Hansard, 1958-10-08

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (3) (i) of section 47 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from meetings of the Assembly: Mr Tan Siak Kew (Nominated) - from 3rd October to 3rd November, 1958.

I have received two messages from His Excellency the Governor. The first message dated the 20th September, 1958, informs me that, having received instructions from Her Majesty through the Secretary of State authorising him to do so, His Excellency had that day assented to the Military Manoeuvres (Amendment) Bill. The second message also dated the 20th September, 1958, states that, in accordance with the provisions of section 62 (2) of the Singapore Colony Orders in Council, 1955 and 1956, His Excellency had that day assented to the following Bills: (i) Local Government (District Councils) (Consequential Provisions) Bill; (ii) Customs (Amendment) Bill; (iii) Legislative Assembly (Presentation of Subsidiary Legislation) Bill; (iv) Police Force Bill.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare what are the terms of reference of the Tripartite Consultative Committee set up for the three Services Unions; whether any, and how many, meetings have been held; and what has been the outcome of such meetings.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Tripartite Consultative Committee, as its name suggests, was merely to be a forum for the exchange of views on matters of common interest to the Service Departments, the Services Unions and the Government, the three parties therein represented. In particular, the subjects of transferability of pension rights and of ascertaining whether public bodies could find jobs for employees about to become redundant in Service employment. It therefore has no specific terms of reference beyond these, and subjects are only brought up for discussion if agreed by all three parties. It was also agreed that the Committee should not in any way supersede joint consultative machinery which already exists in the various Service Departments, by which conditions of service and related matters are already negotiable, nor was it intended that the Committee should be a higher tribunal than the bodies already constituted in the Service Departments for negotiating conditions of service, etc. Nevertheless, Sir, through such joint consultations held at 15 meetings up to the end of September, 1958, the following matters had been resolved satisfactorily: (a) Recruitment in the Singapore Local Forces Establishment for clerks, storekeepers, etc, should, as far as possible, be made from the ranks of redundant employees who possess the requisite qualifications and experience. (b) Fair opportunity should be given to redundant civilian employees of the Service Departments who register themselves in the Government Employment Exchange for whatever jobs are vacant. (c) Information was supplied by the Labour Department on the types and rates of severance pay to enable the Services Unions to negotiate their own claims for severance pay for redundant civilian employees to be payable by the Service Departments. (d) Waiver of hospitalisation deposits had already been agreed in principle by the Ministry of Health through discussions in the Tripartite Consultative Committee which has now finalised with that Ministry the form of guarantee and the scheme will be implemented on the 1st of November, 1958. (e) Various avenues of alternative employment for redundant employees were explored from time to time with very little result, as there are few employment opportunities available. (f) Information about the basis for transferability of pension rights, as adopted in the United Kingdom, was supplied to Services Unions.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing if he will make a statement regarding the construction programme for agricultural roads in the Bukit Panjang electoral division.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the construction and improvement of agricultural roads in the Bukit Panjang electoral division of the Legislative Assembly, the Rural Board's normal programme for 1958 would permit the making up of roads totalling approximately 15 miles in length at a total cost of $79,000. To date work has been commenced and is expected to be completed by the end of this year on three roads totalling a distance of 4 miles approximately, while work on the remaining roads, some 12 miles long, is being planned and will be put in hand later. Apart from this, Sir, Government, bearing in mind the necessity for accelerating the improvement of rural areas, has directed the carrying out simultaneously of a further programme of road construction and improvement. Out of the provision of $730,000 which was voted in the Assembly this year, Government will be spending $113,000 on the construction of 21 miles of road in the Bukit Panjang electoral division of the Legislative Assembly. Up to date two miles of road have already been completed and 14 miles are under construction and are expected to be completed by the end of the year.

asked the Minister for Education since when has Chinese been taught as a second language in English schools; whether he is satisfied with the progress made, and what steps he has taken or proposes to take to make the pupils interested in its study.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Chinese has been taught as a second language in some English schools as far back as 1951 and earlier. At the beginning of 1957, however, vernacular languages became a compulsory part of the curricula in English schools, although it was not always possible then to get enough vernacular teachers. However, Chinese is not affected in this respect and the Ministry has an adequate number of Chinese teachers in English schools. In the Primary schools good progress is being made, though naturally some pupils are not very diligent. Many of the Chinese teachers in English schools have been trained and others are undergoing training. This is tending to make the pupils more interested in the study of Chinese. Furthermore, vernacular language marks count towards a pupil's position in class and this gives an incentive to study. In the Secondary schools in Forms II and III good progress is being made. In Forms IV and V a fair number of pupils are making good progress but some have no grounding in Chinese and found the subject very difficult when it was made compulsory. In some of these cases pupils in this category were therefore allowed to drop the study of Chinese.

asked the Minister for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations between the Ministry of Health and the Unions of the Medical and Health Department on the claims for revision of salaries and conditions of service submitted by the Unions since 1956.

With your permission, Sir, I will reply to this question since the matter is within my portfolio. At the time when Staff Unions of the Medical Department submitted salary claims in 1956, there were a number of claims in other departments also to be dealt with. It was therefore agreed with the Staff Side of the Civil Service Joint Council that all these claims would receive consideration in an agreed order of priority. In accordance with this agreement, the medical unions' claims came up for examination last year. A complete survey of all the posts in the various services affected was undertaken late last year. Following this survey the Government placed before the unions in March this year the broad outlines of its proposals and since then there have been a number of meetings and discussions. In the case of certain groups of officers, only a few matters of detail remain unsolved, whereas in other cases it is clear that an agreed settlement can only be reached after further discussion.

Can the Chief Secretary tell us when he can expect to have all these claims settled, because it has been too long a delay since 1956?

I have every hope, Sir, that these claims will be finally settled before the end of this year, but I must point Out that in negotiations there are two sides to the proceedings and the blame cannot be laid entirely at the door of one side.

10.11 a.m.

I have to make a statement on transport policy, Sir, and I must, with regret, inform this House that I have not been able, after very full study, consultation and discussion, to find any way of rationalising Singapore's bus system without heavy cost to public funds, involving at least some millions of dollars. The House is also aware that the funds available for this sort of purpose are limited at any time, and especially limited in the trading and economic conditions of 1958. We have not got the necessary cash. The result is that I am not able now to go forward with the Government's policy of rationalisation and unification as a basis of later full nationalisation. The effect of this will be that we shall have for the time being to make the best we can of the existing bus system, with all its defects. This will not be easy but it must be tried. During the past three and a half years we have in my Ministry covered a great deal of the preliminary work on which future action for unification will depend. We are now considering what amendments must be made to match the Omnibus Services Licensing Authority to changed circumstances. Probably the Omnibus Services Licensing Authority, somewhat adapted in form, will have to be used as the main instrument of policy pending provision of the necessary money for unification. I propose seeking a new transport adviser to join my Ministry for two years under the Colonial Development and Welfare Plan. He will assist us in the day-to-day decisions necessary during the interim period prior to unification. He will also continue the preliminary work needed as the basis for unification. Hon. Members will be disappointed that execution of our policy has to be deferred. I am sorry about that. They will, however, remember, I hope, that it is only deferred. The essential obstacle is lack of money. When money can be found, I do not foresee any other insoluble difficulty. I have tried to keep this statement as short as possible, Mr Speaker, so that hon. Members can fix their minds on the main problem of finance without being confused by a mass of detail or by a long history of all the different work done and action taken during the past three and a half years. Hon. Members may, however, want clarification or more details on certain points. If they will say what clarification they want, I will do my best, with your permission, Sir, to satisfy them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, arising out of this, is this not a case of the Government negating its own policy, and I would say that this is a case of -

Order. The hon. Member must not embark on a debate. If he has a question to ask, he can ask it.

The question is this: is this not a case of negating the policy that the Government had before?

No, Sir. It is not the Government that has negatived the policy but the economic situation that has done so.

10.16 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Customs Ordinance (Chapter 160 of the Revised Edition)." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Governor in respect of the Customs (Amendment No. 2) Ordinance, 1958. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

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

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

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." It has been decided that a new basis should be adopted for the levy of additional duty on certain types of imported cigarettes and pipe tobacco by relating it to their value and not to their weight. It is therefore necessary to provide in clause 2 for a definition of "value" in section 3 of the Customs Ordinance. A consequential amendment has to be made in clause 3 (a) to section 12 of the Ordinance. As the valuation of these commodities is based on documentary evidence and is already in the possession of the Customs Department, for administrative convenience, the assessment of the Department should be presumed to be correct unless proved otherwise. This is so provided in paragraph (c) of clause 3. The new basis of levy was imposed on the 3rd of October when the Customs Duties (Amendment) Order, 1958, was enacted. It is therefore necessary that this Bill should also be operative from that date. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I beg to second.

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; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

"to amend the University of Malaya Ordinance (Chapter 205 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 5th November, 1958, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.23 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In Sessional Paper Cmd. 33 of 1957 the House was made aware of the Communist threat to Singapore and the tactics employed by Communist Front supporters in their efforts ultimately to establish a dictatorial Communist state. Since the Command Paper was published, there have been continuing attempts by supporters of Communism to undermine the authority of the Government and it has been necessary to detain a number of subversive elements who had succeeded in establishing themselves in positions of authority in respectable democratic institutions. In August 1957 subversive elements succeeded in gaining control of the Central Executive Committee of the People's Action Party and were actively engaged in promoting the interests of the Communist Front amongst students and trade unions. Had these activities been allowed to continue unchecked, there is little doubt that they would shortly have presented a grave threat to the security of Singapore. The Government accordingly decided to take action under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance against these evil forces. The justification for such action was amply proved when out of 20 P.A.P. leaders arrested, two confessed to being Communists, five were identified as members of the Communist under around organisation, and the Appeal Tribunal confirmed the detention orders made in every single case. At the same time, it was considered necessary to arrest and detain 15 so-called trade union leaders who were known Communist Front workers. In their cases also the Appeal Tribunal confirmed the detention orders. From statements made by those detained and from documents seized at the time of their arrest, there was ample evidence to show the intentions of these people to penetrate legal, democratic organisations in Singapore and, after assuming control, to exploit their legal aims in the furtherance of Communist policies. While some Communist extremists were concentrating their attention on political parties and trade unions, others were directing their efforts to the subversion of students. It was known that a number of student members of the Communist Front were responsible for organising student picnics and social gatherings for the purpose of indoctrinating those who attended with Communist ideologies. At the end of September 1957, following the arrest of the ringleaders of this campaign, 19 detention orders were made and confirmed. Documents recovered during Police operations against these students proved the Communist sympathies of those arrested. Early in 1958 Communist sympathisers turned their attention to a campaign designed to inculcate in the population feelings of hatred and dissatisfaction towards democratic government and the existing social order. So-called "cultural companies" published or distributed booklets criticising the Governments of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya and praising the Communist terrorists in the Federation as patriots and fighters for their motherland, Malaya. In an operation in March 1958, the Police raided 8 premises and recovered over 2,000 of these undesirable booklets. Evidence was obtained which showed that these "cultural companies" were distributing the undesirable publications in the Federation and in Sarawak and further evidence proved the association of one of the companies with Malayan Communist Party members in Johore. By May 1958 information was available to the Police that Communist "power groups" still exist in Singapore and are made up of highly indoctrinated and experienced Communist personnel. The duty of these power groups is to use their influence in specific operations such as election campaigns or the capture of control of trade unions or political parties. Information has been received that extremist control of the P.A.P. Central Executive Committee was achieved in precisely this manner in August last year. In June this year, Sir, members of this "power group" were arrested and 8 detention orders have been made and confirmed. Two of these detainees have disclosed that they were under instructions to penetrate the P.A.P. and trade unions and organise Communist activities in these legal bodies. Sir, the detentions which have been made and confirmed by the Appeal Tribunal since the second half of 1956 provide a clear indication of the ceaseless vigilance which is necessary to thwart the activities of a small but entirely unprincipled section of the community which seeks to overthrow parliamentary democracy, and impose upon the great mass of law-abiding citizens a totalitarian system of government. No freedom-loving people will lightly approve legislation which permits of detention without trial. It must however be borne in mind, Sir, that a great part of the information which leads to action against the Communist and their fellow-travellers is gathered from erstwhile accomplices or comrades, or from persons whose lives would be in jeopardy if the fact of their providing such information were known to the Communists, and for this reason, Sir, such evidence cannot be published in open court. In the light of the events of the past three years and the strong evidence that powerful influences are still at work with the intention of overthrowing the present form of democratic Government in Singapore, it is the clear duty of the Government to retain the extraordinary powers given to it under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance in order to protect the security of the citizens of Singapore. The new Constitution which is to come into force next year is a rich prize indeed and we must do everything in our power to see that the Communists do not capture this prize. Sir, the Government asks for the extension of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance for one year only and the power to extend current detention orders by one year only, in order that the next Government, the first Government of the new State of Singapore, may be elected and take up office in propitious conditions and may have a few months to make up its mind on whether or not there is a need for further legislation to give it extraordinary powers of arrest and detention to deal with the dangers to security against which, in present circumstances, the ordinary processes of law are inadequate defence. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 10.31 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this new amending Bill to the original Ordinance has come as a big surprise to the people of Singapore. Clause 2 of this Bill seeks to extend the period of the Ordinance from three to four years. I cannot see the necessity for extending the period of that Ordinance. The Chief Minister just now quoted the activities of the P.A.P. leaders and the students. All these P.A.P. leaders and the students who were considered subversive at that time are now under detention; some of them have been banished. So I cannot see any reason why the life of this Bill should be extended. When the Ordinance was first introduced, the then Chief Minister who was the architect of this Bill, had this to say. I quote from column 702 of the Hansard dated 21st September, 1955: "Sir, there have been some criticisms - on the face of them legitimate, and some of them, in fact, very constructive - directed against this Bill. The first one I will deal with is that it seeks to make law for three years what has so far been law for only three months at a time. In the past we had to renew this law every three months. The question of renewal of a law every three months was based on the concept of the existence of an emergency." He went on to say: "This Government has never avoided, and so long as I survive" - unfortunately, he never survived his term of office - "on this side will never avoid its responsibilities. and instead of making it four years and 'passing the buck' to the next government, we will have to face this House, at least five months before its dissolution...". Sir, as I said, unfortunately, the then Chief Minister did not survive his term of office or else he may now have to swallow his own words. He has clearly stated, Sir, that he did not intend to make this Ordinance a permanent one. If that is so, why then extend the period from three to four years? If it is not going to be permanent, it should not be extended. By extending the period for one more year, there is the likelihood that it may again have to come to this House for a further extension. After one year and another, it may then become permanent. Is this the policy of the Government, Sir, and if that is so, is it the intention of the Government to tie the hands of the next Government which may come into power? This Ordinance, originally introduced and approved, came into operation on 21st October, 1955, which means that it will expire on 21st October this year. With this amending Bill, Sir, the period will then be extended to 21st October, 1959. Sir, let us look at it this way. How long is the life of this Assembly? When will this Assembly be dissolved and when is the next election to be held? According to the Chief Minister, he said that he will have the election by March next year. Then if the election is to be held by March next year and the life of this Assembly is up to March next year, why extend the life of this Ordinance further than March, 1959? I think the Government is trying to pass the buck to the next Government, according to what the then Chief Minister who framed this Ordinance said. New clause 3 of the Bill, Sir, seeks power to be given to the Chief Secretary if the Governor in Council is satisfied to extend the period of detention for two years to a further period not exceeding 12 months at a time. Again, Sir, when the Ordinance was passed, it was on the very clear understanding that the period of detention would only be for two years and no more. Why this sudden change of attitude, Sir, on the part of the Government? Is it to prevent our colleague the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) from contesting the next election? Is that the intention of the Government so that he may be further detained while the Assembly dissolves and we contest the next election? If so, let the Chief Minister say so. Sir, this Bill has caused a lot of misery to the people of Singapore. An hon. Member: Ha, ha!

Oh yes, certainly quite a lot. It has resulted in my tabling a motion on 21st April this year on the torture of detainees. The Hon, the Chief Secretary is holding his head because he denied at that time that there was torture by the Police. Whether that is true or not, I leave it to the public to decide, it has been debated and I am not prepared to debate it further. If any Member would like me to refresh his memory, I would refer him to columns 263 to 270 of the Hansard (Vol. 3). There he will find reference to the torture. Apart from this alleged torture, I have on the Order Paper another motion in my name. This is again as a result of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. This time it is not about torture, it is about banishment and I will come to that later.

On a point of order. Is the hon. Member anticipating a debate on his motion?

I was watching that very carefully and I do not think he has gone as far as that.

I am much obliged to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, because I said that I would come to that later and not now. Sir, under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, detainees born, bred and educated in Malaya were deported to China. Now I cannot understand the policy of the Government. When these detainees were arrested, they were arrested under this Ordinance and not on a banishment order.

Order. Is the hon. Member now touching on his motion? If he is, he is out of order.

I am sorry, Sir. I was just trying to state what harm this new Bill will do to the people of Singapore. I would therefore appeal to the Members of this House not to accept this Bill. As I have said, it is a question of whether the people of Singapore will accept this Bill. With all the experience of alleged torture - I call it "alleged" instead of "actual" because the Chief Minister denied it - and of banishment, I am sure that the people of Singapore do not want this Bill at all. I am against the Bill. 10.40 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to protest against this Bill. The Chief Minister has just given a catalogue of reasons why he thinks such an undemocratic measure is so necessary for the democracy of Singapore. Sir, I must say that since last year, many people have been arrested and detained, and no valid reasons were given to this Assembly or in public why a few people have been released and many of them are still in detention camps. One example I have in mind is the recent release of Dr Chuang. He was released immediately after the defeat of the Labour Front in the Kallang by-election. One would have thought that probably he was detained because he was plotting against the Labour Front election. Sir, the Chief Minister is not the first politician who, in the name of democracy, seeks to destroy democracy by jailing his political opponents. There were men before him and there might be men after him to follow his procedure. When I look at the vacant seat of the Member for Bukit Timah which was caused through the operation of this Ordinance, I feel like asking this House to observe two minutes' silence in honour of that Assemblyman.

Silence by you in the House!

Yes. The Member for Bukit Timah who continues to represent his constituency in that national assembly which is popularly known as Changi Jail. Sir, from a brief study of Asian history, I am convinced that many of the Asian leaders emerged from British political prisons and I know that the men who sit in Changi Jail will soon grace the seat of power, and when they do come to power and the same Ordinance is in force, how many of us who sit in this Assembly will conduct our debates in Changi Jail is a matter for conjecture. Sir, 1 said once that a man who holds the gun will say the other man is a subversive. So we will know, when these people who are in Changi Jail are released, what the result will be for all the people who are supporting this Bill. I do not, if possible, want to go to Changi Jail and this is the reason why I oppose this Bill. 10.44 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should have thought that as there are seven Liberal-Socialist speakers as against three P.A.P., they would have given me the courtesy of speaking later on in the debate, but they are just moral cowards.

Order. The hon. Member knows that that expression is unparliamentary and he must withdraw it.

Very well, Sir. Nevertheless, I cannot help feeling -

Has the hon. Member withdrawn the expression?

I have withdrawn it, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, we meet to discuss the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance in circumstances and conditions which are quite different from what they were three years ago, but the speeches by the two illustrious Members on the Opposition side, serve to remind us how little one can learn in three years. I was sorry to hear the Hon, the Chief Minister read his recital of subversive activities since the Bill was passed three years ago. It did not carry that ring of conviction of someone who had been intimately associated with the problem. It sounded like a recital having been composed and prepared by someone else. We, Sir, in the People's Action Party compose and prepare our own symphony, and I came to this House today with a statement on (1) what we intend to debate, which is important, and (2) what some people might want to know about what we intend to do next year. We welcome the form in which the extension to the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance is being sought, as an amending Bill to extend it from three to four years - one extra year to cover the extended life of the Labour Front Coalition Government until it dies with this Assembly in April next year. It makes it easier and simpler for us to state our position clearly and succinctly. Three and a half years ago, the People's Action Party fought and won three out of the four seats it contested. One of its promises was to oppose the Emergency Regulations. Six months after that, the former leader of the Government, one David Saul Marshall, tried a sleight of hand in this Assembly. As he brought in the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance with his right, he gallantly struck out the Emergency Regulations with his left. We opposed it then, and there is nothing that has happened since September 1955 to have changed our position from what it was in September 1955. Let me explain, Sir. We were elected on an election promise to oppose, and we honour our promises. This is fundamental to the democratic system; that important issues are placed before the electorate by those contesting for power. Whoever is returned to represent the people has a mandate to do what he promised to do. This is the essence of the democratic system, otherwise it ceases to have a meaning. If you have people periodically and systematically presenting one point of view at election time, and, having been elected, they then proceed to do the opposite, then the whole democratic machinery is negated. If there is to be a departure from any fundamental pledge given in an election, then that mandate must be returned and a new mandate sought. Sir, the Labour Front wants to know why the people think that it is anti a lot of things including anti-democracy, civilisation, Chinese, Asian, and why it is going down the drain. I say, six months from the time they won the election, they began to die because they, through the then Chief Minister, had perpetrated one of the biggest election frauds in Malayan history. They made the Emergency Regulations and its abolition a crucial issue. Six months after that, they thought that by changing names they could get away with it. What the present Chief Minister said this morning would have carried more conviction and more weight if he had the mandate to do and say all the things he has done and said, but deep down in his heart he knows that he had been a party to an electoral confidence trick. Sir, it is true that we are not required by law, once having been elected, to abide by what we promised when we were elected. By law he who wins an election is a member for the term of his years of office, and he can with impunity do whatever he likes during his term of office. But the law does require that his office should come to an end and, if he chooses to go on, then he must seek a new mandate. When that time comes those who have forgotten what they promised the last time will discover that the people place very little reliance on what they promise this time. Sir, the secret of long life in politics is not the continual formation, dissolution and reformation of political parties, fronts or movements. It is only the dissolute and the debauched who become prematurely aged, and who have to go in search of that elixir of life to give them back their lost youth and their lost vigour. So it is that some people believe that, having debauched themselves in one political party or front, they can, like the phoenix, arise from the ashes of the old in the feathers of a new party, front or movement as fresh as if nothing had happened. In fact, Sir, there is no such magic formula for longevity in political life other than the simple and the obvious: just honour your promises; do not corrupt and debauch your party. I am confident that he who does that will find that the people are as ready to believe what he says the next time, as what he said the last time. When you go back to renew your mandate, having faithfully executed the last one, you will find that there is reliance on what you are now saying. Therefore, Sir, quite simply, the People's Action Party has no mandate to vote for the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. But, there may be people - I am quite sure that there may be some in important positions not only in Singapore but across the Causeway - who may want to know what the People's Action Party propose to do in the next elections. Is it going to repeat the same anti-Emergency Regulations stand? Is it going to make this an election issue, and then having won the elections seek to abolish the Emergency Regulations and precipitate a crisis? Under normal conditions, Sir, I would tell such nosey and curious people to wait for the proper time in the next few months when we shall be issuing our election manifesto. But it may be that the Federation of Malaya would like to know its position vis a vis Singapore after the next general elections, because the Federation of Malaya has to be represented on our Internal Security Council under the new Constitution. In fact, it is to have the decisive vote. What is to happen to these Emergency laws is a matter of some considerable importance to them, because there are now two political situations; one in the Federation and one in Singapore, both distinct and separate and self-contained, with a cordon sanitaire in the Straits of Johore. And they would like to know whether there is going to be a crisis immediately after the general elections, with an emergency meeting of the Internal Security Council summoned by the British to oppose any intended moves to abolish the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. In such a situation, the Federation may find themselves in the embarrassing position of (1) voting with the British against the Singapore representatives; or (2) voting with the Singapore representatives to abolish the Emergency laws which they in the Federation still consider necessary. It is because this is a fundamental issue that I have a mandate from my Party to state now our future position. If it were the British Government in control of the Federation of Malaya, as it was three years ago, we would still oppose the Emergency laws as vehemently as we did three years ago, because then the Emergency law could be used and were sometimes used, not only to curb the Communists, but also to curb the militant Nationalists. It was a simple issue then of the people versus British imperialism, and we stated unequivocally where we stood. Sir, when we were asked to vote for these laws three years ago, we opposed them, for the centre of the Government in the Federation was the High Commissioner and his nominated officials, and in Singapore it was then, and now is still, in the triumvirate of the three official Ministers headed by the Governor with over-riding powers. These are men who are not answerable to the people. Their masters are not in Singapore but in London. In that situation, we allied ourselves with all the anti-colonial forces to fight colonialism and we will continue to do so until the last vestiges of colonial rule are removed. But now, however, partly as a result of scheming by the British Raj and partly because of the accidents of history, we are faced with a separate and independent Federation of Malaya with no prospects in the immediate future of our becoming independent. Next year, we are to be only internally self-governing, and in all security matters which effect defence upon which the Singapore and the British Governments disagree, the Federation Government is to be the arbiter. We accepted that position because we accepted merger as the only way to independence. If we are prepared to accept the Federation and join it as a member state, then it means that we are prepared to allow the Government representing the 11 States in the Federation to have a decisive voice in the affairs of Singapore. That is still our position and it will be our position for all the years to come until merger. This is the basic analysis of our political situation. If that analysis is correct, then certain logical consequences follow. We must recognise that our over-riding objective is merger and that means that we must acknowledge that until merger the over-riding interests of the Federation must prevail over Singapore. Therefore, we say that if we are the Government of Singapore, we will take no steps which will undermine the interests of the Federation. As a Party of the "Left", we may not always agree or see eye to eye with a Party of the "Right", as the Tunku has once called the United Malay Nationalist Organisation. But we can assure them that their views and susceptibilities will be given the most careful consideration by us. We state our stand now on the question of the Emergency laws, and it is this: that as long as they are necessary for the maintenance of the security of the Federation, so long will they be necessary for Singapore. Sir, we state this now in the full knowledge and anticipation that there will be political bankrupts and charlatans, those who have, and those who have not ever graced the chairs of this Assembly, who will make promises to abolish them in the next elections. We have met such types before, and we expect to meet them in the next elections. When that time comes, we shall justify our view and our stand, that there will be no abolition of the Emergency laws in Singapore until they have been abolished in the Federation. Those who want the Emergency laws abolished in Singapore should try to help to establish conditions of peace and security in the Federation so that they may no longer be required there. Any Government or any person that seeks in the next elections to say that they will abolish these powers will be faced with three positions if they proceed with and honour their promise. Three things can happen -

Still?

Let there be no doubts on that matter. Those who ordinarily believe that they can out-P.A.P. the P.A.P. will find that they are over the abyss where all good Communists or bad democrats are. Sir, we are the extreme left of the democratic front, the genuine extreme left. Those who want to out-left us are either genuine Communists or bogus democrats, and many a leader has tried at some time or the other to out-maneuver the P.A.P. The former Chief Minister to this very day finds it difficult to think of my name without a certain degree of hostility and a certain desire for vengeance. I once advised him when he was in London for the Constitutional Talks, that before making rash promises about resigning and quitting politics, he should consider the consequences of his action, if he tried to be more militant and vigorous than the P.A.P. He discovered subsequently that he had overplayed his hand. He tried again in the City Council Election, and looked as if he was recovering his hand, and he made the biggest bid of all in the Kallang by-elections, and he lost. Sir, we are unmoved by temporary successes or defeats. We are the products of a movement, a movement which began with the Japanese occupation of Malaya, and which released all those forces of pride and self-respect in the subject peoples of Asia and made them determined never again to allow themselves to be dominated by foreign powers. Nobody plied me with tracts, Sir, to become a politician. Nobody taught me Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin. We were created by ambitions, not by special agents, and I believe that if we are able to face the future with firmness and courage and with a determination to succeed, we shall succeed, for if we fail, then let me tell the Member for Farrer Park - I am quite sure he will be the first to flee. Sir, all colonial territories that have gained their independence since the end of the Second World War have equipped themselves with Emergency Laws - India, Pakistan, Burma, even Ceylon, and now Ghana. Now, Sir, I do not suggest - I see no Members on the Front Bench there who can be as tough as Mr Udesi, the Minister for Home Affairs in Ghana, except perhaps the Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee) who looks quite tough! But I would say this, that having seen the historical evolution of these territories, we would be foolish to try and beguile ourselves with unsophisticated phrases of democracy and liberty and human rights and freedom, while we go down the drain. Our situation is neither new nor unique in the history of mankind, and I say quite frankly that we shall learn from what has happened in these other countries, and the P.A.P. Government will equip itself with Emergency powers. But we also wish to say that the use of these Emergency powers depends upon the stand of the persons who are equipped with them, and we stand for an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya. Within this democratic system, everyone has the right to compete, to preach his political views, but the competition must be for the purpose of working the system, not of destroying it. These powers will not be allowed to be used against political opponents within the system who compete for the right to work the system. That is fundamental and basic, or the powers will have destroyed the purpose for which they were forged. If in using these powers you, in fact, negate the purpose for which you made them, then you will end up with a situation where force, and more force, will become increasingly necessary. I would like to remind the Chief Minister, since he has recited all the good deeds he has done, including rescuing - one of the popular beliefs in town is that the Labour Front rescued the P.A.P. Sir, I think they should credit us with a little more intelligence and political skill than is commonly believed possible in so-called extremists. In the first place, let me get the arithmetic right. The moderate factor so-called, we have never called ourselves moderates because we like to be honest - we are not moderates and therefore we do not pretend to be - and those who thought we were moderates were quite alarmed when we won the City Council elections and they discovered that we were not moderates, but we are non-Communists and we have said so. In the first place, we did not lose control of the Party to those who wanted to capture the Party - and I will not say whether they are Communists or not since the Chief Minister is so well informed but would not disclose his sources we fought to a draw, that is the first point to remember, six-all, and we knew, what was more, that the other side had a weak link because it was really five/six - and we knew full well it would in a crisis crack up, and crises there were galore. Sir, if the Chief Minister believed that he rescued the P.A.P., then naturally he must comfort himself with the thought that perhaps the P.A.P. would be grateful to him for having tried, not having rescued the P.A.P., to drown the chaps whom he fished out of the water. We have no gratitude to him for trying to do that, and we tell him quite plainly and bluntly that if he wants to make political capital out of this we will give him more than he can give us. But there are three things in the catalogue of events and good deeds that he has done on behalf of the people without having informed them first that he wanted to do all these things. But he did not listen and I am making these, I would not say charges, but I am making these statements in the full knowledge that everybody outside shares these suspicions - that he has been playing the fool with human lives and liberties. How else can he explain why he arrested Dr Chuang Chu Lin, held him for many months as a dangerous tool who has been used by the Communists, and then, without a word of explanation, released him in order that he could gratefully shake the hands of the Chief Minister? Why did he arrest and detain Linda Chen for two years and tell the world that she was a dangerous Communist, and then without so much as an expression of regret, release her as the others were being banished to China? Why did he give Mr Lim Kean Chye an entry permit and then have him arrested when he arrived? Did he not know that there would be retaliation and consequences in the Federation? Here was a man who had been trying for years to get back into the Federation as of right, as a Federal citizen, and the Federation Government have refused him because they said that under the Constitution he had been away for more than five years; and knowing full well these things, he gave him an entry permit, got the man clapped in gaol, succeeded in antagonizing the Federation to a point where they immediately promulgated a new set of laws to control movements across the causeway. Before anybody with a right of entry into Singapore had a right of entry into the Federation. Now the position has altered not only to the detriment of this one person, but to the detriment of the people of Singapore generally, because the Chief Minister or his Government chose to act in such an arbitrary and desperate fashion. Sheer recklessness. I say this - no Government has the right to play politics with the lives and liberties of people, be they its citizens or no. And I say this now for the benefit of all, that the P.A.P. Government will not allow these powers to be used in this reckless fashion. Let this also be made known, that our definition of the word "subversion" is probably different from the British definition of that term, and maybe even from the Labour Front definition of that term - "subversion". In our definition "subversion" is any political activity designed to further the aims and interests not of our own people but of foreign powers; and by foreign powers we mean not just Russia and China, but also America and Formosa, and the Western bloc. Let those who are interested to know where we stand draw a lesson from the fate of David Saul Marshall and the Labour Front. Let them take it to heart, for that is the way how not to win elections. We in the People's Action Party would prefer to lose an election rather than win it on false premises and promises. We have grown from strength to strength, because we are honest and because what we say publicly we honour publicly. We stated three years ago in the then situation that we were against the Emergency Regulations. We opposed it after we were elected in 1955 and in September and October. We will oppose it now because we are on the same mandate. But to those who would like to know what we will do in a few months' time, as they have every right to know, we say now that if we do not begin to face up to the future, then we perish. Let me say this, that we in this Assembly must always expect to have those who are denied direct entry into the political arena, we must expect them to fight by proxy. If it were not David Saul Marshall, it could be the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng), it could be anybody else. I hold nothing against them, but I would like them to remember this: Fight your own battle for your own end, and I state the P.A.P. battle is for an independent, democratic, non-Communist Malaya. We are not going to join in this mad crusade of liberating the unfree world for the free world, of wanting Formosa to recapture the mainland of China. At the same time we state quite categorically that we believe in the democratic system, that we will allow full competition within the democratic system, but competition for the purpose of destroying the democratic system will be resisted; and a Government or any group of persons who come and tell the people that they intend to curb themselves in the name of democracy, human liberty and freedom, would be the first to flee for their lives when they find the policies which they have advocated come home to roost. The People's Action Party is under no illusions as to the position in Malaya. We know the position in Singapore vis-a-vis the Federation of Malaya. In the next elections we will make our stand clear and justify it against all crackpots, charlatans, political opportunists and adventurers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar and the manner in which he has presented his case, by changing the stand which his Party took when this Ordinance was first before this House three years ago, when he and his Party and the absent Member violently attacked the proposed Bill. He has now given us two very ingenious reasons why his Party has changed its policy towards the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. The first reason is that it is because of the whiphand of the Federation by their having the Chairman in the Council for the internal security of Singapore, and so long as he is there, whatever happened in the Federation to make emergency regulations necessary there will make them necessary in Singapore. The other reason he has given us is that his Party must follow the examples set before us by the colonies which have just gained independence and which all have such emergency regulations. But with all those justifications one point stands out clearly, and that is that his Party now supports the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and it has made our task much easier. Sir, he has attacked the Government Party for not following the Party platform during the elections and I must say that we are the only realistic Party and we have never changed from our point of view of public security. I refer to my -

Always colonial stooges!

That, Sir, is not true. We were the first to voice independence here and we are on the way towards it. Sir, I read from the Report of the Legislative Assembly sitting on the 21st of September, 1955 - "Mr Speaker, Sir, our Party, the Progressive Party, has always been realistic in our policy with regard to the Emergency Regulations." I will miss some irrelevant portions and I go on - "We are not going to deviate from the course we have set ourselves and have taken so far. We have supported and will continue to support the continuance of these Regulations or other similar laws so long as there is violence, terror and fear in Malaya. But we must also remember that, as we have infringed upon the rights of individuals, we must see to it that no injustice is perpetrated as a result of these Regulations."

Will the hon. Member give the columns, please?

It is at column 745.

Column 745, thank you.

Sir, I can almost say that these were prophetic words! What we saw clearly in those days has happened in the course of the last three years and, to my mind, has made the continuance of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance for another year a necessity. We in this Chamber must examine with full conscience and review what has happened during these very exciting three years. The Hon. the Chief Minister has already in his speech supporting the motion given details of the necessity of putting down riots and detaining those persons who have been responsible for the riots. Now these persons, under this Ordinance, have a right to ask for their cases to be reviewed by three judges. To my knowledge, all of them have applied for their cases to be reviewed and they have been turned down. Sir, if we were going to question the decision of the three judges who exercise the powers under this Ordinance and who have decided that there is sufficient evidence to detain these people, then it would be a very sorry day indeed for us, Sir, for we are then challenging administration of the justice in our country and throwing doubt whether the judges who are sitting in the Courts today have been correct in their decisions to throw out these applications for review. Sir, since the detentions were made and confirmed by the decision of these three judges, we have some measure of peace and order among us in which we can work quietly for our next step in the government of Singapore towards self-government. Under these circumstances, Sir, I have no hesitation whatever in supporting this motion to extend this Preservation of Public Security Ordinance for another year. 11.25 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar who has fulfilled my dream that one day the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar must admit that he is of the right-wing party when compared to the Communists. Sir, I am not going into the merits or demerits of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. Today it seems that storytellers are very popular in this country and I, therefore, would like to recollect the story of what happened three years ago: 27th September, 1955. The hon. Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong) shouted, "This Bill is a colonial Security Bill". The hon. Member for Sembawang (Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim) said that this Bill would deter the trade union movement. The hon. Member for Serangoon said, "I prefer the Emergency Regulations because the length of time for its review is only three months". Sir, things have greatly changed now, especially the People's Action Party, and particularly the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. He appears to us as a very responsible and an entirely changed man, changed to such an extent that he made a statement contradictory to what he had said before, in the Hansard Volume 1 No. 14 col. 726 in which he said "If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law - if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist States - then what is it?" In other words, the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar said this P.P.S.O. is a Fascist law! Now he seems to realise his responsibility to the people and take it to heart and, therefore, he has promised us to change his stand. But one thing which he is not aware of is that times have changed. No more 200 strikes - over 200 strikes during so short a period - no more picketeers outside this House; no more Emergency appeals now except gangster activities. The general election is coming nearer and nearer. If the Government insist on amending this law by extending it for another year, I am sure they will mislead the people into believing that this Bill is really helping the People's Action Party. Since the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has confirmed that Mr Devan Nair is still his colleague and comrade and that the hon. Member for Bukit Timah is his comrade too, why do the Government not release them by withdrawing this amending Bill? Let Mr Devan Nair and the Member for Bukit Timah take part in this coming general election. This will serve to confirm or deny the political gossip or rumour that there is really an understanding between the Hon. the Chief Minister and the Member for Tanjong Pagar to arrest all his opponents in the P.A.P. But the most important thing is the concept of democracy. I do not mind using the same words as have been used by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I quote from Hansard No. 14, Volume 1, dated 21st September, 1955, col. 726: "If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as much constitutional right as you concede yourself, My plea - to quote from someone in another context - is that the time has come in Malaya for an agonising reappraisal of strategy and strength. To go on blindly in the hope that somehow or the other suppression can prevent latent social, economic and political discontents from manifesting themselves and disrupting the structure of society is a piece of folly to which my Party does not subscribe." Sir, it is very clear. If we want a free democratic election and if we have confidence in ourselves that the democratic system is much better than the totalitarian system, it seems therefore rather absurd to bar people who do not believe this Bill is in their interests; but they merely say it is aimed to bar them from contesting the elections. Moreover, the Emergency conditions in the Federation have greatly improved. Many black areas have now turned into white areas and I think the stability of the Federation of Malaya is obvious. Therefore I do not think it is wise for this House at this moment, in view of the approaching general election, to amend this Bill from three to four years. It will indirectly prove that we are cowards and that we have an inferiority complex in that we do not dare to fight a system in which we do not believe. Therefore, Sir, I appeal to the Government to consider this point, it seems we cannot fight the King Kong therefore we put him into the jail, I do not think this is a bold and courageous government. 11.36 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, next year a new Assembly will be elected and a new government will be formed by the majority party in the Assembly. The new government will operate the new constitution. What should be the attitude of the government towards the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance? My colleague, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, has made a general review of the stand which my Party will take should it he returned at the next General Elections. I wish to elaborate on the subject in one of its aspects. I want to discuss the future relationship between the self-governing government of the State of Singapore and the independent state of the Federation of Malaya. It is obvious that the matter of internal security is one of paramount importance in the ties between Singapore and the Federation. It seems a safe enough starting point to assume that the over-riding policy of any future government must be to secure agreement with the Federation government for a merger of the two territories. Under the new constitution Singapore will enjoy only internal self-government. For full Merdeka we must merge with the mainland. Only lunatics believe that Singapore can be an independent state on its own. Given that with the next step of our political development, we would have reached only the half-way house to full Merdeka, it is important that we should then onwards press ahead and avoid doing anything that would harm us in the last stage of our journey to freedom. It should be clear even to the meanest intellect that we must fall in line with the Federation Government on matters of internal security. Let us examine both the constitutional and political position. The constitutional position is clear. The supreme authority in matters of internal security is the Security Council. On the Security Council will sit three Singapore representatives, three British representatives and one Federation representative. This means that where Singapore and the Federation are united, they can out-vote the British; where they are disunited, the British will have the deciding voice. This is the Security arrangement agreed to by the Singapore All Party Mission. This is part of the new constitution. The All Party stand on this matter, and on all matters generally, has been put to the test of public opinion in last year's Tanjong Pagar by-election. It received overwhelming public support. We in Singapore are pleased that the Federation Government have agreed to appoint one representative on the Security Council. This is surely a welcome recognition that internal security is a problem common to both territories, as, indeed, all other important problems are common to both territories. Singapore's political situation is not complicated. This was not so two or three years ago in Singapore when democrats, pro-Communists, anti-Communists, pro-colonialists and others were contending in the political arena. All pretended to be democrats. The picture was then confused. When four or five armies join in the fray, it is not always easy in the din or battle and in the melee of banners and uniforms, to find out who represents what. But now, as we approach Merdeka, the issues are defining themselves and the genuine democrat stands out from the imposter masquerading in his uniform. In the Federation there is armed conflict between Tunku Abdul Rahman's government and the Malayan Communist Party. Quite naturally the Federation Government is anxious that a self-governing Singapore will not provide a refuge and a sanctuary for the M.C.P.'s hard pressed battalions. It is possible that the Federation Government have exaggerated the possibility of our island being used as a refitting centre by the M.C.P. but the anxiety they felt was a real one and no doubt lay behind their willingness to participate in Singapore's security affairs. So long as the Federation have the Emergency on their hands, that long will they insist that no Singapore government shall be permitted to give aid and comfort to the Communists and their sympathisers. If an elected Singapore government were to attempt otherwise, two consequences immediately follow. First, there will be a serious division of opinion within the Security Council between Singapore and the Federation. As I explained earlier, any disunity between the two will give the British representatives the deciding voice. No one need doubt as to how the British will vote. The Federation view will prevail. The second consequence will be that Singapore may well have to forget about merger with the Federation, at least until it changes by free election the government which has brought it into conflict with the Federation's vital security interests. Nobody likes the provisions of the Preservation of the Public Security Ordinance. But it is foolish to imagine that a self-governing Singapore will ever be able to discard the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and at the same time hope to merge with the Federation. You can do one or the other; you cannot do both. I am quite clear in my mind what I would do given the choice in a self-governing Singapore. Good government does not depend on the absence of these powers. It depends upon their proper use by a government answerable to the people. Today, however, the self-governing Singapore is yet to be and for this reason and for other reasons as explained by my colleague, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, I shall cast my vote against the motion. 11.45 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from the debate so far two things have, to my mind, emerged. Firstly, we see how politicians lack understanding. They choose to be blind to the happenings or incidents that are occurring around us every day and therefore they choose to say things they do not really mean with an eye to the future elections. Secondly, the P.A.P are, I think, not courageous enough to say that their conscience and the facts and evidence in their possession warrant their full support of the present Bill before the House. But through their Secretary-General, the P.A.P. choose to put the blame on the existence of the Emergency powers in the Federation. They choose to put the blame on the Communist terrorists fighting the Federation Government, and be., cause of the existence of that terrorism in the Federation of Malaya, we must therefore, with a view to a future merger, support this Bill. I would be happier if the P.A.P. would come before us and say that, because of the existence of the Communists and their elements who are trying to overthrow constitutional government, such a law is necessary in Singapore, without reference to the future merger with the Federation or because of the existence of a certain situation in the Federation of Malaya. 11.47 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Party's attitude towards the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance has always depended on the answers to two questions. The first question is: To whom are these extraordinary powers being given? The second is: To what use will these powers be put? The two questions, in fact, are interrelated. We can tell from the nature of the persons to whom these powers are given, how they will use these extraordinary powers. For example, Sir, a government of Fascists will use the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance to strengthen and safeguard their way of life. And in pre-war Germany and pre-war Italy, Fascist governments had special powers and used them to strengthen their kind of state. Similarly, Communist governments will use these extraordinary powers to protect and consolidate the Communist state. In Russia, China and other People's Democracies, governments have arbitrary powers of arrest, detention and even of execution. Sir, I have no doubt that if we had a government of secret society gangsters or their underlings, such a government would use the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance to make Singapore safe for gangsterism. My Party has, in the past, attacked the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, or the Emergency Regulations as it used to be called, because we know to whom these powers were being given and to what use they would be put. The Emergency Regulations, as you know, Sir, were first promulgated by a colonial regime. It is true that the supporters of this regime claimed that the Emergency Regulations would be used to preserve democracy against armed Communist revolt and subversion. Now it may be that the colonial forces genuinely believed that the interests of colonialism and democracy were identical. They were only a little less virulent in their attacks on the anti-colonial parties than they were in their attacks on the Communists. So long as a colonial regime and its journalistic tools were unable to distinguish between democracy and nationalism, it would have been folly to have agreed to extraordinary powers to such a regime. Well, Sir, the times have changed. Next year Singapore is to have internal self-government. This is not full independence or Merdeka. But this is not due to obstruction on the part of the British or to restraint on the part of Singapore's political parties. Singapore, by itself, cannot be an independent state, though there are bankrupt and desperate politicians who hope to revive their political fortunes by pretending that it can. Independence for Singapore depends on it becoming a part of the Federation. My Party's attitude towards the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance is partly determined by this aspiration. As long as an independent Federation is at war with the M.C.P., a self-governing Singapore cannot act as though an emergency situation does not exist. It is not a case of defending democracy only in the Federation. It must be safeguarded in Singapore too. Once Singapore becomes a self-governing democracy, that democracy must be defended by extraordinary powers, if necessary. In fact, we think, Sir, that in the circumstances now existing in Malaya such powers are necessary. But they should be in the hands of a democratically elected government - a government answerable to the people. In fact, it will be hard for a small territory like Singapore to escape subversion once it becomes self-governing. And by subversion we mean activity by any group to destroy the democratic system. And we do not care whether such subversion comes from the right or from the Communists. Any attempt by any group to make Singapore subservient to any country other than itself or the Federation must be resisted by extraordinary powers if need be. There is only one way of over-throwing a government in a democracy, and that is by its citizens voting it out of power. The P.A.P. therefore agree that extraordinary powers are necessary to preserve democracy, provided they are in the hands of a government freely elected by the people. An hon. Member: The P.A.P.?

Certainly, or any other government. Only such a government can be trusted to use the powers to strengthen and safeguard democracy. But that is not the position today. It is not a fully elected Government that will be exercising these powers and the basic situation is unchanged from what it was three years ago when we voted against this Bill. And so vote against we still will. 11.56 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we seem to live in a topsyturvy world! Three Independent Members now appear to oppose this Bill which previously they supported. Perhaps by this means they hope to achieve the preservation of the security of their own political future. The Member for Tanjong Pagar points out that the Government is breaking its promises and indulges in an elaborate argument as to why the P.A.P. is doing precisely the same thing. For our part, we still regret that our amendment of three years ago was not accepted, namely, that the Bill should come up for review once a year instead of after three years. It would have been interesting to see the Member for Tanjong Pagar exhibiting his casuistry as an annual event. Sir, we propose to be consistent and to support this Bill and all that it implies. 11.58 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very deeply surprised that the Labour Front Coalition Government have had to ask this House for an extension of one year for the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. After going through the speech made by the Chief Minister - he was the Minister for Labour and Welfare then - can I have your permission, Sir, to refer to what he said in the Hansard, Vol. 1, No. 14 dated 21st September, 1955, col. 748? The Chief Minister said that on that day he was one of the Members who sat on the Labour Front Four-Year Programme and that it was he who was most insistent in wanting the Emergency Regulations repealed because it was felt, at the time when they were considering the question of the Preservation of Public Security Bill, that the situation in Singapore did not warrant a continuance of these unnecessary and repressive laws. And he went on to say, Sir, "When we were returned to power, I was still of the mind that we should have the Emergency Regulations repealed, but in May." just one month after they were returned to power, Sir, his friends the P.A.P. -

Order. If the hon. Member is quoting, I suggest he read the actual words he is quoting.

I thank you for your guidance, Sir, I will go through the sentence.

If the hon. Member will, perhaps from the very beginning?

Yes. "I was still of the mind that we should have the Emergency Regulations repealed, but in May, just one month after we were returned to power, Sir, our friends over there, not all may be, but our friends over there, with their friends in the Bus Workers' Union and in other unions, were responsible for the riots of May 12th and responsible for the deaths of so many innocent people." Sir, after reading that speech, I feel that this extension of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance is not necessary. More than three years have passed since he made that speech, and I personally feel that the present situation does not justify the extension of the Ordinance for another year. The Labour Front want this extension. For what? For a display of their powers, that they can arrest people and imprison or detain them without trial. Sir, I still remember distinctly that the Chief Minister himself went to the Outram Road Prison and released the students and workers. I refer to the New Year and Hari Raya Puasa when the detainees were released. They were allowed to have three days' freedom to visit their families. If they are dangerous people charged with subversive activities, I cannot understand why we must grant them this short spell of freedom. To allow them three days' freedom simply shows that these people are not as dangerous as the Government picture them. They are being imprisoned at the whims and fancies of the Labour Front Coalition Government. I also refer to the detention of the Principal of Chung Cheng School. What crime has he committed? There are so many others who were detained. Sir, if these people were to be punished or deported, it should be done by due process of law and in accordance with the principles of fairness and justice, and they should not be detained and then released at the pleasure of Government. If they are really Communists, detain them. Why allow them this freedom of three days to visit their families? If they are really bad people, in three hours they can do a lot of damage. I personally feel, Sir, that these arbitrary powers of arrest and detention without trial of people who have the courage to criticise the Government bring to mind the methods used in the Communist countries to eliminate their enemies. The children and dependants of these poor people who have been detained, through no fault of their own, have suffered intolerable hardship, anxieties and cruelties. Have the Government pondered for one little moment what anxieties they have caused them? I feel that this Bill, or this weapon of arbitrary powers of arrest and detention without trial, in the hands of the Government is, if misused, against the principle of freedom-freedom of speech, freedom of association and expression - because this Bill seeks to curtail individual freedom. To give this power again to a tottering Government is one action in which I will have no part. We went to London to talk about Merdeka. We want to be free from the shackles of colonialism and we want to have a free and democratic way of life. Is this another thing to be introduced here? I can assure you that I am dead against the Communists and against the action of the Chief Minister in giving them a three days' holiday. But to treat innocent people like that and go to the prison to show them to the parents is to display his own powers. I will object to that, because I feel that these people have been arrested on trumped-up charges and have been imprisoned without trial. Probably they have been tortured, as the Member for Queenstown has said, or beaten up. This sort of thing really reminds me of the methods of the Communists. All men are created equal and by this Bill the Government is using the power to eliminate their enemies. I therefore oppose the extension of this Bill for another year. The Chief Minister rose -

Unless any other hon. Member wishes to speak? Mr Chief Minister. 12.06 p.m.

Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, as we grow older and older and as the Members of this Assembly become more and more learned in their ways of representing the people of Singapore, we find irresponsible people becoming more and more responsible, and then we have the sad spectacle of responsible people becoming more and more irresponsible as the time draws near to the general elections. We find Members who belonged to a Party resigning and walking over to the other side, the Opposition Benches. We find Members of one political Party speaking at variance with the policy of the Party. We also find Members of one Party who are proud to claim that they are left, and anyone who is more left than they must be either Communists or mad democrats. It now behooves me to reply to all the charges which have been made by irresponsible people who put up a pretence of being responsible, and by responsible people who have now become irresponsible. First of all, I think I should reply to the charges of the last speaker, the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru. He says that the Government use its arbitrary powers to arrest its political opponents. Yet I think in my opening speech I gave an account of the arrests and of the connections the detainees had with the People's Action Party. The Party that was most concerned did not stand up and say that the arrests and the detentions were wrong. Yet out of the mouth of the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru he now says that the Government has done this thing in order to silence political opponents. Surely he must have realised by now that if this Government had not been firm, if my colleagues had not dared to sacrifice their own security and run the risk of being assassinated, he would not have been able to sit here and enjoy the freedom that we are at present enjoying because of the actions of the Government. Then he asks, "Why did I allow these detainees to go home and visit their parents, their wives and their children?" Surely, Sir, I am very human, if the hon. Member is not. When the families came to see me, when they cried. I really cried with them. When they were sorrowful, I too was sorrowful. When they said that their husbands were taken away, I looked at my wife and thought, "If her husband were taken away, how would she feel?" When they said that the children were denied the loving care of their fathers who were detained by the Government, I looked at my children and said, "Although your father is not detained, yet you do not see your father because of the work that he has to do for the public." Yet because I showed some human understanding by allowing detainees to rejoin their parents for three days during Chinese New Year - that is the custom - I am now accused by the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru of playing with politics, playing with the freedom of the people who have been detained, and he charged that they were my political opponents. Sir, whatever the Government does - if we detain them, we are accused of taking action against political opponents; if we release them even for a few days to rejoin their families, we are accused of running the risk of allowing these subversive elements to go back into circulation and contaminating the people of Singapore. Now we come to the three members of the People's Action Party. The fourth member who is still in Changi Prison has not been named by them. It is indeed most significant; whereas the Independent Members named them as their honourable comrade and colleague. Indeed it is very wonderful, Sir. What have the members of the People's Action Party been saying? This law is all right, if we operate it. This law is not all right, because the other side is operating it. We will support any such law because the situation in the Federation demands it, but we cannot support it now because it is still a semi-colonial administration that is running it.

It is true.

It is just saying to their comrades, "My comrades, today I must resist, because I have an excuse to resist the three colonial officials here; but tomorrow we want to merge with the Federation, so I therefore cannot resist. So you must please understand my reasons. Let us still continue to be friends." That is not the way to carry on. One must have the courage of one's convictions and say whether it is right or it is wrong at any particular time. Why should it be wrong now but right tomorrow? They are really going to vote against this, so they said, but their leader has not said it. Their leader has said so many things that he has even confused the hon. Member for Paya Lebar who has complimented him on his change of stand. Then the hon. Member for Sembawang stood up and said, "We oppose the Bill." There you are! The English language is so difficult to understand. If one knows how to twist it about, one keeps the other side confused. Now they say they are going to oppose it. Yet they say, if they are going to come into power ultimately - well, it is but right they come in if the public do vote them in - they are prepared to use what we have introduced and, now seek to extend for one year; they are prepared to use what they do not want us to use. What strange reasoning! They say that I seek to claim credit for having saved them from being choked by the Communists. I did not say so. All I said was that out of so many people arrested, there were so many connected with the People's Action Party. There were so many confessions from people who said that they were instructed to penetrate into the P.A.P. and use it for Communist ends. What do I want to claim credit for, from the Party that is on the other side? I claim no credit for it, nor do I claim credit from the people of Singapore for having done my duty. It is my duty and I will do it irrespective of whether the hon. Members of the P.A.P. say whether we did right or we did wrong. They claim that we played an election trick on the public, and the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru read out my speech which I made three years ago. It is true, Sir, when we contested the general elections in 1955 we said that we must remove all repressive laws. But when we got into power and found that the situation was so bad as to demand the remedy of preventive detention, we were not afraid; we are not moral cowards; we went straight ahead and did our duty. We did it and we are proud that we have done it. It is because of what we have done that Singapore is what it is today. The hon. Members of the P.A.P. would not have been here to crow about their success if action had not been taken against those that sought to choke them and to capture the P.A.P. for their own ends. And now they accuse me again of why I released Dr Chuang Chu Lin, why Linda Chen was released; why Mr Lim Kean Chye was allowed to come back and yet detained by the police. I must be an evil man for doing all this, thoroughly evil, so I must be the target not only of the Communists but also a target of the so-called freedom-loving democrats that are now in the P.A.P. Sir, when the ship was ready to take away the banishees, we went through every banishee's case to see whether or not we could show leniency and whether or not the security of Singapore would be jeopardised by the release of any banishees, because we are human and we can appreciate and understand the sufferings of these people. We are now accused of having released Dr Chuang whose release we now believe is no longer prejudicial to the security of Singapore. The same case applied to Linda Chen. As regards Lim Kean Chye, I am indeed surprised, Sir, that this should have come from a very learned member of the Bar. Under the Immigration Ordinance, any British subject born in Malaya cannot be denied entry and to that extent Mr Lim Kean Chye could not be denied entry, not that he was given an entry permit to enter Singapore. But his sponsor had been advised by me unofficially that because Lim Kean Chye escaped at the time when a warrant of arrest was issued against him, there was every possibility that if he came back to Singapore, he would be detained. I told that to the sponsor. And yet the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar would like to twist it round and round and say, how steady the P.A.P. are and how weak-kneed the Labour Front is. He says that by doing all these things the Labour Front is committing political suicide. Sir, to him the Party stands first. To me and my colleagues the country stands first, be it the suicide of the Labour Front or not. The security of the country, including the security of those that sit on the other side, comes first in our work. If we have to do drastic and unpopular things in order to look after the security of the citizens of Singapore, we will do it. The hon. Member for Farrer Park claimed the people in jail as his comrades and when they were released, this side would be in jail. He thought this is a sort of game - "When I am out, he is in. When he is out, I am in." But I can assure him, Sir, that nothing is going to deter me from doing my duty. I have received a number of death threats and I have even been threatened face to face. Yet I say, "To hell with you!" I am sorry, Sir. "Out you go!" Lim Yew Hock is nobody. But Singapore counts, and it is indeed a pleasure to lay down one's life in the service of one's country. I am afraid, Sir, that some hon. Members do not understand why the Bill is an amending Bill. We have to use this method of achieving the extension of one year. If we do not get this extension, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance lapses this month and I am sure the hon. Members who will be wanting to vote against the Bill would then be pleased to see all those comrades of theirs, now claimed to be theirs, released.

Colleagues, not comrades, Sir.

Sir, we fix it for one year because we fully realise that every time the Opposition, particularly some sections of the Opposition, would like the Government to bear the brunt of it. We went on exercising the powers under the P.P.S.O. and in their heart of hearts they say, "Well done, well done, well done! Thank God!" But then they come and say, "You, the Government of Singapore, you the Chief Minister, Lim Yew Hock, you have done wrong. You have done things undemocratically!" We are used to it, Sir. We can take it. If they cannot, at least we can. We make it one year, Sir. Since the P.A.P. is so proud to claim that they will be the next government, all right. They will then have to set their minds on how much longer they can out-Communist the Communists; how much longer they can keep on bluffing the Communists for whose support they are still seeking. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 7; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 4. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid Bin Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Haji Jumat. Goh Chew Chua. Braga, A. J. Lazarous, A. R. Chew Swee Kee. Lee Choon Eng. David, E. B. Lee Kuan Yew. Ede, John. Seah Peng Chuan. Goh Tong Liang. Tan, William. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lim Choon Mong. Lim, R. C. H. Abstentation. Lim Koon Teck. Nil. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Mason, J. M. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Oon Khye Kiang. Absent. Shanks, E. P. Soh Ghee Soon. Jumabhoy, R. Tan Theng Chiang. Lim Cher Kheng. Thomas, Francis. Lim Ching Siong. Wong Foo Nam. Tan Siak Kew. Bill accordingly and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [The Chief Minister]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past two p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.31 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.31 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, like the Bill which was debated this morning by the House, the object of the present amending Bill is to extend the life of the parent Ordinance for a further 12 months with the intention that it should be reviewed at the end of that period by the incoming Government. When the parent Ordinance was enacted in 1955, it consisted of six Parts and in moving the Second Reading my predecessor expressed the hope that at the end of three years its provisions would no longer be required. In the view of the Government, this hope has not been realised and there is still a continuing need for the powers conferred by this Ordinance, both to counter subversive activities which still constitute a threat to Singapore, and also to counter the potential threat of violence which is still with us. It is not necessary for me, Sir, to enlarge upon the subversive threat which was fully ventilated in the debate this morning, but the House will wish me to give some account of the way in which the powers conferred by Part VII which was enacted as recently as August this year have been exercised. The House will recall that, as a result of the initial sweep made by the Police against the leaders of active secret society gangs in the middle of August, at the time when Part VII of the Ordinance was enacted, 73 persons were taken into custody. Of these 73, 31 were subsequently released and orders of detention were made by me in respect of 42. Since then, partly as a result of further information which has become available to the Police, orders have been made by me in a further 18 cases. The Advisory Committees provided for in section 51 of the Ordinance have been constituted and I should like to express my gratitude to the members of the public who have accepted duty on these Committees. Two such Committees have been appointed to deal with the substantial number of cases to be reviewed and each Committee is constituted with a Chairman, an alternate Chairman and a panel of members, with a provision that the Committee shall normally sit with the Chairman and two members but that the proceedings shall not be invalidated by the absence of one of the two members. These provisions were incorporated in the Criminal Law Advisory Committee Rules which were made on 30th September and it is hoped by these means that the review of all the outstanding cases will be completed as soon as possible. The Committees are now sitting to consider the references made to them by me under section 48 of the Ordinance. Sir, it was not to be expected that the powers provided by this Part of the Ordinance and the action taken to exercise them would lead to an immediate cessation of all secret society and gangster activity, nor indeed has this proved to be the case. It did initially lead to a substantial drop in the scale of secret society activity and more particularly in the seriousness of the incidents so classified. In the month of September, there were in fact 26 such incidents but all these were in the nature of minor affrays arising from spontaneous quarrels rather than the large-scale planned gang fights which had previously represented such a threat to law-abiding members of the public. There was however one murder in September and, as the House will be aware, two further murders of a similar kind have taken place in the last few days. Both these murders were of a similar type, deliberate and vicious attacks and part of the warfare between the two main groups of secret societies. In the murder at the Great World on Monday night, there is reason to believe that the gangsters responsible came from a different area, since a number of those in the Great World area are on the Police 'Wanted' list and have gone into hiding. It would be idle to pretend that the powers conferred by this Ordinance will in themselves prevent further crimes of this kind but it may prove necessary to use them more widely than hitherto. Up to now, in accordance with the undertaking which I gave to the House in introducing the Bill in August, these powers have been used very selectively and only against those in respect of whom there has been abundant evidence to show that they are either headmen of the particular society operating in their area or leading fighters who have been the most prominent both in committing extortion and in promoting the clashes between one society and another. I can assure the House that I have examined all the applications put up to me for orders under section 47 of the Ordinance with the greatest care, and in every case where I have made an order - always of course with the concurrence of the Attorney-General - there has been ample evidence to show the leading part played by the detainees in these gangster activities. In most cases, Sir, the detainees themselves have admitted having been secret society fighters though they have at the same time claimed that they have ceased their secret society activity some time previously. In all cases, there has been evidence from members of the public to substantiate the case against them and the current activities of extortion and violence for which they have been responsible. Nevertheless, Sir, it must be recognised that this measure, which has the effect of removing some of the leaders of these gangs out of circulation for a temporary period of time, can in itself be only a palliative, and what I regard as the most important aim and object of these measures is to give a breathing space to allow time to build up among members of the public confidence in order that they can become freed from the terrorism and intimidation to which they have become accustomed, so that they will be ready to give the necessary co-operation to the Police which will ultimately once again enable this type of lawlessness to be controlled by the normal judicial processes of law. There are two stages in building up this confidence. The first is to induce members of the public to give voluntarily to the Police information in their possession regarding the identity and the activities of these thugs and gangsters who have been intimidating them. The second stage is to induce members of the public who have such first-hand information to be ready to come forward and testify in Court when those responsible are arranged on the appropriate charges. We cannot expect to achieve those two stages in a very short time but there are at least some signs that progress is being made in the first stage. More information is being given to the Police by members of the public, particularly in relation to secret stores of weapons and matters of that kind which assist the preventive side of the Police war against these gangs, and there have been more indications that members of the public are ready to come forward and give the Police, albeit in confidence, information regarding the identity of the individuals responsible. I must however emphasise that in this matter we undoubtedly have a very long way to go. In, for instance, the case of the first of the two murders three days ago I have referred to, there can be no doubt that that vicious and brutal attack took place in the hearing if not in sight of quite a considerable number of persons in that area, but no one attempted to give any information to the Police and it was not until the Police themselves were rung up by the Fire Brigade who had been called upon to provide an ambulance to remove the victim that they received any information of the crime. On the other side of the picture, one very encouraging instance did occur recently when a group of ten shopkeepers from a certain area arrived at the C.I.D. in a body to inform the Police officer there that they were prepared to give the names of nine persons responsible for extorting money from themselves and the hawkers in their area. On the basis of the information they were prepared to give, it was possible to take action to detain four members of the gang - the headman, the assistant headman and two of the leading fighters, who were so identified, and there has in fact been no further secret society activity in that area since. I said, Sir, in moving the Second Reading of the amending Bill in August that I hoped the exercise of these powers would act as a catalytic agent in inducing the public to free themselves from the terrorism to which they had been subjected and to give increasing cooperation to the Police to enable the latter to carry out their task. I sincerely hope that this process will continue and will be accelerated and that once members of the public realise that the remedy lies largely in their own hands and that provided they are all collectively prepared to give the necessary assistance, the risk they run of subsequent individual victimisation from other members of the gang still at large is substantially reduced; and in the long run, I hope that they will be ultimately ready to come forward not only with information to the Police but also with information which they are prepared to repeat in open Court. Finally, there is one last aspect of the matter to which I would like to refer. In moving the amending Bill in August, I did mention that one distressing aspect of the current situation was the extent to which young boys at school had become associated with these activities. In examining the case records which have been put up to me for orders under this Ordinance, in a large number of cases I have found that the individuals concerned have in fact been associated with these activities from a very young age - in some cases perhaps 14 and 15 years old - and I would urge that parents and school masters should do everything they can to discourage boys in their charge from being caught up in these activities. At the present time, we have arranged for a number of senior Police officers to go round and give talks in the schools with the object of trying to discourage this type of affiliation by young boys with the secret societies. Sir, it is against this background and to provide the necessary breathing space to which I have referred that I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. Question proposed. 2.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just a few words to say. The long and dismal account of the state of affairs which the Chief Secretary has just narrated must be one which must lie heavily on the conscience of every person responsible for the future good government and happiness of the people of Singapore. There is very little to be said on the Bill itself. We can give ourselves more and more powers but we have got somehow to break through this ring. It is a vicious circle. The people are scared because they cannot get protection. Because they are scared and do not give the information, nothing can be done and the terror mounts. I do not think the use of counter-terror is the answer to this sort of situation, but I do believe that it is not possible for the Police to be ignorant of the ringleaders of the secret societies. In fact, in my contacts with the Police in the Courts, it has always been my impression that they knew very well who were the men behind it all, but that they were unable to get their hands on them. I hope by the time they pass the special provisions contained in section 47, the moving spirits could be successfully curbed. I do not know, Sir, whether in fact we were over-optimistic in believing that the Police are all that omniscient, but I emphatically state that I refuse to believe that the Secret Society Sub-branch of the Police can be that ignorant of what goes on. There are men there who have been in and out of this "twilight world" which, so to speak, adjoins the public and the underworld so that it is not possible for them not to know who are the men. If these powers have to be used a little bit more widely than - as the Chief Secretary said - at the beginning, then I am quite sure there is nobody in this House who is going to oppose it. But what we have got to do is to stop this reign of terror where people believe that it is more profitable to stand by and watch murder being done, than to inform the Police because in that alternative, something worse may happen to the informers. Quite frankly now, it is not a question of the Legislature, because we can give no wider powers than what we have given, and it is up to the administrators and the policemen - in this case, the secret society experts - to use them effectively. I sincerely hope that when the time comes to review the position in the not too distant future, we will have a much more optimistic account of the situation than the one we have just received. 2.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if one really has the welfare of the people of Singapore at heart, one should think very seriously of the sufferings caused to the people living in the area between Lorong 3, Geylang, and Paya Lebar and other ganglands. The Hon, the Chief Secretary has tried to give us a clear picture of the situation. He is asking for more powers than he already has. Sir, the problem today is not one of giving the Police more legislative powers. The problem is confined to two points. The first is: who is going to solve the problem? The second is: how do you exercise the powers given? This Press report dated Tuesday, 7th October, 1958 reads: "A man was murdered and two others seriously injured in the Great World Park in Singapore last night - shortly after detectives had withdrawn after investigating reports of a gathering of gangsters in the vicinity."

Will the hon. Member please identify the paper?

The paper is the Straits Times of Tuesday, 7th October, 1958. Sir, I wish to draw the attention of this House to that phrase "- shortly after detectives had withdrawn after investigating reports of a gathering of gangsters in the vicinity." Sir, we know that this was followed by a murder in Silat Road. The House should take note that within 48 hours there were two murders and two seriously wounded and yet the Chief Secretary is now asking for wider powers than he already has because he cannot cope with the situation. Regarding these incidents, Sir, I want to bring to the attention of the House the bold and daring nature of these gang fights. Sir, on the same day, it was reported: "An eyewitness told the Straits Times: 'I saw a blood-spattered man climb over the three-foot high enclosure with his assailants at his heels. The man collapsed in the middle of the rink. His pursuers stood on the concrete enclosure and threw a barrage of bottles at the man lying prostrate on the ground. After making sure that their victim had had the worst they could offer, the men ran away.'" Sir, I think there must have been at least a thousand people at the Great World Amusement Park that night and yet this murder took place in spite of the fact that the Police had prior information of a gathering of gangsters in the area. The Police officers had been to the place and made investigations but immediately after they left, this murder took place. Sir, I think it should be realised that the legislation of wider powers by this House means nothing in the eyes of delinquents and members of secret societies. It is surely a waste of time if we think that by just passing one piece of legislation after another we can put a stop to these secret society activities. Now, another report reads: "SECRET SOCIETY WAR: 'MORE BLOODSHED' WARN THE POLICE. Mr Eu Cheow Eang, the Police Secretary, commenting on the murder in the Great World Park on Monday night said: 'Blood has been let out. It will continue to flow as long as the 08 and 24 secret society groups are at war.'"

Is that the same newspaper?

It is from the Straits Times of Wednesday, 8th October, 1958. Sir, the Police have admitted that as long as the 08 and 24 groups continue their war, there is no way of stopping it. Now, our Chief Secretary comes before us to ask for an extension of the Bill for another 12 months for him to combat the gangster activities. Sir, I feel that it is high time now for us to make a review of the whole situation, in view of the fact that within 48 hours there were two murders and two injured in spite of prior investigations having been carried out by Mr Brian Goodrich, the Assistant Commissioner, C.I.D., and the team of officers from the Secret Societies Branch and Homicide Squad, C.I.D., had visited the Park afterward. Sir, do you not think that now is the time for the Hon. the Chief Secretary, to take immediate action to review the whole case and to see whether Mr Goodrich is efficient to carry out the work or not? A few weeks ago, I read the paper: "Mr Goodrich said, 'Singapore is a city of cowards.'" At that time when he issued that statement, I thought he was probably right. Now I think the cowards are not the people of Singapore but Mr Goodrich himself is a coward.

Order. The hon. Member is, of course, addressing the Chair and the tone of his voice rather frightens the Chair.

I beg your pardon, Sir. Sir, in spite of the so-called "Operation Dagger" and the extraordinary powers given to the Police, the situation is deteriorating day by day. Therefore something must be done. I think the Hon, the Chief Secretary should state whether he has full confidence in them still. If not, it is high time that they should be reorganised.

Order. I have, of course, given the hon. Member a hint. If he does not take the hint, I have to act otherwise.

I am sorry, Sir. I would like to repeat the same old things I said on the subject of how to combat the gangsters. First, the Minister for Welfare should provide more employment. Second, there should be more 'vocational' schools for those over-aged children - especially for those whose ages are between 14 to 16 - who failed their examinations and were required to leave school. Third, we should try to find some isolated island and turn it into a rehabilitation centre or even into a so-called forced labour camp. We have to do something. We must try to convert and train these active members of secret societies to become useful citizens. Fourth, in a city of the size of Singapore, the Police should create another Special Branch called the Youth Branch to deal only with juvenile delinquents with the cooperation of the many civic organisations in Singapore. In other words, the Police should think of every preventive measure to put a stop to those juvenile delinquents from joining up with the wrong crowd and getting themselves deeply involved in gangster activities. I sincerely hope that the Hon, the Chief Secretary will consider these four points. 3.01 p.m.

Sir, I am sorry that the most the hon. Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) can contribute to this debate is his usual diatribe against the C.I.D. The C.I.D. are doing a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances; they are working day and night, and they are working to protect the members of the public, the citizens of Singapore, including the hon. Member and the Members of this Assembly, and it is not very much encouragement to them when they have to read in the newspapers tomorrow the sort of remarks made by the hon. Member for Changi. Sir, I have every confidence in Mr Goodrich and in the officers working under him, and I know that they are doing everything that lies within their power. But as the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) pointed out, the situation today is a very serious one indeed and the powers which are being exercised now, as I said in moving the motion, can only be a palliative; and if the type of crime which we have seen in the last few days still continues, those powers, as I forecast, will have to be more widely used, and I do give an undertaking to the House that if it is necessary to do so, they will be so used. There is one other point on which I would like to touch. The hon. Member for Changi, if I understood him correctly, said that the Police had prior information of the attack which led to the murder at the Great World Park. I have no information to substantiate that statement and, in fact, all my information is to the contrary. I do not believe that the Police had any prior information whatsoever.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir I have the Governor's consent to proceed with the Second Reading. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, it is proposed to implement the recommendations of the Malayan Board of Income Tax to amend the Income Tax Ordinance. The opportunity is also taken to make other minor amendments. The proposed amendments are incorporated in the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill amends section 13 of the Income Tax Ordinance. Paragraph (a) of clause 2 confers exemption on the official emoluments of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Raja Permaisuri Agong of the Federation, the Deputy Supreme Head of the Federation, and the Ruler or Governor of any State in the Federation. Paragraph (b) of clause 2 is designed to bring the provisions of the existing law into accord with the provisions of the Consular Conventions Ordinance and the Diplomatic Privileges (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Ordinance, 1957. Paragraph (c) of clause 2 makes amendments consequential on recent changes in the Constitution of local authorities in Singapore. As subsection (4) of section 13 of the Ordinance now stands, employees of foreign principals who exercise part of the duties of their employment in the course of a visit to the Colony are chargeable to Colony tax on that part of the earnings from their employment which is attributable to their period of employment in the Colony. It has been represented that such employees wishing to visit the Colony in the course of their employment may be deterred by the present imposition of tax, and paragraph (d) of clause 2 is designed to allow a visit or visits of up to 60 days' duration in the basis period for any year of assessment before liability attaches to their earnings. The amendment is recommended by the Malayan Board of Income Tax follows the usual form of exemption in Double Taxation Arrangements with foreign countries. In such circumstances, while there is provision to exempt technicians and managers from payment of income tax in the case of a film company operating in this country, but the motion picture artists are not exempted. It is considered desirable to encourage film companies to come to this country to make films, and as these film artists form an integral part, this Government has decided that the exemption should be extended to such artists. I propose, Sir to move an amendment to this effect at Committee stage. Section 18A of the Ordinance provides for allowances for capital expenditure on plantations based on the Mudie Mission recommendations that all new capital expenditure on. Plantations should be written off for income tax purposes over a maximum period of 10 years. As the law now stands, all sums recovered on the sale or transfer of a plantation require to be taken into account under subsection 3 (c) up to the amount of the aggregate allowance claimed and allowed under section 18A. It has been represented that allowances claimed and allowed in respect of capital expenditure on that part of a plantation which is not sold or transferred should be disregarded and that recoveries to be taken into account under subsection 3 (c) should not exceed the allowances claimed and allowed in respect of the portion in which the interest has been sold or transferred. 'The amendment of section 18A in clause 3 seeks to ensure that recoveries in respect of capital expenditure shall be deemed to be income for the purposes of subsection 3 (c) of the Ordinance only where relief has been allowed under the section in respect of the relevant capital expenditure. It is also proposed that recoveries in respect of capital expenditure shall be deemed to be income chargeable to tax only after the point is reached when the capital expenditure originally incurred or the consideration paid for such expenditure has been recovered by the taxpayer in the form of allowances under the section. This amendment will be operative from the date section 18A came into operation, namely, 1st January, 1956. Section 20 of the Ordinance provides for balancing allowances and charges in respect of machinery or plant. Experience has shown that the circumstances are too broadly defined and are likely to give rise to abuses. It is proposed in clause 4 to provide a broader definition of the events giving rise to a balancing allowance or balancing charge. The clause also seeks to provide that where a property in machinery or plant passes by gift or by sale at less than its open market price, or is sold after the permanent discontinuance of the trade, profession or business, for the purposes of computing any balancing allowance or balancing charge, it shall be deemed to have been sold at its open market value at the date of the transfer of ownership or at the date of permanent discontinuance as the case may be. Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 29 of the Ordinance to clarify the procedure for determining the gross amount of the income from a dividend which has been paid without deduction of tax. The difference between the gross and the net amounts of any dividend is deemed to be tax borne by the shareholder and is available for relief or repayment in his hands. No additional burden would be laid on the taxpayer since difference between gross and net amounts represented tax available for repayment or set off under section 46. As subsection (1) of section 44 of the Ordinance now stands, dividends paid by companies which are resident in the Colony may be paid either without deduction of tax or under deduction of tax at any rate up to 30 per cent. Practical difficulties have arisen in determining the tax deductible from dividends paid by such companies and the proposed amendment in clause 6 of the Bill is designed to allow the deduction of tax at the rate of 30 per cent only. The right of companies to pay dividends without deduction of tax is not accepted. Clause 8 of the Bill amends section 68 of the Ordinance to place upon employers the statutory obligation to advise the Comptroller when employees enter or leave their service, or leave the Colony temporarily for a period exceeding three months. The principal object of this amendment is to ensure that the Comptroller is given sufficient notice of the departure of employees from the Colony either permanently or for a lengthy period, in order that steps may be taken before their departure to compute and collect the tax payable. It has been represented that sections 84 and 93 of the Ordinance are difficult to construe and to reconcile. It is proposed to amend in clause 9 of the Bill, section 84, by clarifying the circumstances in which an assessment becomes final and conclusive, and by precluding the revision of any final and conclusive assessment under the provisions of section 93 of the Ordinance. The amendment in clause 10 of the Bill is designed to amend section 93 by making it merely the authority for the Comptroller to repay tax when the greater amount has been paid directly or by deduction than is charged in a final and conclusive assessment or when an exempt taxpayer has suffered by deduction. It is proposed in clause 11 of the Bill to provide that taxpayers may claim relief at any time within six years of the end of the relative year of assessment in respect of an error or mistake made in a return of statement for the purposes of assessment. To discourage frivolous appeals, where the Comptroller refuses to admit a claim to relief, the clause requires the sum of $250 to be deposited with the Clerk to the Board of Review before an appeal can be entertained, but provides for the refund of the whole sum in the event of the appeal being allowed by the Board. Where an appeal is unsuccessful, the Board is given discretionary powers to decide whether the whole or any part should be refunded. There are a number of other minor amendments most of which are included in the Schedule to the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.17 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, out of the improvements made in the Income Tax Ordinance with the introduction of this Bill, I would like to refer in particular to clause 2 (d), a matter on which I asked questions last year, and there is now an exemption of tax for visitors entering this country for a period of two months, and I think, as I stated a year ago, that that was an extremely, restrictive clause. I welcome further the amendment to place motion picture artists in this category as opposed to stage and radio artists, musicians, athletes, and so on. I think that this is an important point, be, cause the point has been made, and notice has been taken by the Government, that motion picture artists who come into this country to make pictures are not public entertainers in this country in the ordinary sense of the 'word, in that they come here only to make pictures. I think this country has been at a great disadvantage in the past in missed opportunities because this was not provided for before. I know of a number of cases where production companies that wished to make pictures here which would portray Singapore and the Federation on the world's screens had been prevented from doing so because of Income Tax restrictions. I know of an American company wishing to spend something between three and four million dollars in this country making a picture next year which would not only be a welcome revenue to Singapore and the Federation but also would mean that our country and the Federation will go on to the world's screens in the way that Japan is put on the world's screens today in so many films. I think, just as Japan has had great advantages in attracting tourists to that country, that we shall now attract more tourists for the same reason. For these reasons, I very much welcome the broad-minded change in Government policy shown on this particular clause.

Mr Financial Secretary, in reply?

I have nothing to add further.

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

Committee stage, what day? The Chief Minister rose -

Mr Chief Minister, perhaps we could complete the proceedings on this Bill before you move your motion. The Chief Minister resumed his seat.

Will you please move, Mr Financial Secretary?

Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Sir, I beg to second.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

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

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 45, to leave out ", motion picture". The object of this amendment is to remove the reference to motion picture artists in the proviso so that motion picture artists will be eligible for exemption under subsection (4). Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5-

Mr Financial Secretary, there appears to be a typographical omission in line 14. After "appearing", should not the word "in" be inserted?

Yes. Shall I move an amendment?

We will just insert that word as a typographical omission. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 6 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read the Third time and passed.

3.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I at this moment interrupt to move a business motion? Sir, I beg to move. That the proceedings on the remaining items of business set down for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the remaining items of business set down for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7.

3.26 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That at its rising at the termination of business this day the Assembly do stand adjourned to 5th November, 1958.

Sir, 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 5th November, 1958.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.27 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance originally intended to protect our seamen, have now in practice come to militate against their obtaining employment. These sections require that the Master of a foreign ship must deposit a bond of $50, find an acceptable resident of Singapore as a surety and enter into a crew agreement before the Port Officer prior to signing on a seaman who is a British subject or a British protected person. These requirements were legislated in days when it was not uncommon for seamen, signed off at a foreign port, to be stranded there and were designed to provide a protection against such a disability. But times have changed and most maritime nations have now provision for the repatriation of all seamen signed off in foreign ports. In consequence, what was intended as a safeguard has now become a deterrent to employment, since Masters tend to sign on alien seamen in Singapore rather than go through the procedure required for seamen who are British subjects and British protected persons. This situation cannot be allowed to go on by the Government and, therefore, since the repatriation of the seamen is generally secured by national laws in most countries, it is no longer necessary to discriminate in the methods of signing on, especially where such methods are likely to lose employment in favour of alien seamen. This Bill, therefore, seeks to remedy this unfavourable situation for our seamen, and has the support of the Port Officer and of the Seamen's Registry Board on which both the seamen and shipowners are represented. I therefore commend this Bill to hon. Members. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.29 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, under the law as it stands, the powers vested in the Government to ban the importation of subversive or other undesirable publications, including gramophone records, are limited to the specific issue to which exception is taken. Only in the case of periodical publications does the order have the effect of banning past and future issues of the same publication. This limitation and the time and labour involved in examining imported literature has to be considered against the statistics of imports. In the first nine months of this year, 14 million copies of no less than 36,291 publications printed in the Chinese language sought importation into Singapore. Of these 36,000 publications, 748 were found to be objectionable and were refused importation. These 748 undesirable publications were the product of 101 Chinese publishing houses, some situate in the mainland of China and some in Hongkong. An analysis of these publications shows that the great majority emanate from a small number of publishing houses. Between them, 21 such publishing houses were responsible for a total of no less than 502 undesirable publications out of a total of 748. During the same period 40 gramophone records in the Chinese language were refused admittance. All but four of these emanated from one source. Sir, it is in these circumstances that the Government is seeking to amend the existing provision in the law to permit the banning of all publications which emanate from particular sources or particular publishing houses. As hon. Members will be aware, this power already exists in the Federation of Malaya and has been exercised. The opportunity has also been taken to provide that the ban imposed on publications or types of publications under this section shall also apply to all translations of such publications. It is, of course, possible that there will emanate from publishing houses against which such a blanket ban has been imposed the occasional innocuous publication for which import is sought. This contingency is provided for in sub-clause (4) of clause 3 which enables specific publications to be exempted from any such blanket ban. I should like to add, Sir, that in this matter the Government has a duty towards the public to prevent the publication and circulation not only of subversive literature but also of pornographic and obscene literature. This duty is all the more important when it is remembered that a high proportion of the population of Singapore today is of an age at which they are still young and impressionable and cannot be expected to form a mature literary judgment. I should like, therefore, to add in conclusion that the Government has under consideration at the present time whether any further measures are necessary to control the output and circulation of harmful literature, particularly the type of publications deliberately and mainly designed to promote sales through their pornographic content. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, it does look very surprising to see an Opposition Member rise and second this motion. We are very delighted to hear the speech just delivered by the Hon, the Chief Secretary, especially when he touched on the point that undesirable publications should include obscene literature. That, I think, is one step more towards realisation of the controversial problem that faces us - why, on the one hand in the eyes of the Government, the so-called "progressive" literature is termed subversive, but, on the other hand, the Government have allowed obscene and harmful literature to pour in as well as allow it to be published in this country. So, while extending my warm congratulations to the Chief Secretary on his speech, I would ask him to take note of the need to ban as much obscene and harmful literature as he can in this country. 3.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in so far as the Chief Secretary said that this Bill was intended to shut out, shall we say, non-political undesirable publications, I think nobody will quarrel with him. But I would like to make this observation as regards political tracts. I believe we can broadly classify these political tracts into two categories: one, those which are obviously designed for propaganda and do not contain anything other than a recital of facts to glorify the Communist bloc; two, those tracts which are the theoretical and ideological dissertations of the Communist bloc. The curious position which we have today in Singapore - and to a certain extent also in the Federation - is that whilst we can purchase all these books and tracts in the English language, the same books and tracts in the Chinese language are banned. Sir, you can go to any reputable bookshop in town and buy Mao Tse-tung's books in English in four volumes. I have often wondered, Sir, what would be the effect if one were to translate them and print them in the Chinese language. I am quite sure it would not be within the Undesirable Publications Ordinance because they are published locally. I do not know if steps would be taken to outlaw such books. It seems to me, however, that unless we are prepared to open up the minds of our people to free discussion and ventilation of ideas, unless we try to, so to speak, inoculate the intellectual sector of the population from succumbing to these ideas - if we try to insulate it - I do not think, first, that we can succeed completely, and secondly, that it is in any case desirable, because it means that we are admitting that the ideas which are being propagated are beyond refute. and therefore we do not want the minds of the people to be turned to these matters. I seriously ask the Government to consider this point, because as time goes on and a rising generation of Chinese-educated intellectuals comes into being, we have to cease pretending that China does not exist. In fact, nobody pretends it any more, not even Mr Dulles. We have to explain to our people why it is - as indeed if we hope to sustain the democratic system in Malaya, we must explain - that despite all the material advances, all the longest rivers and bridges in the world, the biggest output of textiles in the world, our system in so far as we are concerned in Malaya is worth while continuing and sustaining; that despite all these "great and glorious achievements", there are hundreds of people who still want to come from China to Malaya for the simple reason that life is not quite so bad in Malaya. If you isolate your intellectuals from a free and open discussion of political ideas as such, as distinct from the technique of the revolution, the organisational side of it, then not only will you fail but you will also create a dangerous situation. Therefore, although we would not seriously quarrel with the intentions of the Government of trying to prevent immature minds from being overwhelmed by facile and cleverly thought-out propaganda, we should at the same time accept the challenge which is all the time there of the ideological battle - that the history of the world is not preordained; that in fact it is not true that history has already been written up a long time ago; that the world is going to be what Marx said it was going to be; and that if the Americans had let go one big bomb in 1947, something else might have happened to the world - and create in our generation in Malaya, men of sufficient intellectual fibre to withstand the stresses and strains of the ideological battle between the two power blocs which, far from becoming less acute as time goes on, appears to be getting more and more acute as the cold war intensifies.

Mr Chief Secretary, in reply? 3.42 p.m.

Sir, I am very glad that for once I am in tune with the opinions of the hon. Member for Changi. I would not in any way quarrel with the general proposition which was put forward by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, Sir, but I would only ask him to bear in mind, in saying that in the long run people in Singapore no less than people in any other part of the world must make up their own minds, two things: one is the context in Singapore at the present time, the context particularly of the matters that were discussed in the debate this morning; and the second point is that the literature coming from China - I do not think he could claim a considerable quantity of it anyway - would come within the definition of free thought. I would remind him of the speech made by Mao Tse-tung in May 1942 at a literary meeting in Yenan in which he finished up by saying, "From now on literary works under the control of the Communist Party will no longer be pure literary works; they will all be transformed into political weapons."

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

3.45 p.m.

Sir, I rise to move, That the Report of the Select Committee on the Public Entertainments Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 12 of 1958, be adopted. Sir, it will be seen that the Select Committee held four meetings and considered written representations received from and heard oral evidence given by a number of interested bodies. A number of amendments have been made to the text of the Bill and these amendments are incorporated in the Bill appearing as Appendix II of the Report. Some of the amendments are substantial ones and I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to them. After considering representations made to the Committee, clause 8 has been amended to extend the maximum period of expiry of a licence from three months to 12 months. Clause 10 attracted, as expected, most of the representations made on the Bill. Various arguments were put forward that the under 16 years of age non-admittance provision should be extremely difficult to carry out in practice, especially in cinemas. The Government's view is that this provision should remain, as it is considered that it should be enforced in respect of certain classes of entertainment which need not necessarily include cinemas. Sir, in the interests of youth welfare, operators of certain types of entertainment must be made to realise their responsibility in preventing underage children from entering their premises. The Committee has, however, amended this clause to provide for the Minister instead of the Licensing Officer to prescribe by notification in the Gazette what type of public entertainment is to be made subject to the under 16 years of age provision. With regard to clause 11, Sir, objections were raised against the requirement of giving security. It is considered, however, that the furnishing of security has been most useful in the control of certain types of shows. However, in order to meet some of the representations made, the clause has been amended to limit the powers of the Licensing Officer and to provide for the Minister, by notification in the Gazette, to limit the amount of security and the type of entertainment and also to provide for an appeal to the Minister in the event of forfeiture. In clauses 13 and 14 amendments have been made to stipulate a reasonable period of seven days within which the grounds for the refusal of the licence should be furnished to an applicant. No period was stated previously in this respect. Finally, Sir, after considering the representations made on clause 22 of the draft Bill, the clause which allows the Licensing Officer to seek the advice of bodies associated with the control of boxing promotion events or public entertainment, and provides that it shall be sufficient ground for refusing an application if any such body advises refusal, the Committee has deleted the whole clause from the Bill. These, Sir, are the major amendments to the Bill. The other amendments made are either self-explanatory or for the purpose of improving the drafting of the Bill and do not, I think, call for any comment. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Report of the Select Committee on the Public Entertainments Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 12 of 1958, be adopted. Bill read the Third time and passed.

3.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the Report of the Select Committee on the Factories Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 14 of 1958, be adopted. Sir, as stressed in the Second Reading of this Bill, the main purpose is to provide minimum standards of health, safety and welfare of factory workers. Singapore's industry is on the threshold of expansion, and it is considered the duty of this Government to see that factories if erected, should conform to the standard set out in this Bill. The objections put forward to the Select Committee by various bodies have all come from existing businesses, and to a large extent their apprehensions appear unfounded. There is nothing in this Bill that would involve drastic changes in their everyday conduct of business. As a protection for the existing family businesses that do not employ machinery of one kind or another, the Select Committee has seen fit to increase the number of those employed in a factory in clause 6 (4) from 6 to 10. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Report of the Select Committee on the Factories Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 14 of 1958, be adopted. Bill read the Third time and passed.

3.53 p.m

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly, in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance (Chapter 214), resolves that the aforesaid Ordinance shall continue in force for a further period of one year commencing on the 8th day of December, 1958. Hon. Members will recall that this Ordinance was first promulgated iii 1950 and that it had a life of one year. Since then it has being extended from year to year and this will be the eighth occasion on which the extension of the Ordinance for a further period of one year has been moved. The Ordinance gives the Minister powers to make orders regulating the import and export of goods. In keeping with our policy of placing the minimum restrictions on trade, these powers have been used very sparingly and most imports are placed on open general licence, while in general exports have been freely licensed. But it is still necessary to retain powers for maintaining export control of certain strategic supplies in order that we may meet our international obligations, as, for example, controlling gold dollar imports which is a necessary part of our policy as a member of the sterling area. Moreover, with the introduction of the principle of protection of local industry, the need for the continuation of powers to regulate imports and exports is imperative, particularly if a decision is made to confer protection by means of quantitative restrictions. The Trade Advisory Council has been consulted and supports this extension. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, in accordance with subsection (2) of section 1 of the Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance (Chapter 214), resolves that the aforesaid Ordinance shall continue in force for a further period of one year commencing on the 8th day of December, 1958.

3.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (3) of section 30 of the Women and Girls Protection Ordinance (Chapter 126), resolves that the Women and Girls Protection (Amendment) Rules, 1958, made on the 4th day of September, 1958, published as Gazette Notification No. S 210 of the 12th September, 1958, and presented to the Assembly pursuant to statute on the 23rd September, 1958, as Sessional Paper No. S.L. 38 of 1958, be approved. Sir, the Salvation Army Women and Girls Industrial Home was first opened in December 1935 at No. 1 Paterson Hill. After the war the Home was reopened at No. 26 Oxley Road, and on 1st July, 1958, it was moved to Nos. 381 and 382, Pasir Panjang Road. The Home is gazetted as a place of safety under the Women and Girls Protection Ordinance (Chapter 126), and as an approved home, remand home, place of detention and place of safety under the Children and Young Persons Ordinance (Chapter 128). Sir, approval of the motion now before this House will give official recognition of the removal of this Home to new premises. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (3) of section 30 of the Women and Girls Protection Ordinance (Chapter 126), resolves that the Women and Girls Protection (Amendment) Rules, 1958, made on the 4th day of September, 1958, published as Gazette Notification No. S 210 of the 12th September, 1958, and presented to the Assembly pursuant to statute on the 23rd September, 1958, as Sessional Paper No. S.L. 38 of 1958, be approved.

3.57 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Governor's recommendation to proceed with the motion. I beg to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1,461,162 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the service specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 31 of 1958. Sir, the Schedule consists of a list of ten applications for supplementary provision amount to $1,461,162. The reasons for these supplementary votes are given in detail in the Sessional Paper. There are two items which involve a substantial sum of money. One of them refers to the construction of four secondary schools for which $1,000,000 has been provided for this year. Work has progressed faster than was envisaged at the time when the Estimates were prepared. It is anticipated that a total sum of $2.1 million will be required for progress payments during the year, and supplementary provision of about $1.1 million will be required. These schools are urgently needed and when they are completed will meet the present demand in the various districts. The second one refers to the Muslim Welfare Home for destitute Muslim women. This project has been under consideration for some time. A token provision was provided in the Estimates to enable planning to be carried out. This has been completed and it has been decided to give this project top priority. The Home will be built at Jalan Eunos and, when completed, will meet a long-felt want. Sir, I beg to move.

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

4.00 p.m. Schedule-

The summary is at page 7. Head 10- "The sum of $2,150 for Head 10 ordered to stand part of the Schedule." Head 14- Question proposed, "That the sum of $7,971 for Head 14 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, this vote is required by the Department of Information Services for civics programmes and I wonder if the Financial Secretary can tell us the persons who are included in such civics courses.

Sir, I think I can give the Member the answer. The whole civics programme was first instituted in the year 1957 as the Government felt a very big need to associate the masses with the Government as a continuing function of the social system. Eighty-one courses were held in the year 1957 and 1,863 persons representing various organised bodies attended these courses which were then held twice or thrice weekly. In the year 1958, more frequent courses became necessary because of the great demand and because the advantages accorded to the participants became more and more evident. 120 courses have been held in the year 1958 up to date and 3,260 persons representing various organised bodies participated in them. I am glad, Sir, to note that as a result of these courses, Government has been able to instil civic consciousness among the people. It is apparent that the hitherto limited civic consciousness - just like: "It is not my business" - plus the inability to conceive the scale on which Government operates, with consequent ignorance of what is going on, have given way to a new spirit of civic duties and responsibilities among the people. The people who have attended these courses, Sir, were of both sexes and came from all walks of life - to mention a few, fishermen, farmers, hawkers, industrial workers, insurance men, storytellers, rural dwellers, city dwellers, islanders, teachers, taxi men, barbers, University undergraduates and students from English, Chinese, Malay and Indian schools. The places visited in these civic courses included the Police Training School, the Combined Operations Room, the General Post Office, the Immigration Department, the Depart, ment of Information Services, the Animal Husbandry Station at Lim Chu Kang Road, the Civil General Hospital, the Orthopedic Hospital, Boys' Town, the Fisheries Department, the Government Printing Office, Radio Malaya, the Social Welfare Department, Gimson School for Boys, York Hill Girls' School, all community centres, the Telephone Board, the Harbour Board, the Junior Trades School, the Airport, the Department of Telecommunications, the Asian Seamen's Club, S.A.T.A., the Wireless Station at Jurong, the Supreme Court and this Assembly Chamber. All the participants of these civic courses, Sir, visited the Chamber, a fact which emphasises its position as a centre of a system of parliamentary democracy and makes more real to them the debates and discussions as they read them, in the papers or hear them on the radio. Sir, in addition to these courses, these people have been taken to a series of lectures on the District Council elections in each District area and individual lectures were given to outside groups at their request. I am sure hon. Members will agree with me that it is important that the people have a right to know the Government services and the Government servants, both to know just how much the Government services do for them and to be asked to make positive and helpful contributions to the parliamentary system of Government. I am sure, Sir, that the hon. Member will now be satisfied.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary tell us the procedure of making such applications and whether such applications are open to organisations and to individuals forming a group of 25?

Sir, I shall be very much obliged if the hon. Member will see me so that I can explain to him the whole procedure in a personal discussion.

You might give him a lecture!

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not a question of giving information to me because I, for one, know that I can approach the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary for such a purpose. It is a question of the public that should be told, whether organisations, associations or individuals could make applications.

I can see a real need for civics courses for Assemblymen too. There is no difficulty in the procedure, Sir. Any body of persons or any individual who would like to participate in a civics course should first apply to the Civics Organiser or to the Director of the Department of Information Services who will then arrange for the civics courses.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $7,971 for Head 14 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 25- The sum of $48,000 for Head 25 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 43- The sum of $3,812 for Head 43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 59- The sum of $1,200 for Head 59 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 48- The sum of $28,000 for Head 48 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 16- The sum of $5,300 for Head D 16 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 45- Question proposed, "That the sum of $1,155,862 for Head D 45 stand part of the Schedule."

Could the Minister for Education let us know the number of class-rooms provided in these new schools?

Sixteen class-rooms with an additional two rooms, if necessary.

Do you have a school hall, a library and other facilities in such schools?

Yes.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $1,155,862 for Head D 45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 52- The sum of $224,000 for the Head D 52 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head D 59- The sum of $1,200 for Head D 59 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sum of $1,461,162 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the motion. Motion and Schedule reported, without amendment. Question on the Motion put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1,461,162 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. 31 of 1958.

4.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Governor's recommendation to proceed with the motion. I beg to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 11 of the Customs Ordinance (Chapter 160 of the Revised Edition), resolves that the Customs (Duties) (Amendment) Order, 1958, published as Notification No. S 238 in Gazette Supplement No. 66 of 3rd October, 1958, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 39 of 1958, be confirmed. Sir, it has been decided to raise the duty on cigars from $11.00 per lb. full and $10.00 per lb. preferential to $16.00 per lb. full and $15.00 per lb. preferential respectively, an increase of $5 per lb. in each case to maintain the existing differential of $1 per lb. The previous rates were imposed in 1947, when they were exactly twice those on cigarettes. The latter rates have been increased twice since then and it is thought that the rates on cigars should now be increased so as to be nearer the former differential with cigarettes. The increase of $5 per lb. has brought about, on the average, an increase of 10 per cent in the price. Cigars are only smoked by a special group of smokers and this will not therefore cause any hardship. It is estimated to yield an additional revenue of $54,000 in a year. It has also been decided to impose a further levy on the more expensive cigarettes by charging an additional duty at 35 per cent ad valorem on their value where the value exceeds $15 per 1,000 cigarettes. Value, as defined in the Customs Amendment Bill which was passed this morning, is "the price which an importer would give for the goods on a purchase in the open market if the goods were delivered to him at the place of payment of duty and if freight, insurance, commission and all other costs, charges and expenses (except any customs duties) incidental to the purchase and delivery at such place had been paid". In this category of cigarettes are Players Medium 50's, State Express and Players Perfectos Finos. The rate of duty, in the case of State Express 555 in 10's has been increased from the former rate of $20.90 to $26.60 per 1,000 cigarettes, an increase of 80 cts. over the present Federation rate. The existing price of 45 cts. per 10 cigarettes has been increased to 50 cts. In the case of State Express 555 in tins, the former rate of $20.90 per 1,000 cigarettes has been increased to $27.10, an increase of $1.30 over the Federation rate. The $2.35 retail price has been increased to $2.65 per tin. Again, in the case of the still more expensive cigarettes, such as the Players Perfectos Finos 50's, the rate of duty has been increased from $21.06 per 1,000 cigarettes to $30.32, an increase of $4.32 over the Federation rate. The retail price has been increased from $3.30 to $3.75 per tin. It is estimated that these increases will yield an additional revenue of $2.2 million in a year. As pipe tobacco is a ready substitute for cigarettes, there would be a loss to revenue should there be a switch to pipe tobacco. To offset any possible loss of revenue, it has been decided to impose an additional levy on the more expensive typpe of pipe tobacco by charging an ad valorem 35 per cent of the value of pipe tobacco which exceeds $7.50 per lb. In this category are the Player's No Name, Three Nuns, Balkan Sobranie. In the case of Player's No Name, the rate of duty has being increased by $2.74 per lb., an increase of 17 cts. per ounce. This is an increase of 84 cts. per lb. over the Federation rate. The rate of duty on the Three Nuns has been increased by $3.22 per lb., an increase of 20 cts. per ounce. This is an increase of $1.32 per lb. over the Federation rate. In the case of Balkan Sobranie, the increase in duty is $3.60 per lb., an increase of 23 cts. per ounce. This is $1.70 per lb. higher than the Federation rate. On the average, the increase in the retail prices has been about 50 cts. for 2-ounce tins. This proposal is estimated to bring an additional $40,000 in a year. Altogether, Sir, the increased levy in duty will bring an additional revenue of about $2.3 million in a year. As the incidence falls on the more expensive brands of cigarettes and pipe tobacco, which are normally consumed by the well-to-do, it is appropriate that this class of the population should bear this increased tax. This proposal is in accordance with the Government's policy that the burden of additional taxation should fall on those who are able to bear it. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it. Question proposed. 4.17 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is rather surprising that the Government should consider an increase of duty on tobacco at this moment, it would be rather interesting if the Hon. the Financial Secretary could give us figures on the revenue from liquor before and after the increase of duty. I am informed that the revenue from liquor has dropped considerably since then. I wonder if the Hon, the Financial Secretary is aware of a warning given by the leading tobacco and cigarette dealers in Singapore. I quote from the Singapore Standard of 4th October, 1958, and this is the warning given: "Leading tobacco and cigarette distributors yesterday warned the Singapore Government that the extra duty imposed on cigarettes and tobacco would have an adverse effect on the national revenue. They were of the opinion that consumption of cigarettes and tobacco would fall if duty was raised. They also warned Government that with the imposition of extra duty, there would be an increase in smuggling of cigarettes and tobacco into the Colony." The Hon. the Financial Secretary told us that he expects an increase in revenue of about $40,000 per year due to this increase of duty on tobacco but it appears that the leading tobacco and cigarette dealers in Singapore think otherwise because they feel that with this increase in duty, the consumption of cigarettes will fall. The first warning, as contained in that report, is that if this duty is increased, the consumption of cigarettes will definitely fall, as was the case with liquor after the duty on liquor was increased. Sir, if this presumption is correct, then the result may be that instead of an increase in revenue, Government may have to lose some revenue and this should be an eye-opener to the Government. So why introduce such an increase of duty on tobacco at the moment when Government has experienced a considerable loss of revenue on liquor after the duty on liquor was increased? Is Government prepared to lose revenue on tobacco due to this increase in the same way as they have suffered on liquor? Certainly not! I am afraid that the Hon. the Financial Secretary may come back to this Assembly with a deficit in the new Budget and ask for more taxes to be levied on the public. The second warning is that smuggling of cigarettes and tobacco will increase. I agree with that because it is obvious that if duty on tobacco is increased, the price of cigarettes will certainly increase and the smugglers will turn their attention more to smuggling tobacco and cigarettes because of the bigger margin of profit that would accrue to them. So this would give the smugglers more encouragement to smuggle tobacco or cigarettes into the country. According to the Financial Secretary, he says that this increase will not affect the lower income group as he feels that cigars are only smoked by the higher income group. But does he realise that even the lower income group do smoke an inferior type of cigars? It is only the rich who smoke the good brands of cigars but the inferior brands of cigars are smoked by the middle or poorer class of people and, for his information, I have been told that it is far cheaper to smoke cigars than cigarettes. So if this increase is confirmed, it will certainly affect the lower income group and if they cannot afford this increase, I think there is no alternative for them but to stop smoking. If they really stop smoking, then where is the revenue of $40,000 per year that the Financial Secretary expects to get? I must, Sir, emphasise that I am against the confirmation of this increase, not because I am personally affected. It is in the interest of the lower income group that I am against the confirmation of this increase. I am not a smoker myself. So whether there is or there is no increase, it does not affect me personally. What I am afraid is that those who smoke and who cannot find the money to smoke will have to be non-smokers, like myself, and the result may be a loss of an expected $40,000 per year in increased revenue contrary to what the Financial Secretary says. I oppose the confirmation of the Customs (Duties) (Amendment) Order, 1958, Sir. 4.22 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not often that I find myself in agreement with the views of the Member for Queenstown -

Thank you.

- but I must congratulate him this afternoon at least for avoiding the word "torture". I think he got some of his figures wrong on the revenue referred to by the Financial Secretary, and if those are wrong, I do not blame him in the least, because I was completely dazed by the mass of figures - the price of Three Nuns and the various other brands of cigarettes that we were told would now go up or down - but I am in agreement with the Member for Queenstown in being against confirming this motion, because of the enormous expenditure that I envisage the Customs will be asking for. I cannot believe that there are Customs officers who can possibly be expected to cope with what will undoubtedly be a great encouragement to smugglers even with their present equipment. They will undoubtedly come and ask for bigger and better launches. I understand that, at the moment, they have the greatest difficulty in catching the smugglers with their outboard engines. They will then come back to this House and ask for more money for bigger and better launches and I can foresee that whatever the figure that is hoped to be gained in revenue by these increases - a lot of us are a bit vague on what that figure will actually turn out to be - will be more than offset by the very reasonable demands from the Customs Department for better equipment to enable them to enforce the laws that this House has seen fit to pass. 4.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a rather important issue such as this, when we are already envisaging faster and bigger speed boats being asked for in this Assembly, we must not let it pass without our expressing an opinion on it. I must say that I do not quite follow the argument of the Member for Queenstown. I am quite sure that he is all in favour of the workers. I am quite sure that he would like them to save money. I am quite sure that he would not like them to have cancer and his argument is: "If they all gave up smoking, I am quite sure that he would support them and wish them all long life. If they did stop, we would not bemoan the fact that the expected $2 million increase in revenue does not materialise." But when Mr Mason says that he thinks we ought not to amend the law, the reason being that it is unlikely that the increase would be profitable, because any expected increase might be offset by the increase in the cost of collection, I say, but surely in that case, what we need is a really good expert who will see that these taxes are collected efficiently and cheaply and if smugglers do put on faster speed boats, well what the smugglers can buy, so can the Government. I am quite sure that it should not be beyond the ingenuity of our Customs Department to get the right kind of speed boats with the right kind of depth clearance and horsepower so as to make sure that no more smugglers get by than what usually get by in any case. But I would like to say this. I do not believe that smugglers will smuggle more because the duty has gone up. They will keep on smuggling in any case because, even at the present rates, it is profitable. If the Financial Secretary eventually does collect $2.2 million extra, good luck to him. If he does not, he has to think of other ways, because I say, "If he wants to put up the duty on tobacco, why should we object?" Mr Oon Khye Kiang rose -

In reply?

Yes, Sir,In answer to the first point raised by the Member for Queenstown about the fall in revenue as a result of the increase of duty in 1957, I wish to point out that he is not correctly informed. According to the figures given by the Department, in 1956 $9.5 million was received in respect of imported liquor and in 1957 $10.6 million was received, showing an increase of $1.1 million, in spite of the increase of duty. Sir, it is the experience in this country as well as in other parts of the world, that, human nature being what it is, the increase of duty does not usually bring about a decrease in revenue, if I may mention the case of tobacco, when the rates of duty were increased in late 1956, the total amount of revenue received in 1956 was $35 million, and in 1957, the amount received was $39 million, showing an increase of $4 million. With regard to the second point raised by the Member for Queenstown about the likely increase in smuggling, the Department is well aware of this danger and, in fact, there is already an organisation in the Department to cope with this work. I am confident that the Department will do its best to reduce the extent of smuggling to the minimum. I do not think that there are other point that need answering.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 11 of the Customs Ordinance (Chapter 160 of the Revised Edition), resolves that the Customs (Duties) (Amendment) Order, 1958, published as Notification No. S 238 in Gazette Supplement No. 68 of 3rd October, 1958, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 39 of 1958, be confirmed.

4.30 p.m.

Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, which reads: That this Assembly views with grave concern and is profoundly disturbed by the action of the Government of Singapore in deporting to China the following persons, namely, Fong Siew Long, Wong Yih Ching, Chong Huan Teng, Lim Inn Ping, Neo Ho Lan, Tai Chew Seng and Bok Kai Weng, although the Government has full knowledge that these persons were born, bred and educated in Malaya, which term in law means the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, thereby depriving the aforesaid natural-born persons of Malaya of their inalienable rights of citizenship, whether of Singapore or of the Federation of Malaya, and therefore this House deplores and strongly condemns the Government for its high-handed and arbitrary act of banishing these natural-born persons of Malaya to China against their will. Sir, I move this motion not for the fun or for the purpose of a debate, because I know for certain that my motion will be thrown out. The maximum I may get is one or two supporters for this motion, which is always the case. I move this motion because of the request made by the near relatives of these persons concerned. They have written me a letter and I will now read it. It is addressed to me and it says: "We, the nearest relatives of the above-named persons, shall be ever grateful to you if you could kindly bring the following matters to the notice of the people of Singapore through a debate in the Legislative Assembly House. All the above named persons were born and educated in Malaya and had never left Malaya. They were banished to China in the most cruel way by the present Government. Kindly do your best to place this matter and explain to the public the inhuman action on the part of the present Lim Yew Hock Government. With best wishes," and signed by the near relatives. [Laughter.] Well, it appears to be a laughing matter to Members of this House though the life of a person or the future of a person or persons is at stake. I cannot see how Members of this House could treat it so lightly, treat it as a laughing matter, when persons are deported from the country of their birth; I do not think it should be a laughing matter. From the contents of this letter, Sir, you can see that the request from the near relatives is to bring to light the inhuman and arbitrary action of the present Government in banishing those persons concerned to China, though they were born, bred and educated in Malaya. It appears, therefore, to me, Sir, that the Government has not the slightest regard for human rights. Government always has proudly proclaimed to the people that it stands for democracy and the freedom of the people. We have this morning heard so much about democracy. But what is democracy and where is democracy when it has time and again ignored the just demands and strong protests of the people of Singapore? Sir, during the Second Reading of the Singapore Citizenship Bill, the Chief Minister said - I think I will have to quote what he said in col. 2541, Vol. 2, No. 36 of 11th September, 1957. This is what the Chief Minister said: "We as elected Members of the Assembly owe our power to our representing the views of the people as expressed through the secrecy of the ballot box. As individuals, whatever our abilities or claims, we have no power other than the power which derives from the people." So it is through the secret ballot box that we are here today. Sir, did the Chief Minister at the time when he said those words sincerely believe that he was practising democracy? If so, then it is regrettable to see that his Government has acted otherwise, by showing the lack of sincerity in the words of the Chief Minister himself. The arbitrary action of the Government clearly shows how desperate and short-sighted is the policy of Government. Sir, in the universal declaration of human rights, there is a quotation: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." Well, does this mean anything to the Chief Minister or his Government? It means nothing, from what I can see, otherwise how could he explain the high-handed and arbitrary action by deporting these persons to China against their will, though the Government knows full well that they were born, bred and educated in Malaya? These persons have never travelled beyond the shores of this place, and now they are deported to a foreign country. As I say now, we always talk about democracy, but do we practise democracy? We do sometimes practise or talk of democracy to deceive the people, not otherwise. We also talk of subversives or subversion. Sir, what is subversion? To quote one instance where the subversives of today may be leaders of tomorrow. I will now quote "Who was Nkrumah at that time?" Was he not considered a subversive element by the colonial government at that time? Then who is he today? In 1955 he was quoted as a subversive element. He is now the Prime Minister of Ghana. Then we have Nehru, Sir. Again, who was he before? Again, a subversive element. Today he is the Prime Minister of a great Asian country. Sir, can we tolerate such subversive elements as opinionated by the Chief Minister? Sir, it would not be surprising that the subversive element we have in this Assembly, the hon. Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong), may one day be the Prime Minister or the Yang di-Pertuan Negara of Singapore! Then where is the subversive element in that Member for Bukit Timah? You can never tell, and if the P.A.P. comes into power, he is released and contests the elections, there is a possibility that he may be the Yang di-Pertuan Negara of Singapore. [Interruption.]

- or the Prime Minister, I am so sorry. But if he does not contest the elections, and if the P.A.P. do decide to release him, and because he has been deprived the opportunity of contesting the first general elections, the P.A.P. may consider making him - if he quits his own Party - the Yang di-Pertuan Negara of Singapore.

Order. Looking at the motion, I cannot find the name of the Member for Bukit Timah (Mr Lim Ching Siong). Neither can I find any reference to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Will the hon. Member please keep to the terms of his motion as closely as possible?

I am much obliged to you, Mr Speaker. I was just explaining what "subversive" means, and that the day may come when these elements of today may become the leaders of tomorrow. Sir, however serious their crime may be, banishment to a foreign country against their will of persons born and bred in Malaya - I will emphasize those words because it was not of their own free will that they were prepared to be deported to China, although I believe that the Chief Minister has, in his hands, a signed statement. The signatories may be forced to sign the statement that they are prepared to be deported. I am just saying - I am not sure - so it is up to the Chief Minister whether he has in his hands signed statements by such persons that they are prepared to be deported to China. In fact, it was against their own will. And if that was the case, the deporting of people against their own will is most cruel and a most barbaric form of punishment. This form of punishment, Sir, is unthinkable in these days, especially when the persons concerned are natural-born persons of Malaya. As stated in my motion, Sir, the interpretation of the law in section 2 of the Interpretation and 6eneral Clauses Ordinance (Chapter 2) says that Malaya means either the Federation of Malaya or Singapore; so it is just the same where Malaya or Singapore is concerned. Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has a right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality." Now these persons, were they given the chance or have they ever applied to change their nationality? No. Let us take their cases, Sir, one by one, or I will quote one instance, the case of Wong Yih Ching. I am told that he was born in Segamat, Johore, in 1932. I also understand that his father is now a registered Federation citizen. This shows beyond doubt, Sir, that the loyalty of the father and the son is with Malaya and nowhere else, not with a foreign country. His relatives, I am told again, were also educated in Malaya and none of his relatives had ever left the shores of Malaya. I understand also that he was a registered voter and voted in the last Legislative Assembly elections in 1955. He might have cast his vote to put the Labour Front into power, or to put any one of us here today. If it were not for that vote, one of us might not be here today. Now, what did he get in return for casting his vote for us to be here? The return that we offered him is to send him to China, a foreign country. It is really curious, Sir, that this man, although born in Malaya and detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and not under the Banishment Ordinance, is being banished. The persons mentioned in my motion were arrested under the P.P.S.O., they were not detained under the Banishment Ordinance, and although they were born in Malaya, they were banished. I cannot understand the acts of the Government. But some persons who were born in China and were actually detained under the Banishment Ordinance are free to move about in this country. This is the type of discrimination I cannot understand. So much has been talked this morning about Dr Chuang; so much has been talked about Linda Chen; are not these two China-born persons? Were not these two persons arrested under the Banishment Ordinance? In spite of the fact that they were born in China and detained under the Banishment Ordinance, they are set free without an explanation from the Government. But these seven persons, born, bred and educated in Malaya, are banished, though they were detained at that time under the P.P.S.O. and not under the Banishment Ordinance. I remember, Sir, at one time when a Member of this House tabled questions on the Banishment Orders in respect of those persons born in China (not these seven persons), the then Acting Chief Secretary replied that those persons were detained and would be banished after very, very careful consideration. I am referring to those persons who were born in China, that is, Dr Chuang and Linda Chen. Now, after the decision has been taken with very, very careful consideration, the Government can revoke the Banishment Orders in respect of these persons. I cannot understand this. However, I am happy that these persons are now set free, because at that time when they were detained, I was in full sympathy with them too. So I am very happy that they are now free, as a result of the sympathy, I suppose, of the Chief Minister. Just compare the vast difference between these two instances - born in Malaya, detained under the P.P.S.O. but banished to China; born in China detained under the Banishment Ordinance, but are free in Singapore. What a vast difference! These persons have no relatives, no brothers, no sisters, nor anyone in China, and China is a foreign place to them. They were never educated nor ever went to Formosa; now when they are sent to a foreign country, how can we expect them to exist? I cannot understand. Sir, both the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance and the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya confer citizenship rights on these persons. They ought to have been allowed to register themselves either as Federal citizens or Singapore citizens; but just because they were detained, they have been deprived of the right to register themselves as citizens of either territory. Article 16 of the Federation Constitution provides citizenship by registration of persons born in the Federation of Malaya after Merdeka Day. Therefore, Sir, under this article, these seven persons should have been entitled and given the privilege to register themselves as Federal citizens. According to that Constitution the only qualifications required are: (1) that a person intends to stay permanently in Malaya; (2) he must be of good character; and (3) he must have an elementary knowledge of Malay. These seven persons, to my knowledge, do have all these qualifications and should be entitled to the protection provided for under this article. The Chief Minister rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of information, Sir.

If the Member will give way.

Yes, Sir.

Sir, the hon. Member is misled. May I ask him whether he really means that he knows that they are of good character, in his own opinion?

According to the Citizenship Ordinance itself, I cannot find the definition of the words "good character". As far as that Ordinance is concerned, the word "character" appears only on Forms (A) and (B) with a small footnote. So the expression "good character" as defined there is not clearly understood. Secondly, a man who has not been imprisoned should be deemed to be of "good character". Unless he has been sent to gaol for more than twelve months - I believe that is the interpretation - then only can we deem such person to be not of good character. That is why I say, Sir, in the absence of any conviction of any of these persons, they should be deemed to be of good character. How could you classify them as of "bad character" when they were never convicted? I hope that the Chief Minister will agree with the interpretation of this expression "good character". Had it not been for their detention, Sir, I am sure that they would have got themselves registered either as Federal citizens or Singapore citizens; and even then, if they are released from detention, they are still entitled to register themselves as Federal citizens. This fact was confirmed in a statement given to the Press on the 3rd of September, 1958, by a spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs. It appeared in the Singapore Standard of 3rd September. 1958, and this is what appeared therein: "Kuala Lumpur, Tuesday - A person who is eligible for Federal citizenship is not disqualified from applying for it even if he is detained in Singapore for political reasons. He can still be considered to be of good character." This was stated by the spokesman - "he can still be considered to be of good character" although he was or he can be detained in Singapore for political reasons - that is what is meant by "good character". "This was disclosed to The Standard by the Ministry for External Affairs spokesman, Inche Zaiton Ibrahim, and the Senior Registration Officer, Mr J. R. G. Jenkins, today. In the Constitution, a person is considered not to be of good character if he has been sentenced to death or imprisoned for 12 months or more for a criminal offence within three years immediately proceeding his application. If his application succeeds, then he can at any time return to the Federation without any hindrance. The Federation cannot deny him his right to return, said Inche Zaiton." Just as the Chief Minister was referring to Mr Lim Kean Chye - he is a Singapore citizen, be was born in Singapore, and you cannot deny him the right to return. Persons eligible for citizenship can apply from anywhere - The Chief Minister rose -

Point of order?

A point of correction, Sir.

All right, go ahead!

Mr Lirn Kean Chye was not born in Singapore.

Sir, if I am correct, it was the Chief Minister himself who said that Mr Lim Kean Chye could not be denied the right to return because he was born or he is a British subject and you cannot deny him the right to enter; but whatever happens to him after his entry, it is left to be seen, he cannot say yes or no. Persons eligible for citizenship call apply from anywhere outside the Federation, as Mr Jenkins said. "From anywhere" means even from outside Singapore or the Federation of Malaya. They can apply for registration as citizens.

Order. I understood the hon. Member to say that he was quoting from a newspaper. I do not think that that document he is reading from looks like a newspaper.

Well, Sir, this is an extract from the Singapore Standard.

Order. Then I might inform the hon. Member that if a quotation is to be made from a newspaper, that newspaper ought to be produced.

I beg your pardon, Sir. I will bear that in mind in future, and I will produce the paper concerned, if I do quote from it. Sir, is this act of the Government not of oppression? Is this not cruelty, by sending people away to a foreign country? We have legislation in Singapore, Sir, to punish persons who are cruel to animals and poultry, including fowls. When a fowl is carried in a cruel way, Government punishes the wrongdoer. Yet it is the Government which is the wrongdoer, because it commits the extreme cruelty by deporting these seven persons by separating them from their children, their brothers, their sisters, their wives, or whatever relatives they may have. So is this not a cruel thing to do? Is there no law whereby we can protect these persons? If we can have a law to protect cruelty to animals, why then cannot we have a law to protect cruelty to human beings? Are human beings worse than animals? Let us put it that way. Sir, in this Assembly we have never passed any law or rule to prevent a detainee from being registered as a citizen of Singapore. I cannot remember that. So then why should Government misuse or twist a phrase of the law and thus bring it into disrepute? Should democracy be exercised in favour of only the very few rich and self-centred politicians? Justice must be done to one and all, and not only to a very few elected politicians or high-class people. Unless detainees can be tried in the courts of law, why disregard the law and deny them this legal right? Now, take the case of Lim Inn Ping. He was, I understand, a former President of the Singapore Taxi Drivers' Union. He was born in 1923 in Yong Peng, Johore, which is very close to Singapore. He was educated in Malaya, and was also a voter in the Singapore Legislative Assembly elections in 1955. Surprisingly, Sir, in the last Cairnhill by-election he was a proposer of a candidate who contested that ward for the by-election. If he is a man of bad character, if he is a subversive element, why was he allowed to be a proposer of a candidate to contest the by-election in Cairnhill? It is rather unfortunate that that candidate is not successful, so we have a new Member for Cairnhill sitting with us here. Had that candidate been the Member for Cairnhill today and sitting with us in this Assembly, I am sure that I can receive one more vote. Inn Ping is married and has a wife in Singapore also. This man has no relatives, as I have emphasised again and again, in China and why should he be banished then? The same applies to the others mentioned in my motion. Many of them, I believe, were also voters in the last Legislative Assembly elections. Had it not been for their votes, as I say, the Labour Front may not have come into power, or some of us may not have been here. But I think that the votes went to the P.A.P., that is, for the Members for Tanjong Pagar, Sembawang and Ponggol-Tampines. These people are more inclined to the P.A.P. than anybody else. All this, Sir, is quite clear to us now that the Government's action to deport them to China is very, very high-handed. It is also dictatorial and a gross abuse of human rights. Therefore, I appeal to Members to support my motion though I doubt I can have the support of the whole House. Maybe I will have the support of two or three Members. We must, therefore, then strongly deplore and condemn the undemocratic attitude and the high-handed action of the Government to banish these seven persons to China against their will. We must also ask Government to revoke this decision and bring back these persons to their place of birth, which is Malaya. Unless that is done, Sir, their parents, their wives, or brothers and sisters, would never be happy, as the Chief Minister said this morning. He has sympathy, he is human and he knows the grievances of these persons. So if he does really feel sorry for these persons and know what sorrow is, I think he should with all his power revoked the decision and bring them back. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later stage. Question proposed. 4.57 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have difficulty in containing myself within parliamentary language. I listened with dismay to some of the remarks made from the Opposition earlier this morning when we debated the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. I nearly rose then. I must quote what the hon. Member for Queenstown repeatedly used, words such as "inhuman", "contempt for human rights" and "cruel, brutal, merciless", and so forth. It is the function of a government to maintain internal peace and to secure the lives of citizens from those who illegally use force. This House has fully assented to that view as regards secret society gangsters. Everyone recognizes the need for that, or nearly everybody recognizes the need for that, except some gangsters. Everybody who seriously looks at the facts of the situation knows perfectly well that secret society gangsters' use of violence is of less importance than the Communist use of violence. I happened just now, Mr Speaker, Sir, to be in the Library and read the latest copy of the "New Statesman". I cannot produce it unless you wish me to. But I have made a note of the figures quoted therein. The Acting Prime Minister of the Federation is quoted as giving the following figures of people killed, wounded and missing in the course of the Emergency in the Federation: 3,674 Malays 14,213 Chinese 765 Indians 349 Europeans and 240 Aborigines These are men, women and children, in many cases members of families with their relatives, and these are people whose relatives are suffering; not suffering by seeing somebody sent overseas, but seeing them wounded or murdered; seeing their bodies brought home and having to do without them forever afterwards, and to know that they died in a cruel and horrible war. The hon. Member asked, "Are human beings worse than animals?" The answer is definitely yes in some cases. Animals have not killed 19,000 human beings in Malaya. It is human beings who have killed 19,000 human beings, and will continue to do it unless the forces of law and order use the necessary courage in facing this unhappy aspect of society. It is difficult to contain one's impatience with people who, for purposes best known to themselves, get up and put up an inaccurate and ill-prepared case and mix it up with words which ought not to be used in this connection - inhuman cruelty and phrases of that sort. The inhuman cruelty lies on the other side of the fence, and it is against that inhuman cruelty that the Government must act with strength to protect the harmless and innocent citizens of this country. 5.01 p.m.

Sir, before I come to the motion itself, I would like just to clear up one or two points of fact arising out of the speech of the hon. Member for Queenstown. In the first place, Mr Lim Kean Chye is a British subject born in Malaya, and under our immigration legislation he has the right of entry to Singapore. The second point, Sir, is that the hon. Member referred to one of the persons mentioned in his motion as being married, and he then went on to say that the same thing applied to all the others. In fact, all the other six persons mentioned in his motion are single persons with no dependants. I should now like to return to the terms of the motion itself. The motion, Sir, seems to me to be rather an inept attempt by the use of confusing language to try and imply that the law in this matter is something different from what it is. The Member for Queenstown is fully aware that if the persons whose cause he is pleading had any claim arising from their birth in the Federation of Malaya, that claim could only rest against the Government of the Federation. What is crystal clear is that they are not British subjects, nor are they Singapore citizens and can have no conceivable claim on that ground to a right of residence in Singapore. Nevertheless, he seeks by the use of some loose phraseology, associating the Federation of Malaya and Singapore together, to imply not only that birth in the Federation in some way confers rights in Singapore, but also that the Singapore Government is under an obligation to accept greater responsibilities on behalf of these persons than the Federation Government is itself prepared to accept. Looking, Sir, at the operative terms of this motion - "these persons were born, bred and educated in Malaya, which term in law means the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, thereby, depriving the aforesaid natural born, persons of Malaya of their inalienable rights of citizenship, whether of Singapore or of the Federation of Malaya" - that phraseology will bear a little analysis. "Malaya, which term in law means the Federation of Malaya and Singapore". Certainly, Sir, the term "Malaya" is used as a convenient geographical description for the Malay Peninsula, including Singapore, but by what conceivable authority does the hon. Member claim that the use of this geographical expression in itself can create any rights or obligations? The word "Assembly" is a term in law used to embrace all the Members in this House, both Members on the Government Bench and Members on the Opposition Bench - not forgetting yourself, Mr Speaker - but it would be equally logical to claim that the use of the word "Assembly" created and imposed an obligation on the Members of the opposite side of the House to vote for the Government. No, Sir, the fact is that this term is a descriptive, geographical term, whether it be Malaya or the Malayan Archipelago, South-East Asia or anything else, and in itself it can create no rights and impose no obligations. Going on a little further, Sir, with the terms of this motion - "thereby depriving the aforesaid natural-born persons of Malaya of their inalienable rights of citizenship, whether of Singapore or the Federation of Malaya" - what rights of citizenship does the hon. Member refer to? He must be well aware, or if he is not, his advisers certainly are, that citizenship -

I have no advisers, Sir.

I beg his pardon! - citizenship both in the Federation and in Singapore is defined and governed by law; and in the law - Singapore citizenship law - there is no mention of the word "Malaya". What then does he mean by the words "whether of Singapore or the Federation of Malaya"? Does he mean that they were born on the causeway? If not, is he trying to assert that these persons in fact had Singapore citizenship? If he is, then let him say so. The fact is that he knows perfectly well that he cannot make that assertion. Is he then asserting that these persons had citizenship of the Federation, Federal citizenship? Again he knows quite well that he cannot assert anything of the kind. Then what does he mean by this term, "inalienable rights of citizenship, whether of Singapore or of the Federation of Malaya"? I suggest, Sir, that it is just a nice high-sounding phrase which means precisely nothing. What the hon. Member is really getting at and what is behind his motion, I suggest, is the point on which he only touched very briefly, and that is that these persons ought to be recognised by the Federation Government as being eligible and having the right to Federal citizenship. But that is not the way in which he has expressed his motion: firstly, because it would be an attack on the Federation Government, which he probably is reluctant to undertake; and, secondly, Sir, because it would be ruled out of order by yourself; and, thirdly, because he wants to train his guns on the Singapore Government which, as he well knows, has no responsibility for the citizenship laws of the Federation. Moreover, it may interest him to know that the Federation Government was consulted and concurred in these banishments. I suggest, Sir, that the action taken in these cases is legally unassailable and the hon. Member knows it, for all the cloud of verbiage, with which he seeks to surround it. What then, Sir, are the merits? The hon. Member for Queenstown painted a picture of sorrow and hardship with the evident intention of trying to enlist the sympathy of his hearers for these poor unfortunate persons. Here again, Sir, when the embellishments of which he is such a pastmaster have been stripped off the canvas, what in fact are the realities that remain? What have these people done to deserve the sympathy for which he so eloquently appeals? What they have done is to associate themselves with the Communist plot to overthrow democracy in Malaya, which means the Federation of Malaya and Singapore; what they have done is to show their disloyalty to the country of their birth, whether it be the Federation or Singapore. We are asked to contemplate their plight in China, but I suggest, Sir, that that is a country in which they will be able to indulge their activities - Communist activities in which they have been engaged - and a place also where they will be able to see to what those activities lead. In short, Sir, I suggest to this House that neither in law nor in equity does this motion carry any substance. On the contrary, in this as in other measures to combat the ever-present threat of subversion, the Government has done no more and no less than its duty by the people of this island. 5.11 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must tell the Member for Queenstown that I view with grave concern, and am profoundly disturbed by his action in having so foolishly and tactlessly condemned the Federation citizenship laws. When I look at this motion, Sir, I am quite sure that those of us who have had the pleasure of knowing the Member for Queenstown will know that he was not responsible for such imprecise language.

On a point of order, Sir. Is that an inference from the Member for Tanjong Pagar?

Order. I just want a little more information from the Member for Queenstown. What does he mean by "inference"?

I would like the Member for Tanjong Pagar to repeat that - that it is not mine but it is someone else's. Is that his inference?

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I wanted to convey was that we all have such a high opinion of the Member for Queenstown, that we find it difficult to believe that he could be responsible for this atrocity!

Then, having heard both sides to the question, I must rule that this is not a point of order, because I cannot find anything offensive about the remark of the Member for Tanjong Pagar.

I am much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir, for your ruling on the point. What I was going to say was that I have searched diligently through all the laws in which the word "Malaya" means the Federation of Malaya and Singapore. I thought that somehow or the other I must have missed some of them, and that he, doubtless having better legal advisers than the People's Action Party - Mr Lee Choon Eng rose -

Is it a point of order?

On a point of information, Sir. I have emphasised again and again that I have no advisers with me and I cannot afford to pay any adviser.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry to see that he is so determined to disavow the wrong advice he has received. However, I then came across the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya which, for his easy reference, is in the Library of this Assembly - R. 342.

595. It seems that these people were born in Malaya; and according to this bit of legalese in the motion: "depriving the aforesaid natural born persons of Malaya of their inalienable rights of citizenship". I went diligently through this Constitution and came across Article 16. The marginal note reads: "Citizenship by registration (persons born in the Federation before Merdeka Day)." Sir, we have not been given the ages of these six persons, but I presume that they must have been born before Merdeka Day. I would therefore like to read to the House what Article 16 says: "Subject to Article 18, any person of or over the age of eighteen years who was born in the Federation before Merdeka Day is entitled, upon making application to the registration authority, to be registered as a citizen if he satisfies that authority -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed not surprised to see this motion introduced in this House by the Member for Queenstown. It is a motion which shows disregard of the facts and a lamentable ignorance of the law of citizenship which was passed by this House last year. The Government does not deny that it had knowledge that certain banishees had claimed birth in the Federation. But I do not admit, and neither does the Singapore citizenship law concede, that persons born in the Federation of Malaya possess in-alienable rights. Sir, it has been pointed out by the Chief Secretary that before banishment proceedings were taken against these persons, so honourably named by the Member for Queenstown in his motion, the Federation Government was consulted and the Federation Government agreed that banishment proceedings should be taken. Sir, the hon. Member for Queenstown asked me so many questions and would have this House believe that he is the champion of the poor people who were banished and those who were left behind - the relatives of those banished. I do not think, Sir, that the hon. Member can honestly say that these "near relatives", as he called them - perhaps he was just reading a letter signed "near relatives" because it did not mention any names - that these near relatives did not go to his house time and again to beseech him to help. Sir, I had to meet all these people who came to the office by their numbers without appointment. They came to the Labour Ministry without appointment. They came to my house at all hours of the day and night. In fact, they cried; they wailed; they mourned; so much so that at times passers-by along Sims Avenue thought there must have been a bereavement in my family. I had to bear all that - not the hon. Member for Queenstown. To say that I cried is not it. To say that I found it difficult to sleep at night because I had to do this is still not it. I went through hell. I literally went through that until I was sick; but because I know that I have a duty to per- form to the people of Singapore, I did not shirk my duty. The security of Singapore should come first, and not Lim Yew Hock, the Labour Front, or the Labour Front Coalition Government. Sir, we have in this Assembly heard too many times and much too often criticisms from some Members of the Opposition who are so irresponsible in their utterances that I begin to believe that they do not understand their responsibilities to their electorate and to the country. I am indeed surprised to see in the motion that only seven names were mentioned, six of whom were represented by one legal adviser. May I tell him, if he feels that it would make his case stronger, that there were ten banishees who were born in the Federation of Malaya and who were banished not so long ago, and that despite his accusations and irresponsible utterances hurled at us, we will not be deterred? If the security of Singapore is at stake and if it is necessary that people born in the Federation have to be banished because of their subversive activities, this Government will not shirk its duty. 5.26 p.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply I will first deal with the Minister for Communications and Works. He tells us that the function of a government is to maintain peace, and those who illegally use force will have to be punished. I can agree with him. Those who go against the laws of the Government must be punished. The Minister then quotes figures of the number of persons killed - Malays, Chinese, Eurasians and Europeans. Sir, my motion in fact does not say that they should not be detained or arrested or anything. It is concerned with the way in which the persons mentioned therein were deported. They were born in Malaya and they were deported to a foreign country, China. My motion does not say that the Government should not punish such persons. If anybody transgresses the laws of the Government, it is right that the Government should punish such a wrongdoer by law. Coming to the Chief Secretary, Sir, he, in conjunction with the Member for Tanjong Pagar, tries to interpret the term "Malaya" in law. I have no legal background and I am not a lawyer. I bow to both of them who have gone through a period of legal training. I got my interpretation of the term "Malaya", which means the Federation of Malaya and Singapore, from the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Chapter 2). As I have no legal background, I am not prepared to argue this with them, who have. Whether the interpretation of the term is what it says in the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, that is up to the Government to say so. As a layman, I interpret the definition as I read it. The Member for Tanjong Pagar says that there were about 70 banishees and it is rather surprising that my motion only mentions 7 names. The Chief Minister also says that it is rather surprising that I am only interested in these 7 persons. In my opening speech I emphasised that I tabled this motion because the near relatives of these 7 persons approached me and, as a man serving the public, if representations are made to me, it is my duty, if I feel it is right, to represent their cases to this Assembly. If all the 70 persons had approached me, I would have done the same thing, if my conscience says it is right to do so. So it is not a case of 7 or 70 persons at all. The Chief Minister mentions that six of these persons were represented by a lawyer. Well, that is no concern of mine. What I am concerned is this: if anybody approaches me to represent his case to this Assembly and if I am convinced that it is in the interests of the public, I will do it. The Member for Tanjong Pagar says that these people were sent to the Federation. With due respect to his legal qualifications and background, I wonder why he terms it that they were deported or sent to the Federation. They were deported to China via the Federation. I think that is the correct term, rather than that they were deported to the Federation. If they were deported to the Federation, then, as the Chief Minister says that he had consulted the Federation Government, it was up to the Federation Government to decide whether they were prepared to accept them or not. Deporting a person straight to China via a number of countries through which this person has to pass does not necessarily mean that he is deported to all these countries. I am quite sure that the boat which brought these persons mentioned in the motion to China did not call at a Federation port only. If the interpretation of the Member for Tanjong Pagar is correct - that these persons were deported to the Federation - then I would say that they were not only deported to the Federation but deported also to the many countries at which the boat carrying them would call. It is rather surprising that, as a legal man, the Member for Tanjong Pagar has to use the words that I have used in my motion, and that is, "I express my grave concern and am profoundly disturbed by the action of the Member for Queenstown". He has been in this Assembly for quite a long time, and if he really feels gravely concerned and disturbed by my actions, I would invite him to table a motion of this nature to the Assembly, rather than use the words of my motion and attack me. He has every right to move such a motion as a Member of this Assembly. I will leave that to him. He knows better. Question put.

Division, Sir, The House divided: Ayes, 3; Noes, 23; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 6. Ayes. Noes. Lazarous, A. R. Abdul Hamid bin Lee Choon Eng. Haji Jumat. Seah Peng Chuan. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Braga, A. J. Chew Swee Kee. David, E. B. Ede, John. Abstention Goh Chew Chua. Jumabhoy, J. M. Nil. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Choon Mong. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Yew Hock. Mak Pak Shee. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Absent Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Goh Tong Liang. Oon Khye Kiang. Jumabhoy, R. Shanks, E. P. Lim Cher Kheng. Soh Ghee Soon. Lim Ching Siong. Tan Theng Chiang. Mason, J. M. Tan, William. Tan Siak Kew. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam. Motion accordingly negatived.

5.36 p.m.

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

Sir, I second it. Question proposed.

5.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was really following the report in the papers that the Singapore Government had decided to put a ban on Chinese textiles. So naturally I filed the motion but now I understand from the Minister concerned that there is no ban on Chinese textiles. In that case, Sir, I think there is no use of my going on with the motion. I therefore beg leave of the Assembly to withdraw the motion.

The hon. Member, of course, has not filed a motion at all. He has gained the right to speak on the Adjournment and I gather that he does not now wish to do so.

That is so, Sir.

Thank you.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes to Six o'clock p.m. to 5th November, 1958.

Wednesday, 8th October, 1958

asked the Financial Secretary how many persons had assessable incomes of (i) $30,000 to $40,000, and (ii) $40,000 to $50,000 per year in each of the years from 1955 to 1957; and whether the incomes of such persons were derived without keeping any establishment for earning them.

It is regretted that the information required is not available in the precise form in which it is sought. It would involve considerable expense of time and labour to go through the records to obtain such information. However, in respect of the period in question, the following number of taxpayers had assessable incomes between $30,000 and $50,000 per year:- Year of Assessment Taxpayers 1955 763 1956 916 1957 865 The information relating to the years of assessment 1955 and 1956 covers assessments issued up to the end of the year following the year of assessment, but that for the year of assessment 1957 covers assessments issued up to 31st March, 1958 only. It is assumed that the second part of the question refers to income of taxpayers, which was derived solely from rents, dividends, etc, and who did not carry on any employment, trade or profession in Singapore. Such information is not available and it is not possible to furnish it without having to go through the records of each individual taxpayer.

asked the Financial Secretary to state the sums of money spent on entertainments by the Government, the Chief Minister, and each of the Ministers and Assistant Ministers from 1st May, 1955, to 30th June, 1958, the dates and for whom the entertainments were provided.

It is considered not proper to give the information in the form asked for. It is therefore regretted that such information cannot be supplied.