking a hundred times about retaliatory measures against us. The Ottawa Agreement of 1932 set up preferential treatment between the Commonwealth countries. Is that not the creation of protective measures for countries in the Commonwealth? Anyhow, Sir, I do not admit that any valid argument has been put up for sending this Bill to Select Committee, but because I do not want to come in the way of democratic procedure, I have no objection if the Bill is referred to a Select Committee. But I would like hon. Members to understand that I would like this measure to be passed as quickly as possible - if possible by the next sitting of the Assembly. And, Sir, I would like a ruling from you whether, since this Bill makes no reference to tariffs or quotas or things like that, such matters would be admissible in Select Committee?

I have been asked to rule quite hypothetically. My answer, of course, is that if and when those matters come up in Select Committee, it is then that I will give my ruling.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 12.02 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with this Bill and move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." Sir, in the White Paper on the Report of the Committee on Local Government (No. Cmd. 30 of 1956), Government indicated its agreement that the Singapore Improvement Trust should cease to exist and that the responsibility for public housing and the comprehensive development and redevelopment for a variety of purposes of areas of land designated by Government should be laid on a Singapore Development Board appointed by Government. The lines on which the operations of the Board should be financed and thereby controlled by Government was indicated in a further White Paper, that on Housing Subsidy Policy, No. Cmd. 6 of 1957. I propose in this speech merely to refer to the intention behind the provisions of this Bill without reference to particular clauses. The Board is designed to be a small one of five members who would not be representatives of other bodies or authorities, and who would be paid. Membership of the Legislative Assembly is made a disqualification as is service with the Government or a local authority within one year before the date of appointment. The purpose of these measures is to secure an independent Board which could he responsible only to Government and would carry out public policy as laid down by Government. For this purpose also, the Board is required to submit for approval all its proposals and also to fix rents for housing accommodation only with the approval of the Minister. The Minister is further empowered to give the Board directions of a general nature not inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill. Other usual methods of control are also prescribed in the Bill, including the requirement for the Board to submit an annual budget for approval by the Minister, to seek the Governor in Council's approval for loans and the terms for repayment of such loans, and to submit accounts for audit by an Auditor nominated by the Minister. Subject to these controls, it is intended that the Board should be free to run its own affairs and to carry out its projects in the manner it thinks best. The Board will be allowed to pursue its own operational policy and all questions regarding such policy should be dealt with through its own public relations organisation. The allocation of housing should not be a political issue. The Board will have control of its own financial affairs, subject to the overall financial approval and the grant of an annual Government housing subsidy, and it would be run on business like lines, balancing its own income and expenditure within the framework of an agreed subsidy policy. It is intended that the Board should be made the competent planning authority in new town areas or in areas of comprehensive development so that it would not be subject to planning control by the local authority, but it would be required to observe the provisions of the Master Plan. Local authority by-laws are also made inapplicable to the Board. It will be necessary, however, for the Board, as at present, to retain proper liaison, consultation and agreement with other bodies in order to enable them to gear their activities accordingly. The present system will be continued whereby Government acquires compulsorily under the Land Acquisition Ordinance any land required for its projects, which it has power to but cannot buy by private treaty. The Board is also given power, with the approval of the Minister, to sell, lease, surrender, mortgage, exchange or otherwise deal with its land. The Board will appoint a paid Chief Executive Officer in charge of various departments (administrative, architectural, engineering, housing valuation and finance). The running of the Board could be left, by delegation of authority from the Board, to the Chief Executive Officer and other executive officials wherever possible. The rent policy of the Board will be dictated by that laid down in the Government White Paper on Housing Subsidies. The Authority would calculate economic rent taking into account, among other matters, the cost of land, preparation of site, legal fees, administrative charges and fees, rates and taxes, loan charges, repairs and maintenance. Government would decide, as a matter of policy, what portion of income could be appropriated for rent in the various income groups and the level of rents which should be charged for various types of accommodation in respect of each block of houses or scheme, having regard to the type of person likely to occupy them. Government would then pay annually, by vote in the Estimates, the difference between the economic rents and the rents derivable from the implementation of Government policy, thus enabling the Board to balance its housing account annually and retaining in the hands of the Assembly power to control rents and vary the rate of subsidisation of housing. In view of the control of rents exercised by Government under the above policy, it is considered unnecessary that the 2,000 pre-war properties should be subject any further to the protection of the Control of Rent Ordinance. With regard to any suggestion of discrimination between the Trust and other private landlords, it should be noted that the Trust has standards of supervision and maintenance which private landlords do not attempt to provide. The financial procedure of the Board is determined also by the statement of policy set out in the White Paper on Housing Subsidies. The Government would supply funds at current rates of interest and periods of repayment in each case, i.e. 60 years for permanent buildings, less, perhaps 20 years, for others. As at present, funds would be advanced in instalments as required on the basis of programmes approved by the Assembly. The arrangements would be purely commercial and in accordance with accepted practice in such matters. It would be necessary, in order that information on the financial position of the Trust may be easily ascertainable, for the Trust to keep capital expenditure accounts and a housing income and expenditure account which should be in balance each year, with the annual housing subsidy providing the balancing factor. I have stated the intentions of Government at some length because it is necessary to explain why the Bill has been drawn up in its present form. It is possible that hon. Members may not all agree that these are quite the best provisions for the organisation of the Housing and Development Board, and in matters of detail, the Government will be prepared to listen to any suggestions hon. Members may wish to bring forward. Indeed, I have myself already received certain suggestions for amendment which I have accepted and included in a notice of amendment. It is Government's intention that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee for examination. Question proposed.

I think this is an appropriate time to suspend? Hon. Members indicated assent.

The Assembly is suspended. I will take the Chair again at half-past two p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.11 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Debate resumed. 2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill to constitute a Housing and Development Board, and the following Bill to provide for the planning and improvement of Singapore, put an end to a very anomalous position whereby a public body - the Singapore Improvement Trust - created for the purpose of building new streets, providing backlanes and sewers and tearing down slums has taken unto itself the burden of building houses for the public of Singapore, as a result of which it has found itself to be the biggest house-owner in the whole island. It was of course not by design but by necessity that such a situation has developed; our population has doubled itself in less than 20 years and houses have been so short that when the S.I.T. stepped out of the purpose for which it was created and started building blocks of flats at Tiong Bahru, nobody objected, and the situation has been allowed to slide until the present moment when it is being put on a regular basis. These two Bills will separate the duties of the S.I.T. by creating a Housing and Development Board, and a planning department. The duties of the Board are set out in clause 12 of the Bill, which clause reads: "Subject as hereinafter provided, it shall be the function and duty of the Board -

Mr Speaker, Sir, the explanatory statement of this Bill begins by saying: "The White Paper on the Report of the Committee on Local Government (No. Cmd. 30 of 1956) declared Government's policy that the Singapore Improvement Trust should cease to exist and that the responsibility for public housing and the comprehensive development and redevelopment, for a variety of purposes, should be laid on a Singapore Development Board appointed by the Government." Sir, I think we can remember that when the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing tabled the White Paper, he met with the unanimous support of this House. It is high time not only for the Government to recognise that the S.I.T. should cease to operate, but also to bear in mind to learn a bitter lesson from the S.I.T. As the Member for Paya Lebar just mentioned, the S.I.T. flats in Tiong Bahru or somewhere else only benefit the middle class or upper class, who are not only car owners but also - and this is a well-known fact - find it the best place to keep their second wives. Sir, that is the S.I.T. policy and therefore it is high time for the Government really to learn a bitter lesson from it. They must admit that the S.I.T. has been negligent in the past of one responsibility as stated - Public housing and comprehensive development and redevelopment. Sir, as I expect this Bill will be supported unanimously by this House, I wish to make suggestions to the Government to consider about land clearance which, as we have learnt, has become a really hard thing to overcome. The Government want to carry out the policy but find it very hard to remove the so-called squatters, who are actually attap-house dwellers. So why do the Government not think out a policy to select a big piece of land in their hands, say in Kranji, Lim Chu Kang, Chua Chu Kang or Ayer Gumeroh, where there is still plenty of land possessed by Government, places which I think Government will take a long time to think of developing? Why not make one such place as a settlement for attap-house dwellers, where they can find a place to build their own homes as they wish? Instead of this, they just issue notices to quit with what we believe to be adequate sums for compensation. And where do they go to? Where can they go to find another piece of land? The Government already find it hard to let attap-house dwellers settle on Government land. How about private landowners? They are also aware of the hardship to get rid of them for their further development. So I sincerely wish the Government will seriously consider this point. It is wise to have Government land reserved for farmers and workers who intend to build their own attap huts. You can issue a Temporary Occupation Licence or anything else you like to let them have a roof of their own. Sir, the Labour Coalition Government is a so-called Socialistic Government; please prove it to the people. 2.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I personally welcome the introduction of this Bill and my opinion is that it is high time that the new Board should take over the functions of the Singapore Improvement Trust and make drastic changes in the running of this new set-up. Look at the record of the S.I.T. for the last few years. What have they done? What I know is that in the year 1955, the number of people on their list waiting for Trust accommodation was well below 6,000. Today, the list has increased to 14,500 people waiting for Trust accommodation. It is no use to talk. What the people need is employment and a house where they can live. It is not a question of just sending in an application to the S.I.T. because back will come the reply that they are unable to comply with the request. They have adopted this as a common practice. On all letters they will put, 'There is no possibility in the foreseeable future of offering assistance', and the applicant has to wait so many years, maybe the next few years. That is the very common sentence used by the S.I.T. today. The Minister said this morning, Sir, that the waiting list is due to the increase in population. Do you not think, Sir, that it is his duty to look or to probe into the workings of the S.I.T. instead of sitting inside his air-conditioned office? Sir, another factor is that today you know very well the S.I.T. has spent the taxpayers' money, millions of them, but what have they erected? Multi-storeyed buildings. Visitors from overseas who come to Singapore look at our multi-storeyed buildings. Behind it is the spending of so many millions. If you were to give me so many millions, I could produce far better buildings. And besides that, look at the Upper Pickering Street multi-storeyed flats they are so proud of. Besides them they erected a row of garages to house the tuan besars, the "big shots", the bigwigs of the S.I.T. To prevent what? - so that their cars will not go rusty, or the rain will not fall, or the sun will not shine, on their cars. That is nonsense. I put my car outside, in the open. And the garage itself is an eyesore. I invite the hon. Members of this House to go to the Upper Pickering Street flats. Look at the garages. They are an eyesore. It is a disgrace to the S.I.T., and to the Government as well. And another instance, Sir; only last month they removed four pillars in the garages behind the nine-storeyed flats along Upper Pickering Street, just to suit the convenience of the officers working in the S.I.T. because there is one-way traffic and they had to go through Hokkien Street along South Bridge Road and Upper Cross Street back to their homes in Tanglin, where they have big houses and palatial homes. Just to suit their convenience, they removed the pillars. Someone protested. They put the pillars back but eventually they removed them. Three times the pillars were removed and replaced. That cost the taxpayers money. I would remind the Minister to investigate how much money they have spent on removing the pillars and paving the ground behind the nine-storeyed building. It is a shame all right! And the walls along the rows of nine-storeyed buildings, the Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 of Upper Pickering Street. The other day I saw the walls crumbling down and they were not made with cement but sand; and the S.I.T., I was told, spent thousands of dollars to patch up the walls. What happened to the walls? Why could not proper supervision be made of the erection of this building? Instead of cement for the walls, now we have sand and they crumble down!

Order. I think I must remind the hon. Member that he is addressing the Chair; the Chair is being intimidated!

The one thing I can say about the S.I.T, is the "super duper" methods they use by issuing notices to quit to the tenants of the S.I.T. flats in Singapore today. If they were to owe rent for one week, two weeks, they will receive quit notices, and on top of that they will be made to pay the bill within the 14-day period and also pay a sum of over $10 for stamp duty; a shop has to pay over $30. As you say, these people who live in S.I.T. houses are all moderately off or they are poor families. To make them pay $10 or $30 is really a hardship to these people. Some of these families are really living from hand to mouth and I do not agree -

Point of explanation, Sir. We were just informed a moment ago by the Liberal-Socialist Member for Paya Lebar that the people who reside in S.I.T. houses, particularly in the Tiong Bahru area, have big cars and are wealthy persons. Now we are told by the Member for Tiong Bahru that they are living from hand to month. Sir, we must get these facts straight; two conflicting views coming from the same Party is a bit odd.

The People's Action Party want to play to the Gallery. They talk about big cars and small cars. My colleague just said there are rows of cars. If you go to any street in Singapore today, you will find rows of cars, whether big cars or small cars. I will defy him; I am willing to spend time, even though it is wasting time, to bring him along to any street of Tiong Bahru, and I can show to him any family where it is said that they own million-dollar cars. He should be ashamed of himself -

Sir, may I say -

The Member may only speak if the Member speaking will give way.

I am not going to give way. He can have his say later. As I said, they are very fond of issuing notices to quit and make the poor people pay more money on stamp duty. The thing is that the S.I.T. make periodic investigations, that is, regular inspections, into all households. These have been spied on. It is worse than the Kempetai; it is worse than the Gestapo, worse than the secret police. Why should they go and spy on the houses? Six o'clock in the morning, seven o'clock, eight o'clock and nine o'clock; they even go to the extent of going to the house at eleven o'clock in the night to check whether the families are staying there or not! They have a system of checking but to knock at the tenants' flats, to knock at the doors at eleven o'clock in the night - I am asking hon. Members of this House, is that not a shame? They are not thieves. If they have any evidence that these people are not the tenants, they can issue them a notice or ask them to clear off. But instead, they are spying on them every moment. And I am coming back to the S.I.T. You know, I think all the hon. Members of this House are aware that the Upper Pickering Street flats have got the nickname of "suicide flats". When these flats were built, the S.I.T. or whoever run the office, refused to put up wire-netting, so much so that over a dozen people jumped to their death. All these dead have dependants. They have their suffering. And after over a dozen deaths, the S.I.T. decided to put up wire-netting. But before that, look at the centre block of the S.I.T. flats for the officers. Displayed on top of the buildings is all wire-netting. Why? Because the tuan besars are staying there, they have wire-netting. That means they consider Asian lives very cheap. The tuan besars living in the flats on top of these offices are more worthy. Is it because their lives are more valuable than our lives? So much so that after so many deaths did the S.I.T. at last decide to put wire-netting, and there is no more suicide. Sir, this is a very important Bill, and about the five members to be appointed on the Board I would urge the Minister to appoint persons with experience, not those who have a sort of tendency to say 'yes' to every move the Government takes. Besides that, the appointment is for three years. We want people with experience to run or to control the functions of the new Board, not to fill it up with 'yes-men'. And I am also glad the number of members of the new Board will be reduced to five, because that will simplify matters to carry out the job more smoothly; as we know, we have a saying, 'Too many cooks spoil the soup.' On the Trust, we have so many people running the Department, so much so that they do not know where to go and what to do, and with no experience whatsoever the whole Department actually was run by the expatriate officers. With your permission, Sir, I will relate an incident that happened in one of the S.I.T. offices on 23rd August. I brought a school teacher from the Kong Wah School, Guillemard Road, to see one of the officers about the progress of her application made in 1956. This case was actually handled by the Hon. Assistant Minister, Mr M. P. D. Nair. When I went into the office to interview -

Order. I just want to indicate that a Member of this Assembly should not be referred to by name.

I went with the school teacher and after the formal introduction I told the officer in charge that this was a case handled by the Assistant Minister, Mr M. P. D. Nair

Order. A Member must not be addressed by his name.

Sorry, Sir, the Member for Seletar. And the officer of the S.I.T. told me straight to my face that he could not care less who is the Minister, Assistant Minister or Assemblyman.

Quite right!

Sir, this was the attitude of an official, of a public official, particularly in front of a third witness! I went on to ask him why he had such an opinion, and he told me that recently, an Assemblyman in this House made a libelous attack on the S.I.T. and since then, he told me, he had no faith in or respect for any Assemblyman. I asked him, 'Well, if it is an Assemblyman who attacked the S.I.T., it is for the Minister who is in charge to reply to the charges', and he replied that if the Minister did not know the ins and outs of the affairs of the S.I.T., how could he, the Minister, reply to the charges? I told him that if he did not like everyone of us, the best thing for him was to resign and quit his job, to which he told me that he would do so and, as a matter of fact, he was considering it. Sir, we are elected Members of the Assembly. If a public official or officer can speak like this in front of an elected representative, what will happen to those people who have no official backing who go to make enquiries about the progress of their applications? They will be ignored or will be driven out with meagre excuses or no excuse whatsoever! This is the present situation, Sir, in the S.I.T. Sir, I do not like to go on and on about the misdeeds of the S.I.T. but I have to urge the Minister when he comes to the appointment of the five members to the Board: he will carefully make his selection of experienced people who know all the ins and outs, as the officer said, of the affairs of the S.I.T. So I earnestly urge him to be very, very careful in selecting these five members. I strongly support this Bill, Sir. 3.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must honestly say I have no love for the Singapore Improvement Trust but I think etiquette demands that if a person is dying, we should not chide him, scold him, rail at him or reprehend him but help to expedite his funeral! 3.06 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I like the idea of this Bill, the idea of improving Singapore, the idea of making it into a more beautiful place, the idea of giving more houses to the people. Certainly, Sir, when we talk about slum clearing, we are talking about the attap houses, and we are talking about so many people living in small cubicles. But I am certain, Sir, that nobody likes to live in attap houses and nobody likes to live in little cubicles. But why are there so many attap houses and why are there so many people living in little cubicles? There is only one reason, and that reason is they have not got the land on which to build their own houses. I am certain, Sir, that if we find a dilapidated attap house, it is not because the man cannot afford to repair it, or likes it to be in that shape. In his mind, he always thinks, 'No matter how I repair it, or how beautiful I make it, sooner or later a quit notice will come; sooner or later I will be asked by the Government to give up my house and land.' Where is the incentive for that man to add improvements to his house? I have the experience, Sir, of knowing a little plot of land built up with many huts by squatters. These squatters came together; they put their money together; and they bought that piece of land. Immediately afterwards, they improved their houses, and I would say, Sir, that those attap houses were not at all bad dwelling places after they were repaired properly. Attap houses built properly, with proper sanitation put in are definitely much better than the flats we have in town. At least they are cooler and they can be very attractive. My colleague, the hon. Member for Paya Lebar, has put this idea to Government and asked the Government to buy land, show a lead and give these attap house dwellers a chance to buy their own land. If that scheme is pushed forward, I am certain that it will solve our housing problem to a very great extent. I am also certain that if Government can give those who live in slum areas now plots of land on which to build their own little houses, they will certainly put in all they have to make the place they live in, decent, clean and bright. Today in Singapore, I feel that it is time that everybody should have a stake in the land they live. It would be a big step forward if everybody owns a little piece of land. I am certain the housing problem will be eased to a very great extent. Why not let us make the people help themselves instead of preventing the people from helping themselves and waiting for Government to build S.I.T. flats? After all, you can never build enough. After all, you can never catch up with the requirements. Let the people have a hand! 3.10 p.m.

Sir, a Bill which is primarily designed to define the structure and functions of the new Housing and Development Board has given us the opportunity to hear a debate on the shortcomings of the officers of the Singapore Improvement Trust, on general theories of property-owning democracies, and on how to make everybody else have a stake in the land, and generally, to befuddle ourselves with the problems that this Housing and Development Board will have to face. It is no use denigrating the S.I.T. and its officials if the Housing and Development Board and the five persons who are going to constitute it are going to be lifted out from the S.I.T. and put into the Housing and Development Board. Members will still be constantly bedeviled by the Member for Tiong Bahru regaling us with his unfortunate encounters with Trust officers and Housing and Development Board officers, and the disrespectful manner in which they deal with Assemblymen generally and with Ministers in particular. Certain problems stand out, and the only thing that this Bill does is to sharpen the instrument which has to be used in dealing with the problems. The problem is how, with the resources available, and the national income of the State of Singapore - the State to come - we are to build enough houses on the land available, to house as many as possible of the rapidly growing population. That problem will not be solved by this theory of selling flats to those who live in them and taking the money and building other flats. It is primarily a problem of raising the national income of the Colony, or the State of Singapore as it will be; of seeing that the national income is used in the interests of all the people and not just of a wealthy few, and, what is most important, of getting an efficient housing authority that will be able, with the limited resources that will be available to it, to produce maximum results. The S.I.T. is to be buried when this Bill comes into operation. I think it will always be remembered for as long as the skyscrapers stand in Forfar House and the other multi-storeyed flats in Singapore. I do not believe they are all going to crumble down as rapidly as was feared by the Member for Tiong Bahru. But the S.I.T. will also be remembered for a policy which was not suited to the needs of this island. I had the advantage of starting my professional career here, sitting in the shadow of the legal adviser to the S.I.T. and I used to meet these eminent gentlemen, very powerful people, who from time to time foregathered in the conference room of their legal adviser and discussed the problems of the City. They never believed they were going to solve them, but their predominant intention was to make sure that what they built did not subsequently degenerate into slums. Well that is a worthy objective, but because they did not understand the pressure that would be put on the Government when housing is short, and when a Government is susceptible to pressure because it is elected, they have left in fact a legacy of no-confidence in the housing authority which they represented. This Bill does not solve any of these problems and the advice given by the Member for Paya Lebar to the Housing and Development Board which is to be created will not solve the problem. Lastly, we have to ask ourselves whether or not this island can, with a population growing at the rate of 4 per cent per annum, and an annual increase in the available working population of about 27,000 of the children who are growing up to reach 17, 18, 19 and enter the labour market, be able to keep pace with our economic development to maintain them at that standard of living which can provide a decent semi permanent or permanent structure of a house to live in. And if that is not possible of solution, then all the clever schemes and devices suggested will not solve it. The problems have got to be faced at its root bottom. The population problem has got to be tackled. Either we check it or we emigrate to the wilds of the Federation to help open up the forests there, either legally or illegally. Secondly, such as do remain here must be accommodated into the economy by jobs. And then, lastly, we can talk about dividing the land and letting everybody own a little piece in order that he will find it worth while to build on it. Today I would like just to remind the Member for Serangoon that people do not build houses, not because they do not own the land, but because they have not got the wherewithal to buy the building materials and the skilled labour necessary to put up the houses. If they had, they would build them whether it was their land or rented land. The problem goes down back finally to the survival of this island in a changed political situation, not only Malaya vis-a-vis Singapore, but in the whole of South-East Asia, and this Bill only provides us with the instrument. It is a more efficient instrument but I must not let it go by just like that. It has taken two years to come about. Why it has taken two years I do not know, and I would be sorry to hear that the Minister also does not know what is going on. I hope that in his reply he will tell us why it has taken two years in the making, and perhaps assure us that the time spent in contemplating over the provisions of this Bill is time that was spent wisely and effectively, in order that we will have a housing authority with all the adequate powers to deal with the problems of (1) slum clearance; (2) squatter resettlement; and (3) problems of finance and building. 3.19 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was told this morning that this Bill would be referred to a Select Committee and I had thought that it would be best to speak on the Bill after receiving the report of the Select Committee rather than to refer to the Bill now. But after hearing the points put forward by the Member for Tiong Bahru, I am most particularly interested in clause 33 of the Bill, which clause reads in part: "(1) Upon the coming into operation of this Ordinance, every officer of the Singapore Improvement Trust, not being an officer exclusively engaged in the planning functions of the Singapore Improvement Trust, shall be deemed to be transferred to the service of the Board at the same rate of pay and, as near as may be, on the same conditions of service, as those on which he was employed by the Singapore Improvement Trust." We have heard from the Member for Tiong Bahru of the attitude and the manner of the officers, how they run the S.I.T., and if all those officers now on the Trust shall be deemed to be transferred to the Board, I wonder what difference it would make to the Board. If the administration of the present Trust is run by a set of officers whose attitude and administration of the Trust is not acceptable to this Assembly, I cannot understand that the transfer of the same officers to this Board can be accepted by this Assembly. The present administration of the Trust, as everyone knows, is top-secret. The points system, everyone knows, is top-secret. As the Member for Tiong Bahru rightly pointed out, the number on the waiting list has increased to 14,000 but how many of these 14,000 do know when they can expect to have allocation? The reply always given is that there is no possible assistance in the very near future. What difference would it make, I would like to know; and I would like also the Minister to tell us the actual difference it could make to this Board if the complete setup of the S.I.T. officers is to be transferred. I would suggest that when the Board comes into operation, all officers should be subject to review and should be placed before the Public Service Commission before they are accepted as officers of the Board. 3.21 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to note that Members of the Opposition generally support the Bill just now before the House, but unfortunately I am somewhat in disagreement with them with regard to their criticisms of its officers and the workings of the Singapore Improvement Trust, not because I agree with what is happening now in the offices of the S.I.T. but because I, as Minister for Housing at the present moment, have in fact no proper or no direct control over the workings or over the Trustees of the S.I.T. and naturally I do not have the direct control over the habits, or shall we say the inconsistencies if at all, that are now prevalent in the S.I.T. However, Sir, I should like to answer some of the points raised by Members of the Opposition. First, I would take the Member for Paya Lebar. He has suggested that the Government should buy up land in satellite towns, cut it up and probably sell it to private investors, who would develop the land, build houses and sell them to the public. Well, Sir, I disagree entirely with this because I honestly and sincerely feel that it is the duty of Government in the long run to provide the necessary housing, particularly in what are called new towns or satellite towns, as this is within the scheme which the present Government has envisaged in the Master Plan. Furthermore, Sir, there is now no restriction at all being placed by Government on private development in Singapore. As a matter of fact, it has encouraged private developers to build as many houses as possible, but unfortunately it has been the tendency in the past for private developers to build houses costing probably $15,000 or $20,000 or even more, which cater not for the type of people which Government would like to help, but purely for those who can afford either from their own pockets, or who can afford to borrow from building societies, to meet their needs. Now, coming to the question of selling flats in Tiong Bahru; well, that is a wonderful idea. I think we will probably try to do something about it but, on the other hand, Sir, the Member for Paya Lebar suggests that the sale of these houses would probably rake in a total of $13,000,000 and this would help to finance the Housing and Development Board for the next few years. Well, I think he is a bit out because this year alone, Sir, we are spending more than $23,000,000 on our housing programme. So $13,000,000 at this rate of expenditure would probably mean a six months' building programme for the Board. However, I shall look into it. Coming to the Member for Changi, he seems to think, Sir, that Government has plenty of land in Singapore. Well, this is all nonsense because if he were to read this year's Estimates, he will discover that the Government of Singapore is spending millions of dollars in the purchase of land not only for Government schemes, but also for S.I.T. buildings, and for the resettlement of farmers all over the island. This latter scheme is going on in full swing and we believe millions more would be spent on this programme.

Point of clarification, Sir,I wish the Minister to know that I named places like Kranji or Ayer Gemuroh. Do those places belong to Government or not? I think certain people staying in Kranji have received notices from S.I.T. to quit after they had put up a certain amount of money to build attap houses and had stayed there for over two years. Now the S.I.T. say, 'No, you must quit.' Therefore I want the Minister to consider particular places like Ayer Gemuroh and Kranji.

Well, I was talking generally but if the Member for Changi has any particular pet scheme I will be only too willing to give him time to see me in my office.

Thank you.

One of the points which I will not accept - I think the Member for Changi said it - is that it is the policy of the S.I.T. to house second and third wives of millionaires. This is again another of the nonsensical statements that have cropped up from time to time. It is not the policy of the S.I.T. to do so; it is the policy of the S.I.T. to build as many low-cost houses as possible for the people of Singapore, and not to house second, third or fourth wives. Coming to the Member for Queenstown, Sir, he has made many damaging remarks against employees of the S.I.T. One question he did ask was, 'What is the record of the Singapore Improvement Trust? What has it done?' Well, I will tell him this, Sir; the S.I.T. by the end of this year will -

Point of correction, Sir.

The Minister has not given way.

I made a mistake, I should not have said the Member for Queenstown, Sir, but the Member for Tiong Bahru. Well, he has asked the question and I will tell him this, that by the end of the year, the S.I.T. will have completed 20,000 houses - 20,000 housing units - and in these 20,000 houses there will be living no less than 10 per cent of the population of Singapore. And I can tell you this, Sir, that very few countries in the world can boast of such a record, where 10 per cent of its population live in Government subsidised houses.

3.28 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the remaining items of business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 7.

I second it.

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

3.29 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to 8th October, 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 8th October, 1958.

Debate resumed. 3.30 p.m.

Sir, I have about covered all the points raised by the Members of the Opposition except probably one, and that is the question raised by the Member for Queenstown on clause 33, on the continuity of service of the employees of the S.I.T. Well, Sir, at this stage I do not think I would like to make any comment with regard to this particular clause as my Ministry is now having consultations with the officials of the Staff Association of the S.I.T. with regard to future employment under the Board and the Planning Department; so I cannot, Sir, make any statement now. Sir, I beg to move,

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with the Bill and I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill which is a companion to the previous Bill, the Housing and Development Board Bill, had its genesis in the White Paper on Local Government Policy (No. Cmd. 30 of 1956) which was published following upon the McNeice Report on Local Government. In its statement of policy in paragraph 3 (2), pages 2 and 3 of the Paper, Government indicated that it did not accept wholly the McNeice Committee's recommendations that the administration of the planned use of land, involving control of development and the preparation of detailed plans should be the responsibility of the local authorities. It further stated as follows if I may read, Sir: "The Government considers that for the time being a Town Planning Department should be set up under the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing to advise all local authorities and do the detailed planning. Local authorities should have full authority to make decisions on plans submitted which would be taken after receiving the advice (but not necessarily be in conformity with it) of the Town Planning Department. An appeal can be made direct to the Minister from individuals dissatisfied with the decisions of the local authorities. It is also considered that in due course of time, when practicable, the Town Planning Department should hand over its records to the local authorities, who would then be directly responsible for local planning, due regard being paid to the provisions of the Master Plan. It is also agreed that the Minister should have powers of arbitration and direction in planning matters and that the administration of the Master Plan should be administered by Government. It is also considered that the Minister should be granted powers to permit him to take independent advice in planning matters at the five-yearly reviews of the Master Plan and at such other times as he considers necessary but without any obligation on his part to do so." Sir, the Bill now before this House merely attempts to give flesh to the skeletal structure proposed in the White Paper on Local Government. The Planning organisation may, however, still not be readily apparent from the provisions of the Planning Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill provides merely that such person or persons as the Governor in-Council thinks fit may be appointed the Competent Authority or the Competent Authorities for the operation of the Ordinance either generally or in relation to any particular section of the Ordinance. I should therefore explain that the administration of the Planning Bill will lie with several bodies - The first of these bodies will be a Government Planning Department under the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing which' will comprise three divisions made up of the present Singapore Improvement Trust divisions. These are:-

Sir, as this Bill is going to Select Committee, I do not propose to say anything in detail. There are only two salient features which I would like to point out to this Assembly, particularly to Members who may be chosen to sit on the Select Committee. One big feature in respect of the Singapore Improvement Trust was the complaint - bitter in many cases - of delays in the passing of plans some of which took as long as two years. The Hon, the Minister mentioned that possibly the delay was partly due to the Master Plan. I hope that is true but in order to meet the requirements of this town and to help people who wish to develop Singapore and not be frustrated by long delays of one or two years, it is imperative that plans should be passed - especially subdivision plans - for development within three months. One very disturbing feature is clause 14 (1) of this Bill which says that if permission to develop any land or subdivision of any land is refused, and if he is aggrieved by the decision of the Competent Authority may appeal to the Minister. Sir, no decision is given as to whether the appeal will go to Government officials only or to a Board consisting of architects and persons who are versed in the planning of the town. This is a very vital assurance which I hope the Minister will give us. There is also very considerable change in the period under which a plan has to be passed. Clause 9 (11) on page 8 of the Bill says: "If within three months from the date of receipt by the Competent Authority of an application for permission to develop or subdivide any land the Competent Authority has neither granted nor refused such permission the application shall be deemed to have been refused and the applicant may appeal to the Minister in accordance with the provisions or section 14 of this Ordinance." Sir, I am afraid that a new provision like this is a total departure from the previous section in the Singapore Improvement Ordinance and instead of helping plans to be passed rapidly, this may tend to get some of these plans forgotten altogether. Under the previous section, if a plan has not been approved within three months and if the Competent Authority has not seen fit to make demands on the person submitting the plan for further detail, the plan is deemed to have been approved. I think that is a much more satisfactory provision whereby if a plan is not re- jected, due to the carelessness of the Planning Department, then it should be deemed to have been approved instead of it being deemed to be disapproved altogether. It would also mean throwing the burden on the person submitting the plan to appeal to the Minister, and no time is given in this Bill as to within what period an appeal may be heard. It may be that by the time the plan is discovered or remembered again six months have passed and then the appeal may take another six months. In this way, two years would have then elapsed before anything was done. Sir, I think that this new provision is not going to help us at all. The other point I would like to bring before this Assembly is the question of survey fees as stated in clause 9 (3) (b) on page 6 of the Bill which says that if an application is made by a planner "to the Collector and has deposited a sum sufficient to cover the fees for the survey of all lots comprised in the permitted subdivision", then the plans for subdivision shall be considered. Sir, I have been on this question of the survey fees for quite a long time. I am concerned particularly where efforts are being made to sell land to small holders and people who are to be resettled. I have one particular case in mind. One company wanted to resettle squatters and offered each of them an area near the place where they were to be shifted from - an area of about 10,000 square feet for just about $500 or $600. The squatters thought it was a very generous gesture and were only too glad to accept it but when the plan went to subdivision he was told that the fee for subdivision would be $112 which to my mind, Sir, is out of all proportion to what is intended to benefit the poor man. After all, if the surveyor does the actual work, we cannot complain but in the majority of cases - virtually in every case - the surveyor does not do the original survey. The survey has to be done by a private surveyor who has got to go out into the field and peg Out the proper boundaries and then in the fullness of time - it may be six months or it may be a year and I heard sometimes it may take three years because of the backlog of work - the surveyor comes round to check the survey and he wants $112 which is about twice as much as the amount charged by the private surveyor who did the actual job. We have been appealing to Government on this point and we have had no result for the past three years; we have got nowhere. I would ask Government to seriously consider this position. 3.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as one who has been familiar with the Singapore Improvement Ordinance for the last 20 years, I think I do know a lot of, shall we say, the mistakes of this Ordinance. The unfortunate part of it is that all these mistakes are being repeated in this new Bill. In fact, in many cases, it is worse than before. Overall powers are asked by the Government in this Bill in respect of the development of all land and such powers are not even found in the Singapore Improvement Ordinance or in the English Town Planning Act. I studied both of these carefully before I came to this house. Take for instance, this Bill wants to control even the wall, fence, platform, staging, gate, post, pillar, paling, frame, hoarding, and so on. Does the Government intend that the public should ask permission for these minor works? All this control has already been vested in the local authorities either in the District Councils or in the City Council. I think it is really a waste of time on the part of the public to ask for such approval. We are constantly being reminded in this House by the Hon, the Financial Secretary that funds are very limited and that it is possible that we may have to reduce expenditure in the years to come. Housing is a very big problem and, as the Minister has said, no country can provide enough houses. In order to encourage housing and other building activities so as to provide more employment to the local people, every encouragement should be given to the developers of factories, offices, houses, and so on. When we asked the S.I.T. before why it took such a long time to pass a plan, the reply was, "Oh, we have to go through all sorts of enqui- ries. We are short of officers, and what not." We have spent millions of dollars on the Master Plan. The Master Plan has already been approved by the Government. The Master Plan, we can safely say, is the bible of the Planning authorities. Every piece of land in Singapore is marked on it. Land for residential purposes, density per acre roads, road widening and traffic circles are all marked there. The structure of this new Bill is different in that there is a clause which says that if permission is neither granted nor refused within three months, as the Member for Paya Lebar said, the application is automatically deemed to have been disapproved. In the former Bill, it was automatically deemed to have been approved. We have, Sir, considered this Bill carefully and yet we think for the purposes of the Master Plan that there is, in fact, no necessity for this provision of three months. I think one month is more than sufficient because anyone who can read the Master Plan will see straightaway that land reserved for a residential area, for a main shopping area or for a local shopping area, is all marked there. So where is the difficulty? Why does the Government want such a long time? As I say, if you want people to develop land here, you must give them every encouragement to do so instead of saying, "You must ask permission first for everything." Another question is this. We have heard a lot of complaints and dissatisfaction about the working of the S.I.T. One main reason is that they never give us the reasons for disapproving a plan. Discussions have been going on between the architects and the Government on this matter and we have been told more or less that provision for this will be made in the new Bill. I see no such provision at all in this new Bill. The only safeguard is that if you have a plan disapproved, you can always appeal to the Minister. When you appeal to the Minister, then the SIT, must furnish the reasons for the disapproval. Does the Government think it is right not to furnish the reasons for the disapproval of a plan? The Government must satisfy those people who come and invest money here and see that they are given a fair deal. They should not just say, "Oh, your plan is disapproved." That kind of dictatorial attitude, I think, should not be adopted at all. On the subject of the Competent Authority, clause 3 of the Bill reads: "The Governor in Council may by notification in the Gazette appoint such person or persons as he thinks fit to be the Competent Authority or Authorities responsible for the operation of this Ordinance...". The Government may appoint a person or persons to be the Competent Authority or Authorities. Accusations are made by the public as well as in this House about certain persons employed by the Singapore Improvement Trust and working in this very Department. Although no proof has been established, I am sure that Government is aware of the true position and is undertaking extensive enquiries into allegations of corruption by certain officers. I understand that all these officers of the Planning Section have been taken on and, of course, we must rely on the Minister to appoint the proper men and not to appoint persons who are suspected of corruption. Sir, in the Singapore Improvement Ordinance, the Government have no power to cancel approval whereas in this new Bill, the Government has. I do not say that I am against such cancellation as I think Government should in certain cases have power to cancel the approval if the circumstances of such approval have changed since it was granted, but the time factor of two years is rather short. It states here that if notice of commencement of building operations has not been given or if a building has not been completed within two years, the Minister has the power to cancel such approval. We know very well. Sir, on this question of development of land that it is not like buying anything or something like that. It takes a lot of time. Suppose you get a plan approved; then possibly you have to resettle the squatters, and you know how difficult that is. Apart from this difficulty experienced by the private owners, even the Singapore Improvement Trust with all the resources at its disposal to give these people alternative accommodation are unable to clear them. Take, for instance, Queenstown; there are still many of these squatters there. I think that to cancel the approval in such a way is a bit too harsh. Now, according to the Bill, if work has started on a building and it is not completed within two years, the Minister has the power to cancel the approval given. Two years is a very short period for big developments. Of course, it may be argued that the Minister will definitely consider all the relevant conditions before making a decision but we know very well that the Minister is a very busy mail and he has to take the advice of the Planning authorities so that I think more safeguards should be given to these developers. After all, these people are really the developers of land and they bring prosperity to Singapore. They are not a gang of hooligans whom we want to suppress. Sir, as I have explained earlier about the erection of gates, posts, etc., we have to seek permission from the Government to do so and it will be seen from here that even if we are to have a manhole in the ground or lay electrical equipment on the land, we have to seek permission to do so. These powers, as I say, are vested in the local authorities. So why should there be such a repetition? Sir, it is stated in the Bill that an appeal can be made to the Minister if a plan is not approved. I understand that it is the intention of the Government to appoint an Appeals Board to hear such appeals. There is nothing said about the composition of this Board. We have the members of the Appeals Board very clearly stated in our Education Bill and also in the Singapore Improvement Ordinance. Why should the Government not state the composition of the Appeals Board in this Bill so that the people can be assured that they will receive a proper hearing, unlike the treatment they receive from the Singapore Improvement Trust? The officers there have discussed your case long before you go in and when you do go in they just ask a few questions. They do not tell you anything but they say that they will discuss it afterwards. That kind of procedure is most unsatisfactory. We know that some of the officers in the Planning Department are highly corrupted. When I say that they are "highly corrupted", I am not saying it without foundation. The Police have made extensive enquiries and although no one has come forward to give evidence on the matter, I am sure the Police must come to the conclusion that there are grounds for suspicion although such allegations of corruption have not been proved. The members of the Board are comprised of people who have admitted to me that they do not know much about the working of the Board. I have interviewed a few of them, including the representative of the P.A.P. They told me that they were entirely ignorant of what was stated down there, which I think is no fault of theirs. They are laymen after all. In fact, the so-called Planning Committee is entirely dependent on the opinion of one or two officers concerned. They may tell you, "Oh, this desk is too high and so on and so on," but there is no one to argue over the matter. They will not tell you exactly what they are objecting to. Before you go in, they may tell the Committee members all sorts of lies. They have reason to tell lies. So what is the use of appeal? What is the use of the Planning Committee? It is a farce. The people are told, "Oh, yes, you are given a chance to appeal before the Planning Committee." But what chance have you? The verdict has already been decided before you go in. So I think the Government should put down the names of the members of this Appeals Board. In clause 17 of the Bill they want to provide rules to control the development of land. Yes, I think they should. The control of density of buildings on land - they should have too. But clause 17 (2) (c): "the regulation of the height, design, appearance and siting of buildings;". Design, Sir, is a most controversial subject. If you have ten prominent architects, it is quite possible they may differ entirely as to the type of design which should be put up. For instance, the United Nations building in New York. The job was given to a number of architects after long consideration and after submission of a lot of designs from architects all over the world. Yet the amount of criticism received from other architects who were not doing the job is shocking. It is the same with the R.I.B.A. Headquarters building in London. I remember seeing designs for it in the competition. Architects from all over the Commonwealth were invited to submit designs for the building. The designs ranged from ultramodern to full classical. If you look at the names of the architects who had submitted designs, you can never doubt that they are men who have knowledge of building and who have put up maybe hundreds and thousands of buildings all over the world. Yet they differed to a great extent over the design of the R.I.B.A. Headquarters. So, do the Government really think they have enough men to decide the design of this place? On whom are they relying? If they say on a few of the architects in the so-called Housing Authority or Planning Authority, I think it is a great disgrace. It is really an insult to the architectural profession of Singapore. A number of years ago, the Government decided to sell the land in Shenton Way along Robinson Road. They called for bids for auction. I remember very distinctly that one of the conditions is that you must follow the designs entirely as shown in the drawings. You cannot build higher or lower, and building throughout the whole of Shenton Way in Robinson Road must be in one horizontal line. That was submitted to very severe criticism from the architectural profession of Singapore. Yet the Government, through their advisers, imposed such conditions. They imposed such conditions because they knew very well that no one dared to say no to them. But today I believe that sort of thing should never be allowed to be repeated. I think one of the reasons why most of the land in Shenton Way is still vacant is because of the unreasonable conditions imposed by the Government.

Which Government?

The previous Government, of course, Sir. It is a fact. I am very glad that the Minister has said at the beginning that he will send this Bill to a Select Committee, and I hope that all the points which I have raised will be considered there and amendments made to the Bill if necessary. 4.09 p.m. Dato Abdul Hamid rose -

In reply?

In reply, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, since this Bill is going to Select Committee, I do not think I will take up much of the time of the Assembly; but it would appear to me that the criticisms raised by the Members for Paya Lebar and Pasir Panjang revolve on one theme, and that is the passing of plans. There is some slight change in the present Bill before us. It would be better, I think, to have the wording in clause 9 (11) as it is, that is to say, if within three months of the date of receipt by the Competent Authority the plans are not passed, then the application is deemed to have been refused. This would be better than having it the other way round, because it would mean that the plans have been approved by default. There is one other point raised by the Member for Pasir Panjang, and that is on corruption. Sir, this is going over old ground again, but I should like to draw the attention of Members of this Assembly to the type of co-operation I am getting from Members who are expected to give their fullest co-operation to Government. You will remember. Sir, at the last sitting of the Assembly that the Member for Queenstown raised a similar point on corruption in connection with a certain house in Dorset Road. I wrote him a long letter the day after the Assembly sitting, and this is his reply: Dear Minister, I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 17th July, 1958, in respect of the speech I made in the Legislative Assembly meeting regarding the allocation of properties by the S.I.T. I fully appreciate your responsibilities and interest in having the matter investigated but it is regretted that it is not possible to have the complainant come forward to give evidence. Under the circumstances, I am prepared to drop the matter but assure you that if at any time I am able to convince the complainant to come forward, I will write to you once again." Sir, this is the type of co-operation I am getting. It has always been like this - accusations against the S.I.T. and its officers - but when we ask for proofs and evidence, nobody would dare to come forward and nobody would want to come forward; so much so there are times when I feel that these accusations are deliberately made for purely personal reasons. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 4.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill is a consequence of local government reorganisation in Singapore. With the impending establishment of the three District Councils, it is necessary to provide that, on their taking over the functions of the Rural Board, the various references in the laws of the Colony to the Rural Board, which will go out of existence after the District Council elections, will be appropriately amended. The Bill also provides for the substitution of other descriptions which will be inappropriate when the District Councils come into being, such as "Rural District", "Rural Board Health Officer", "Municipal Ordinance", and so on. The amendments now proposed will bring the laws of the Colony in line with the changes in the local government of Singapore when the Ordinance comes into operation, the date of which is intended to coincide with the holding of elections. Some minor amendments to .the Bill are necessary, for which I have filed a notice of amendments, and these will be considered in Committee. Sir, I beg to move.

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

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

There are certain insertions which will be made, as appear in the Notes in the Order Paper Supplement*. * (a) In page 2, lines 9, 29 and 36: to insert, in each case, the marginal note "Ord. 24/57" (b) In page 3, line 53: to insert the marginal note "Ord. 24/57".

Sir, I move, In page 4, line 9, to leave out "principal" and insert "Municipal". This is to rectify a mistake, the relevant word appearing iii the Rubber Estates Assessment Ordinance being "Municipal" and not "principal". Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 4, line 36, to leave out "substitute therefor" and insert 'insert immediately after the definition of "dangerous petroleum anchorage"'. This amendment is necessary in order that the definition of "District Council" should come in the proper alphabetical order of the definition. Its proper place, therefore, should be after the definition of "dangerous petroleum" and not, as would occur on substitution for the definition of "Rural Board", after "Port Officer". Amendment agreed to.

A further insertion in page 4, line 38 will be made, i.e., to insert the marginal note "Ord. 24/57".

Sir, I move, In page 5, line 40, to leave out "substitute therefor" and insert 'insert immediately after the definition of "Crown Grand"'. This amendment is also necessary to preserve the alphabetical order of the definition. Amendment agreed to. The Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.19 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." It is proposed to introduce a number of amendments to the Customs Ordinance which have been found necessary in the light of further experience of the working of the Ordinance. With reference to clause 2, it has been argued in the Lower Court that if, for any reason, the Comptroller will not accept duty on any particular consignment of dutiable goods, they will then cease to be dutiable as they are not then subject to the payment of duty. This argument is fallacious and it is proposed to revise the definition of "dutiable goods" in section 3 of the Ordinance to make the meaning perfectly clear. The definition of "local craft" will also be revised to ensure that it covers all types of marine craft of less than 75 tons and particularly those being used by tobacco smugglers. The opportunity is taken to remove an ambiguity in subsection (2). With reference to clause 3, doubts have been expressed as to the legality for charging duty under section 11 of the Customs Ordinance. It is proposed to amend it so as to remove doubts as to the liability for payment of duty. This liability was imposed in express terms in the Tobacco Duties, Petroleum Revenue and Liquors Revenue Ordinances, but when these three Ordinances were consolidated into the Customs Ordinance, this liability was imposed in language which has given rise to the present doubts. It is proposed that express provision should be made for the imposition of duty in terms similar to those used in these former Ordinances to remove all doubts by relating it back to the date on which the Customs Ordinance came into operation. As a matter of administrative convenience, it is considered that the Comptroller should be able to collect the heavy oil tax at staggered dates throughout the year at the same time and for the same periods as the Registrar of Vehicles collects motor vehicle licence fees. Clause 4 proposes to amend section 16 of the Customs Ordinance to give the Comptroller power to do so. It is proposed to amend in clauses 5 and 6 sections 32 and 35 of the Customs Ordinance to enable aircraft arriving in the Colony to be dealt with in the same way as vessels in respect of dutiable stores. Some difficulties have been experienced in dealing with goods liable to forfeiture in the Courts, and it is therefore proposed: (i) to amend in clause 7 of section 98 of the Ordinance to make it unnecessary for a summons to be issued to a person from whom goods have been seized, if his identity is unknown. (ii) to provide in clause 8 for the forfeiture of prohibited goods, though the offences in respect of such goods have been compounded under section 100 of the Ordinance. For the better administration of the Ordinance, it is proposed in clause 9 to provide for a penalty for the storage, keeping or possession of dutiable goods other than under customs control, and to extend the presumption under subsection (2) of section 104 of the Ordinance to cover the cases of persons attempting or abetting offences under the section. Sir, I beg to move.

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

4.24 p.m. Clause 1-

Sir, I move, In page 1, line 9, to leave out "23rd day of November, 1955" and insert "1st day of April, 1956". This amendment, Sir, seeks to rectify an error which has been committed through an oversight. Amendment agreed to. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5-

Mr Chairman, I would like to draw your attention to a typographical error in line 40. The word "Customs" should read "customs".

That will be noted. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 6 to 9 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Committee stage read. 4.29 p.m. Bill considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule-

Sir, I move, In page 2, line 47, to leave out from "Delete" to the end of line 52 and insert - 'the words "laid before" appearing in the fifth line of subsection (2) of section 61 thereof and substitute therefor the words "presented to";'. Sir, the purpose of this amendment is to correct a mistake that was made in the drafting of this part of the Schedule. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 5, line 4, to leave out "one month" and insert "three months". It was by an unfortunate mistake that the period one month was put in in this Bill at the time when the draft was being prepared, with a view to obtaining rather more uniformity than was in the event found possible. The period of three months appears in the present Prisons Ordinance and, to be consistent, that period should be retained in this Bill. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 5, line 13, to leave out from "Delete" to the end of line 24 and insert - 'subsection (3) of section 9 thereof and substitute therefor the following:- "(3) Every order made under this section shall be published in the Gazette and shall be presented to the Legislative Assembly as soon as may be after publications and if a resolution is passed pursuant to a motion notice whereof has been given for a sitting day not later than the first available sitting day of the Assembly next after the expiry of three months from the date when such order is so presented annulling the order or any part thereof as from a specified date, such order or such part thereof as the case may be shall thereupon become void as from such date but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order."'. Sir, unfortunately when this Bill was drafted, yet a further mistake was made, and in what is at present paragraph (b) of this part of the Schedule on page 5, some words were used which had been considered that were not, in the event, finally adopted. The amendment that I now propose will, in that respect, keep the wording consistent with the remaining parts of this Bill and what we hope to see in future in the laws of the Colony. There is, however, one other matter in which an error has crept in and which may be the subject of an amendment moved by another Member of the Assembly.

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

Sir, I rise to move a drafting amendment to the amendment - In line 3 of the amendment, after the word "section", to insert the words "which relates to a class of persons". Amendment to the amendment handed in. Sir, I move this drafting amendment with the agreement of my hon. Friend the Attorney-General. This Bill is not intended to make any changes in the substantive provisions of the Ordinances which it seeks to amend, but purely procedural changes to bring the provisions in line with procedure in this House. In the amendment moved by the Attorney-General, there was unfortunately omitted from the draft these words which relate to a class of persons and which qualify the section as it stands in the Ordinance at present. Amendment to the amendment agreed to. Original amendment, as amended, agreed to.

There is a Note - in page 5, line 25, to leave out "(c)" and insert "(b)". That will be done.

Sir, I move, In page 5, line 35, to leave out "one month" and insert "three months". This again is a mistake that crept in as a result of an attempt to obtain more uniformity than has been found possible. "Three months" appears in the present Ordinance. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 7, line 44, to leave out "three months" and insert "one month". This differs from the last amendment I moved, Sir, in that in the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance at present, no period is mentioned but the phrase used is "at the next meeting of the Assembly" after the laying of the rules. It is appropriate and consistent with the rest of the Bill that for the expression "next meeting", we should now insert the period "one month", not "three months". Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 9, line 36, before "Delete", to insert - '(a) Delete the words "laid before" appearing in the penultimate line of subsection (2) of section 9 thereof and substitute therefor the words "presented to";'. This, Sir, is to correct a mistake in the drafting. The amendment to this Ordinance which is already shown in the Bill deals with the section of the Ordinance which relates to presentation of rules, but it had been overlooked that there is another section dealing with the presentation of accounts which also uses the words "laid before", which should now be changed to "presented to". Amendment agreed to.

A consequential amendment will be made, in page 9, line 36, at the beginning of the Second Column to insert "(b) ".

Sir, I beg to move, In page 10, line 14, to leave out "one month" and insert "three months" The reasons are as for those I gave for one of the earlier amendments I moved to leave out "one month" and insert "three months". "Three months" at present appears in the Wages Councils Ordinance. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 10, to leave out lines 24 to 35. The Ordinance referred to in those lines has recently been repealed by the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance and so ought no longer to remain in the Schedule. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 11, line 9, to leave out "at its next sitting" and insert "as soon as may be". This, Sir, is again an unfortunate mistake which was made in the preparation of the Schedule. Amendment agreed to. Further Amendments made: In page 12, line 6, to leave out "one month" and insert "three months". - [Mr Shanks]. In page 12, line 24, to leave out "one month" and insert "three months". - [Mr Shanks]. In page 13, line 18, to leave out "one month" and insert "three months". - [Mr Shanks].

Sir, I beg to move, In page 13, line 44, at end, to add - 'Cap. 205 The University of Delete the words "laid Malaya before" appearing in Ordinance the first line of sub- section (2) of section 11 thereof and sub- stitute therefor the words "presented to".' Sir, in preparing the Schedule, the University of Malaya Ordinance was inadvertently omitted. Amendment agreed to. Further amendment made: In page 14, line 25, to leave out "three months" and insert "one month".-[Mr Shanks].

Sir, I move, In page 16, line 44, to leave out "possible" and insert "maybe". This, Sir, is for the sake of uniformity. Amendment agreed to. Further amendments made: In page 19, line 3, to leave out "one month" and insert "three months".-[Mr Shanks]. In page 19, line 22, to leave out "one month" and insert "three months".- [Mr Shanks]. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

4.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, That the Report of the Select Committee on the Police Force Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 7 of 1958, be adopted. Sir, as I stated in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, this is primarily a consolidating measure, and although a number of amendments have been made to the text of the Bill in Select Committee, these are largely of a formal or drafting character. The revised text of the Bill incorporating all the amendments made appears at Appendix I of the Report. Sir, in the debate on the Bill, I mentioned that certain representations had been made by police inspectors in respect of clauses 20 and 28 of the Bill which provide for the discharge and dismissal of inspectors, and that they would be considered in Committee. Hon. Members will now see that clause 20 has been amended by the Select Committee to provide that while an inspector on probation, or a cadet inspector, can be discharged by the Commissioner, a confirmed inspector can only be discharged by the Governor. Clause 28, which deals with disciplinary offences by inspectors, has similarly been amended to provide that an inspector's services can only be terminated by the Governor, whereas lesser penalties can be imposed by the Commissioner. Hon. Members will also note that the period of time allowed for appeals under clauses 27 and 28 of the Bill has been extended from 10 to 30 days, since 10 days was considered inadequate for the police officers concerned to prepare an appeal. Clause 21 has also been amended to provide that consent to an officer remaining a member of a trade union should be given by the Minister instead of by the Commissioner. At the Second Reading of the Bill, I also mentioned the intention to substitute the expression "movable property" for "goods and chattels" in clause 51, which is new clause 50 in the Bill, in order to enable the Deputy Commissioner to deal with money in addition to goods and chattels in the administration of small intestate estates. This amendment has also been made in Select Committee. Sir, the other amendments made in Select Committee are self-explanatory or purely matters of drafting, and I do not think they call for comment. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Report of the Select Committee on the Police Force Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 7 of 1958, be adopted. Bill read the Third time and passed.

4.50 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move. That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), resolves that the Malayan Pineapple Industry Board be added to the First Schedule to the said Ordinance. Sir, an application has been received from the Malayan Pineapple Industry Board to be exempted from income tax, under section 13 (1) (e) of the Ordinance by the inclusion of the Board in the First Schedule to the Ordinance. This Board is a pan-Malayan body which has been set up in accordance with the Pineapple Industry Ordinance, 1957, enacted both in Singapore and in the Federation of Malaya. It has taken over and continued the work previously done by the Pineapple Joint Industrial Council and the Registrars constituted under the Pineapple Industry Ordinance of 1951. The main functions of the Board are to administer the Pineapple Industry Fund the resources of which are derived from cesses on exports of canned pineapple, to negotiate agreements on prices and grades of pineapple for sale to canneries, to regulate production, grading and marketing of pineapple, and to conduct research into the cultivation and processing of pineapple and its by-products, and to deal with other matters affecting the industry. Members of the Board are appointed by the two Governments to represent the various interests of the industry. The Malayan Board of Income Tax has considered this case and recommends that the Malayan Pineapple Industry Board may properly be included in the First Schedule to the Ordinance with effect from 1st January, 1957, and Government accepts the recommendation of the Board. Section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance gives powers to the Legislative Assembly by resolution to add to, vary or revoke the whole or part of any Schedule to the Ordinance. The First Schedule to the Ordinance specifies the institutions, authorities, persons or funds whose income is exempted from income tax under section 13 (1) (e) of the Income Tax Ordinance. Sir, I beg to move.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), resolves that the Malayan Pineapple Industry Board he added to the First Schedule to the said Ordinance.

4.54 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's recommendation to proceed with the motion. I beg to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $60,847 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. 26 of 1958. Sir, the Schedule consists of a list of nine applications for supplementary provision amounting to $60,847. The reasons for these supplementary votes are given in detail in the Sessional Paper. My colleagues and I shall be happy to answer any questions which hon. Members may wish to raise. Sir, I beg to move.

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

4.55 p.m. Schedule -

The summary is at page 5. Head 9- The sum of 20 for Head 9 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 10- Question proposed, "That the sum of $20,200 for Head 10 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the note on page 2 of the Sessional Paper, the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph reads: "In addition, a total of $6,168 in surcharges and overtime pay due to Chemists and Laboratory Attendants in 1957, has been paid from the 1958 provision." Now, Sir, I would like an explanation from the Hon. the Financial Secretary as to (1) the practice of paying 1957 surcharges from 1958 provisions; and (2) why it is that this amount was not ascertained earlier.

The work was carried out in 1957 but the payment was not received until 1958; 50 it was not possible for the payment to be made to the officers of the Department until 1958.

Do I understand that these chemists are not paid the 50 per cent surcharge for work done outside office hours, and the laboratory assistants are not paid overtime, until the shipping companies have paid for it?

The companies for which the work was done were billed for the amount and when the payment was received by the Government, then the fees and allowances were paid to the officers.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $20,200 for Head 10 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 11- The sum of $10 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 12- Question proposed, "That the sum of $28,082 for Head 12 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, here again, the last sentence of the note, on page 3, says: "As only $108,360 was provided in the 1957 Estimates, supplementary provision of $28,082 is required to enable payment of the balance to be made to the Federation of Malaya this year." Now, how was that figure of $108,360 arrived at, and how is it that it is off the mark and not discovered until September 1958?

Sir, I think the answer to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar as regards the figure of $108,360 is that that figure would have been calculated on the previous year's figure as being the appropriate figure to insert for the year 1957. As regards the delay in calculating the final figure for 1957, I imagine that that was due to the fact that the accounts could not be finalised till after the fees which were due up to 31st December, 1957 had been collected. It would not, therefore, be possible to arrive at the final figure due to the Federation until those accounts had been finalised in 1958.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $28,082 for Head 12 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 25- The sum of $4,674 for Head 25 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 37- The sum of $3,200 for Head 37 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 4- The sum of $11,315 for Head 4 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 57- The sum of $1,220 for Head 57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sum of $60,847 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 $60,847 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. 26 of 1958.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, I have nothing to add to what I said when I moved in this House for leave to be given to introduce this Bill. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[The Chief Minister]. Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes past Five o'clock p.m. to 8th October, 1958.

Wednesday, 10th September, 1958.

asked the Chief Minister to state, in respect of the absence from Singapore of the Chief Minister, each Minister (other than ex-officio Ministers) and each Assistant Minister from the first day of January, 1956, to the 30th day of June, 1958, the expenditure incurred by the Government.

STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ABSENCES FROM SINGAPORE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER, EACH MINISTER (OTHER THAN EX-OFFICIO MINISTERS) AND EACH ASSISTANT MINISTER FROM THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1956, TO THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 1958 $ c. $ c. The former Chief Minister, Mr. D. S. Marshall Nil. The Chief Minister, Mr. Lim Yew Hock: Agenda for Constitutional Talks -- London, December 1956 5,201 00 The Minister for Labour and Welfare, Mr. Lim Yew Hock: Labour Administration Ministerial Conference in Oxford -- July/August 1956 4,850 00 40th Session of the International Labour Organisation Conference in Geneva -- May/June 1957 6,038 17 Asian Regional International Labour Organisation Conference in New Delhi -- November 1957 1,795 00 -------- 12,683 17 The Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, Inche Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat Nil. The Minister for Education, Mr. Chew Swee Kee: Recruitment of Teachers in Hong Kong -- January 1956 1,093 76 Colombo Plan Conference at Ministerial level in New Zealand -- November/December 1956 2,845 00 -------- 3,938 76 The Minister for Health, Mr. A. J. Braga: Inspection of Medical facilities in Japan -- March/April 1957 3,137 00 The Minister for Communications and Works, Mr. Francis Thomas: Discussion on Public Passenger Transport System etc., in United Kingdom -- September/October 1956 4,122 00 The Minister for Commerce and Industry, Mr. J. M. Jumabhoy: 8th Session, Committee on Industry and Trade 12th Plenary Session -- January/February 1956 in Bangalore 1,700 56 Colombo Plan Conference in Saigon -- October 1957 810 00 Rice Talks with Thai Government Officials in Bangkok -- October 1957 304 00 14th Plenary Session of E.C.A.F.E. March 1958 in Kuala Lumpur 434 50 -------- 3,249 06 The Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare, Mr. Mak Pak Shee Nil. The Assistant Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, Mr. Tan Theng Chiang Nil. The Assistant Minister for Education, Inche Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid Nil. The Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary, Mr. M. P. D. Nair Nil. MISSIONS OR DELEGATIONS HEADED BY THE FORMER CHIEF MINISTER, MR D. S. MARSHALL: London Constitutional Conference (April/May 1956) ] 5 Ministers: Mr D. S. Marshall ] Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat ] Mr Lim Yew Hock ] Mr A. J. Braga } $180,810.75 Mr J. M. Jumabhoy ] 8 Members of Legislative Assembly and ] 5 Officials ] HEADED BY THE CHIEF MINISTER. MR LIM YEW HOCK: London Constitutional Conference (March/April 1957) ] 3 Ministers: Mr Lim Yew Hock ] Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat ] Mr Chew Swee Kee } $62,105.98 2 Members of Legislative Assembly and ] 1 Official ] HEADED BY THE CHIEF MINISTER, MR LIM YEW HOCK: London Constitutional Discussions (May 1958) ] 3 Ministers: Mr Lim Yew Hock ] Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat } $24,520.87 Mr Chew Swee Kee ] 2 Members of Legislative Assembly ]

asked the Chief Secretary to state -

Up to the 31st August this year detention orders under this Ordinance had been issued against 372 persons. (b) 244 of these persons have been released. (c) 7 of these persons have been banished and were sent to China. Banishment orders have been made against a further 47. Banishment orders do not specify any place of destination. Unless the person concerned specifies any particular country to which he has a valid entry, he is put on a ship bound for the country to which he is deemed to belong. It is not considered either proper or desirable to publish the names of the persons concerned. The future intentions of the Government will depend on the security situation.