Hansard, 1958-12-04

10.01 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek this opportunity to clarify certain points made by the Member for Changi in his adjournment speech yesterday on trade with China. I am in complete agreement with the hon. Member that the separation of the Federation and Singapore is artificial and that we are one economic unit and must ultimately merge. I therefore cannot reconcile this with his desire that we ignore the request of the Federation in this matter of temporarily assisting one of its new industries. He questioned whether it is more important to us to keep a Federation factory running than our trade with China. My statement yesterday morning expressed clearly why a temporary ban on certain textiles from China only was considered necessary in the interest of the Malayan economy as a whole. Whether the particular industry in the Federation in this case merits this protection is a question which I suggest the Federation Government is more competent to judge than the Member for Changi is. It is to be deplored that the hon. Member seeks to confuse a purely domestic economic action by dragging in extraneous issues such as the Federation's proposed action against the Bank of China or cold wars between the East and the West, and even by the absurd suggestion that we are trying to assist Japanese industry. All actions on matters pertaining to our economy are taken solely with our own economic advantage in mind -

Not Singapore.

- and not confused with extraneous issues that the hon. Member has absurdly suggested. The hon. Member contended that exports to China have gone up by 600 per cent since 1954. The reason, of course, is because the embargo on exports of rubber was lifted in 1956. However, the hon. Member's conclusions drawn from figures quoted by him are rather confused. Percentages are very good indeed for comparative purposes, but in the final analysis, it is the actual amount that counts for evaluating trading balances. I therefore quote the Singapore/China trade figures: 1954 Imports $68 million Exports $14 " ----- Deficit $54 million ----- 1957 Imports $123.7 million Exports $ 45.7 " ------ Deficit $ 78 million ------ It will be clearly seen therefore that our trading deficit with China has increased by $24 million as compared between 1954 and 1957 - that though our exports increased by $31.7 million, our imports increased by $55.7 million. These are hard facts that cannot be denied and the hon. Member would do well to study the facts and causes before launching into emotionalism. Sir, I wish to reiterate what I said yesterday, and that is that the Singapore Government has no intention or wish to hamper trade between China and Singapore but that it has got to give its first attention to the Malayan economy as a whole. Perhaps I might as well, with your permission, Sir, quote my reply to the Member for Kampong Kapor (Mr Seah Peng Chuan) which was sent the day before yesterday when he asked me whether the Government would consider lifting the ban on the import of certain Chinese textiles. The reply, Sir, I gave to the hon. Member was dated 2nd December, before the Member for Changi made his emotional speech yesterday, and I quote: "It will be recalled that when the Federation requested our co-operation in this matter, it was for a period of three months pending the finalisation of the Federation's anti-dumping law to protect its industries. It was on this basis that the Singapore Government agreed to the Federation's request. The Singapore Government will therefore review this suspension at the end of the year in the light of the circumstances then existing and the progress of the Federation's anti-dumping legislation. Meanwhile, import licences which have been issued up to the date of the ban are confirmed without hindrance on proof of commitment before the ban." I hope, Sir, that this statement will help to clarify the issues. 10.06 a.m.

Sir, I just want to ask the Minister for Commerce and Industry one question. As regards my speech yesterday, I admit that the figures are not in our favour, but what I want to point out is that the goods we import from China are mostly foodstuffs and Chinese medicinal herbs, and if we are forced to import these foodstuffs from other territories, can the Minister answer whether that will be in our favour or not? Can we get much cheaper foodstuffs from sources other than China? Can he also assure us that we can get Chinese medicinal herbs from places other than China?

Sir, the hon. Member has forgotten one thing, and that is the reported ban on exports from China to Singapore is not of our making. Secondly, we have no official intimation of such a ban. Thirdly, according to Press reports, these goods can be available if payment is made in cash in Hongkong. Fourthly, according to this morning's Press reports which probably will come out in the afternoon papers, it is likely that this reported ban on exports from China - of which I have had no official information - may be lifted shortly. However, on the point he made about the effect it might have on us, I made that very clear in my statement yesterday, and that is: "The suspension of export of certain preserves, salted vegetables and fruits could create some difficulty in supplies for those who prefer these articles but it is unlikely to have any significant effect on the cost of living as a whole. It might perhaps be beneficial by switching the taste preference of consumers to similar locally produced articles."

Order read for resumption of adjourned debate on Question - [3rd December]: "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 10.08 a.m.

The Member for Changi was interrupted yesterday. I do not know whether he wishes to continue with his speech. He need not do so, of course, if he does not wish to.

Sir, I prefer to continue with my speech. Yesterday. I pointed out that it was high time for us to consider the important question of merger. If we believe that merger is the ultimate goal of both territories, then at least we should expect some sort of reaction from the other side; but up till now, Sir, our relations with the opposite side of the Johore Straits are very, very cold. Our energetic Minister for Commerce and Industry once again wants to boost up industrialisation in this country. Of course, in principle as I said yesterday. I wholly support the Bill but we must face reality. I do not think that tax holidays for five years or even ten years will be sufficient to attract any investor to invest his money in this country except wealthy political refugees. I do not think that any genuine businessman or industrialist will have the determination to dump his money in this country to create new industries. So, I admit that I am quite pessimistic with regard to this Bill, unless this Government can assure us that the Federation Government has something in the nature of a long-term Pan-Malayan economic development plan or something like that; otherwise this Bill will be a farce in the eyes of the public, because many industrialists in Singapore have had to shut down their businesses during the last few years We cannot merely say that this was a result of the labour unrest. What about the imposition of tariffs at the Johore Causeway? If British-made goods can enjoy preferential tariff treatment, I cannot see why Singapore-made goods cannot enjoy similar treatment. I am sure that the Minister for Commerce and Industry has received numerous representations on this matter. Sir, I wish to conclude by saying that unless this Government can assure us that the Federation Government has already agreed to have a Pan-Malayan industrial development plan, then he should stop fooling himself and the people if he thinks that industrialisation in Singapore can be a reality. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

In reply?

In reply, since no other Member wants to speak on this Bill. This is certainly, Sir, a contrast to the anxiety shown by everybody yesterday in wanting to speak on the Nanyang University Bill, perhaps because of the reason put forward by the Member for Tanjong Pagar - for vote-catching purposes! An important Bill like this, Sir, and so few speakers in this House! Sir, the Member for Tiong Bahru cited the City Council requiring 50 per cent of the cost in advance to lay electric cables and its effect on industrial expansion. I admit, Sir, that this might have adverse effects on industrial expansion, but beyond the statutory powers that the Government has over the City Council, the City Council is a fully elected body and it has as much right to carry out its own policies as the Government has. Therefore, the Government cannot counter the City Council's actions. If there is a bad repercussion as a result of the City Council's actions, then it is up to the people to recognise it and throw the lot out at the next elections, if they wish to; but so long as the City Council acts as an elected body, the Government cannot do anything about it. That is the proper and democratic parliamentary system. Therefore, it is no use blaming the Minister or the Government for what it has done or pointing out that the City Council is taking this or that action. The Member for Changi, Sir, has been emotional in the last two days. First, he launches into a tirade against me about the trade with China. Then he goes on to talk about the Federation. In fact, what he says is that the Singapore Government must ram down the throat of the Federation Government the fact that it has got to accept that Malaya and Singapore are one economic unit. Sir, short of going to war with the Federation, I do not see how the hon. Member or any Government in Singapore can do that. But what this Government is doing - this is what the hon. Member does not like, and he made it very clear yesterday - is trying to co-operate with the Federation. Co-operation begets co-operation and then -

Kow tow!

Order.

That is quite clear, Sir. The Member wants us to go to war with the Federation, and we are not prepared to do that because we are thinking of the future of Singapore, and not a short-term policy as thought of by the hon. Member. We are democrats who try to get co-operation. I feel that if persons like the hon. Member will not put oil on fire by bursting into emotionalism, we have a good chance of making the Federation realise that it is in their own interests to co-operate with us on economic matters. However, it is issues which the hon. Member raises and the manner in which he raises them that are really causing the friction.

How long?

Sir, beyond those two points, there are no real points made by any Opposition Member. I was rather sorely touched by one or two points made by the hon. Member for Changi yesterday when he was talking about trade with China. He referred to industry and touched on the Minister's announcement of protection policy. What has he done? He has been banging the table, and saying that we have trade on the one hand and industrial expansion on the other, and how do we reconcile the two? And he said this morning that the Minister should not fool himself and fool the people. I would like, Sir, to give the diary of events after my statement on 13th August to this House on the protection policy. On 21st August, at a Press conference, I announced the terms of reference of the Protection Advisory Committee - that was seven days after - and by the end of August I had announced the names of the Protection Advisory Committee Members, and that is very fast indeed. On 27th September we had the forms ready. Before that, Singapore had never thought of protection. Therefore everything had to start from scratch. Believe me, my officers, both past and present, have been working till very late at night to get things done. As I said, the forms were ready and they were issued to those interested and who wished to apply for protection. Just before I left for the United States to attend the Colombo Plan Conference, we had received eight applications. Some of them we consider are rather frivolous, as they have not given sufficient data; but there are three that we consider merit consideration and they have been given immediate consideration. Hon. Members must realise that in a democratic system where there are Committees and so on, things have got to take their course. At times I do feel frustrated myself at the slowness of events, but if you are not going to have a dictatorial regime - where the Minister orders "so it shall be done" and it is done - we have got to go through all the procedures, even though they may be frustrating; and therefore it takes time, - things have got to be evaluated in their proper light, Sir. Every application has to be judged in its proper light. Sir, one other comment which was made and which touched me rather sorely was why I am bringing up all this legislation at this late hour when this Government's life is about to expire. Sir, it is because I feel that there is no time to be lost. Economically, Sir, we are going downhill rather slowly now, but that slow movement downhill can develop into a much faster rolling down and it could end in economic disaster for us. I am not a scaremonger, Sir, but I see the position clearly. In fact, it is now generally acknowledged that our entrepot trade cannot support our growing population. It was I, Sir, who in this very House in 1956 first stated this fact that "there are people who cannot see the writing on the wall" - that "our entrepot trade cannot support us". At that time, Sir, I was accused of adopting an alarmist attitude, but now I challenge anyone, Sir, to say that I was wrong. Our trading deficits are getting bigger; unemployment is increasing, because the trade level is falling off, and also because of the increasing population. Our trade depends on the economic and political policies of other countries and the experience I have gathered from my going to conferences and meeting various political leaders and commercial leaders of other countries - even though the Member for Telok Ayer might say it is all a waste of time for Ministers to go to conferences, even though other countries do send Ministers to such conferences - it does give me an insight into the ways of thinking of the countries with which we have got to trade. That is very important, and I would suggest to the next Minister for Commerce and Industry, whoever he may be, that it is very important for him to go out and meet leaders of other countries with whom we are trading and to evaluate their economic position, their policies and so on. Sir, from my experiences gathered at such meetings and mixing with other leaders, I cannot foresee a brighter future for our entrepot trade than it is now. Every country is naturally out to do what is best for itself. It is a cold, hard, competitive world and we must wake up to this fact and fight to survive. There is not a moment to lose in this fight. Sir, if you will only realise the long hours we work behind the inscrutable walls of Fullerton Building, or even in Empress Place, to keep this fight going; how the other Ministers give me their full support by attending meetings at odd hours and perusing lengthy papers during holidays - all to keep this fight going. And even the Attorney-General, Sir, has been overtaxed in preparing all this complicated and controversial legislation - I must take my hat off to him, Sir. And why? Does anyone like to work late at night and on holidays, when he can go to Changi beach and swim? It is because we recognize the responsibility that we have to carry on this fight. Sir, as long as I am the Minister for Commerce and Industry, I am determined that this fight shall go on. This legislation may perhaps be too late for me to make effective use of during my present term of office, but it shall be ready to enable me to continue this fight if I am returned to the same office of Minister for Commerce and Industry next year. If another person occupies that office, his task will be made much easier because the legislation will be there for him to make use of if he wishes to. If he does not, it can lie dormant. It is harmless. Sir, I do not believe in letting things slide. I have been a businessman and I know that you have to push things along to get anywhere in this world, but it is not so in politics, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar would suggest, Sir. There are politicians and parties who take a defeatist attitude. Their only answer to all this is "merger with the Federation and until that merger takes place, it is futile to do anything". I do not take that attitude. I recognize that merger with the Federation is the answer to our problems. Sir, at the same time I do not believe in letting things slide and taking a defeatist attitude. I believe in doing something in the meantime; and all this legislation is for that purpose. The fight to survive must continue to prevent our tumbling down. Defeatism is not good for anyone. Therefore, Sir, I hope hon. Members will give me their full support whenever I bring up this sort of legislation to this House. In fact, there are some more measures coming up to this House which I, the Attorney-General, and my colleagues are trying to rush through as quickly as possible. Perhaps we may not make use of them. If some other Minister occupies my office, he may make use of them. But I love Singapore, Sir - it is my home - and I say that anything done for the good of Singapore is good for me.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Committee Wednesday, 14th January, 1959.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.26 a.m.

Sir, I do not have much to say on this Bill since it is just a consequential Bill to what has gone before on the Order Paper. I have, Sir, His Excellency the Governor's consent to proceed with this Bill, and I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The object of this Bill, which can be regarded as being complementary to the Pioneer Industries (Relief from Income Tax) Bill, is to encourage and stimulate the expansion of existing industries in Singapore by means of the grant of special allowances for income tax purposes for a period of five years in respect of new capital expenditure incurred by an industry for expansion purposes. Only approved enterprises manufacturing approved products are entitled to such tax concessions. Where the Minister for Commerce and Industry is satisfied that the increased manufacture of a product would be to the economic benefit of Singapore and generally in the public interest, he may declare by order that such a product is an approved product. Before making such an order, however, full account will be taken of all relevant considerations, including the existing capacity for manufacture in relation to the demand, and whether increased manufacture would utilise raw materials or skills available in Singapore. The criteria to be applied for approved enterprise status to be accorded to a firm which intends to manufacture an approved product will be that it will incur new capital expenditure of not less than $10,000; it is adequately financed; it has adequate trained personnel in its employ or is able to obtain the services of such personnel; it has access to the necessary technical information; it is able to obtain adequate raw materials, it possesses or will possess the necessary factory; and it will be able substantially to increase its production capacity. The discretion to grant or refuse approved status to a product or enterprise is vested in the Minister for Commerce and Industry. The amount of the special income tax allowances will be in proportion to the new capital expenditure incurred by the approved enterprise during the period of three years from the coming into operation of the Bill. These allowances will be granted in addition to allowances which firms are already eligible to receive under the provisions of sections 16 to 22 of the Income Tax Ordinance. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 10.30 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had no intention to speak at all for the very simple reason that those who now bring up these Bills are not going to remain in or see this House again - and this will happen very soon! Although these Bills will be passed, the new Government will follow its own policy and will replace them, and do whatever they want in the light of their requirements. Therefore, there is no harm in passing these Bills. I could not see the reason for the Minister for Commerce and Industry bringing up my name when I have not talked at all on this, except in connection with travelling abroad. Sir, I have seldom criticised the Ministry of Commerce and Industry all these three and a half years. The reason is obvious. If I have criticised, I have done so because of the deficiency of the Ministry as a whole and I will do so as long as they stay in office. The people will judge what this Ministry has done or what the other Ministries have done. The voters will know that while these people were in office, the people were made to pay higher taxation and higher prices on everything else so as to relieve the economy of the country. 10.34 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I say now can apply to both Bills - the Pioneer Industries Bill and the Industrial Expansion Bill. Sir, the Minister for Commerce and Industry has given us a grim picture of rising unemployment and the difficulties which we shall have to face, and I think all of us must also realise, and in our own hearts must agree, that the picture for Singapore in the coming years is very grim. We all know that our entrepot trade is shrinking, our unemployment figure is rising and, added to that, we have a population of nearly 30,000 every year coming out to look for work. Sir, while I support these Bills and every Bill which is designed to help and encourage industry and trade, I must say this: that the prerequisites for more factories or expansion in factories are peaceful conditions and security and only with these prerequisites can industries thrive and grow. Sir, there must be peace with neighbouring countries, peace in this country, that is, internal security, and peace in industry itself. That last item, Sir, is our biggest problem today - peace in industry. We recognise the dignity of labour. After all, all of us in this country are the children of labourers. I dare to challenge anyone who claims that he was descended from a Mandarin who came to this country. We are not far removed from the labourer. We admire him, and we agree that he should be adequately remunerated for the work he does, and that he and his family should live in reasonable circumstances. But whatever we do in this country, we cannot isolate ourselves from the countries around us. Whatever conditions we have here we have to compare with the conditions prevailing in the countries around us. Whatever wages we get in this country, they must also be related to the regions around us. If in this country there is industrial strife, I am afraid there will be no encouragement for people to put up capital for new industries or to expand existing ones. We in Singapore are in a very precarious position, because we live on trade and we must remain a free port if we are to exist at all. To be a free port, there are very few goods which we can stop from coming into Singapore, otherwise that action will endanger our entrepot trade. We can only do so when there is clear evidence of dumping to upset the economy of the country. Bearing that in mind, I would ask both capital and labour to realise that they must come to an understanding so that goods can be produced at prices competitive with those of goods that are being imported into Singapore. From what I can see, Sir, wishful thinking and Bills and Acts are not going to help us at all. What is going to help us is an understanding between capital and labour for them to meet round the table and work out between themselves how to run an industry and produce goods so that there can be some return for the man who invests his money and an adequate return for the man who produces the goods. 10.40 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Federation Government has had the foresight to introduce a Tax Holiday Bill for their industry in the Federation. After the introduction of the Bill by the Federation Government, the Singapore Government decided to introduce this Bill. I must congratulate the Federation Government, because it is a land of plenty. But the Singapore Government, after looking at and studying the advantages and disadvantages of the Bill introduced in the Federation, decided that we should introduce a similar Bill in Singapore. We all know that Singapore is an island, and that we have no resources whatsoever. No matter how deep we dig, we will only find water. The Government should have introduced this Bill much earlier and not now. It should have been introduced three or four years ago, when the Government first took office, in order to protect the factories and, ultimately, to provide employment for the people of Singapore. Look at the unemployed today, Sir. The figure is mounting higher and higher, and what are we doing about it? I remember some time ago the Rubber Goods Manufacturing Companies appealed to the Minister for Commerce and Industry to prohibit the import of shoes into Singapore because of the dumping of cheaper-priced shoes. The Bata Employees Union also appealed to the Minister to introduce such legislation. But his reply was, "Singapore is a free port and we either live by it or die by it", and he said he was not going to do it. Now we have this policy of protection from income tax. Sir, look at the answer the Minister gave this morning. He was talking about the new ruling of the City Council. He said the City Council is an elected body. What has the Minister done? Has he approached the City Council and pointed out the defects of the new ruling? Sir, any person who wants to build a factory, as I said yesterday, if the cost is $1 million, the City Council wants him to pay 50 per cent. Who will invest money to build a factory if he has to pay this sum, whereas previously he was not asked to pay? We have the case of tariffs also. The Federation Government levy a tariff on all goods manufactured in Singapore crossing the causeway. Shoe factories have closed down here. They have moved to the Federation where they know the Government will protect them and safeguard the manufactured goods. May I ask the Minister for Commerce and Industry how many shoe factories operate in Singapore today? How many of the people working in these shoe factories have been thrown out of work? How many of these families has he visited? Look at those people who crowd around the compounds of these shoe factories! Has he visited their dependants?

Order. We have had trouble, I think, with the loudspeakers, and we will have more trouble if the hon. Member will not modulate his voice.

No, Sir, he has not done that. It is up to him to do so, if he has the interest of the workers at heart. It is no use blaming the City Council or any other body. Why should the Minister waste our time by introducing this Bill in this House? The Minister is always fond of words, words and words. May I remind him that we want action, not words? 10.42 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we in Singapore will have to admit that to a very large extent we are at the mercy of the Federation Government. The Federation Government has thought fit to impose tariffs on certain manufactured goods of Singapore imported into the Federation. These tariffs have caused a certain number of our factories to close down in Singapore and to remove to the Federation. I refer in particular, Sir, to the 20 per cent tariff duty imposed on soap. This has resulted in a terrific loss to the soap manufacturers in Singapore. In addition to this tariff, Sir, the Federation has been able to export its soap into Singapore without tariff. Talking about dumping, Sir, I understand one of the largest soap manufacturers in the Federation of Malaya is also doing some dumping here. For every 10 cases of soap sold, three cases are being given free, to the grave detriment of soap manufacturers in Singapore. Now, Sir, what can we in Singapore do except to appeal to the Federation Government to be merciful, to allow his little brother at the foot of the Federation to be able to earn a living to support its increasing population! We cannot challenge the Federation. We must, therefore, appeal to the Federation, before the merger - if they will allow a merger - to give Singapore a chance to carry on to feed its own population. 10.45 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the air of hysteria, the wild moaning and bewailing of some of the speakers that we heard this morning, are signs that time has run out on this Assembly, and more and more they become anxious for their immediate future. These last two Bills - the Pioneer Industries (Relief from Income Tax) Bill and the Industrial Expansion (Relief from Income Tax) Bill - illustrate one simple point. The Federation Government sets the pace, because that is the body of the Malayan economy, and there is very little of principle for us to debate. For the benefit of the Minister for Commerce and Industry (who is as agitated as all the other speakers this morning) as to why his issues have not aroused public attention and interest, I have this to say. However hard the Minister and all his officials work into the night, businessmen who invest money want to be sure that the conditions proferred them will be honoured. The one thing, which this Government cannot do, is to offer them., guarantees which are acceptable. Whatever the Minister for Commerce and Industry may think about his political future, people with a lot of money to invest have considerable doubts as to the continuity of the policy of the present Government. The one single factor under our control, which will set at rest the uncertainty of those wanting to invest capital, is a firm decisive government with a clear-cut majority, and it is my hope that the next elections will produce such a government. A Government which in four years has not only changed its name and changed its component parts, but has from time to time shown signs of disintegrating, is not one that is likely to inspire confidence anywhere in the world. As for the City Council, let me say this for the benefit of the Minister for Commerce and Industry. He must be aware that the business of the City Council is to run public utilities on an efficient basis. It is not the business of the City Council to subsidise housing estates, business, factories or other undertakings. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

On a point of elucidation?

Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister will have plenty of time to reply. The trouble with the Minister is that very often he cannot contain himself. If he would only contain himself and hear me out to the end, he might save himself the embarrassment of having made a rash statement. Sir, it is the business of the City Council to sell electricity and run the public utilities on an economic basis. If the Government believes that in the interest of economic expansion it should subsidise industry, or should subsidise those who build housing estates, there is nothing to prevent the Minister from taking a large slice of money and paying it to the City Council for the electricity consumed by the interested parties concerned. If he thinks that that is justifiable, let him do so. But the business of the City Council is to sell electricity and run public utilities on an economic and husbandlike basis. Sir, all the Bills, all the attractions, and all the bribes that the Government can hold out are only worth it, if the man for whom they are intended believes that the Government will be there to honour its pledges or its promises. I hope, when we reach the last item on today's Order Paper, we will set at rest the speculations that are taking place as to when we are going to have a new and fresh government; first, with the will to govern; secondly, to govern in the interests of the people; and thirdly, with the drive and ability which this Government has not evinced. 10.50 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have, in fact, spoken quite enough this morning, but after listening to the Member for Tanjong Pagar, to the statement that he made that only a strong government can solve all the problems facing Singapore, I cannot contain myself. Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar forgot what he had repeatedly said - that all problems must wait until the question of a merger with the Federation has been solved. And now he has the cheek to come and tell this Government that all these problems have arisen because the Government is weak and because it has changed its name. Sir, coming from such an important political leader as the Member for Tanjong Pagar, this is a most harmful and irresponsible comment. This is going to mislead the people of Singapore into believing that if you vote for the P.A.P. at the next general elections, then all the questions - including unemployment - can be solved, because the P.A.P. can assure you of a very strong government - a government with purpose and principles. But the Member for Tanjong Pagar has forgotten what he has repeatedly said on the P.A.P.'s platform - that the only solution to our problems is linked with a merger with the Federation of Malaya. Sir, I am happy to hear the Nominated Member, Mr R. C. H. Lim, point out certain facts in connection with the soap and shoe factories in Singapore. I raised a question about industrialisation this morning, but unfortunately the Minister for Commerce and Industry did not reply to it. Sir, I support this Bill. I do not care if accusations are levelled at the Government that its period of office is short or long. What I wish the Government to do is to assure us if it is able, either openly or secretly, to arrive at an understanding with the Federation of Malaya to formulate a long-term Pan-Malayan economic or industrial development plan. If Malaya is more suitably placed to produce soap and shoes, all right, let it do so. If the Federation of Malaya does not want to set up certain industries, or it can do without them, it can let us have them. That is the sort of long-term policy to formulate. Without such a plan, a local investor who puts up money to set up a plastics factory may find, reading the papers a few months later, another plastics factory being established in the Federation. This Federation plastics factory may be much bigger than his own, it may even be supported by R.I.D.A. or the Colombo Plan. He may even find that since a Federation plastics factory has been set up, the Federation Government may impose a tariff on plastics entering its territory. In the face of all this, the local investor may either have to shut down his factory or remove to the Federation. The money spent on installation will have been wasted. Of course, labour can emigrate to the Federation since there is no passport or visa system yet in force. But money will have been wasted on installation. And all this happens because there is no Pan-Malayan industrial development plan. So I wish to repeat the question which I have earlier asked the Government: is there any possibility of this Government to reach an understanding with the Federation Government in the near future on the formulation of a Pan-Malayan industrial development plan? Let us be fair to the Federation. "All right, we agree you have to solve your unemployment problem. You can reserve certain items of goods for manufacture. But there are other items which you do not want, and which we can manufacture in Singapore. Let us have them." If that understanding is reached, a proper solution will have been achieved. 10.56 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill today has one aim, and that aim is to attract more capital into this country and so create more opportunities for employment. It is strange, Sir, that the tune which we hear now is very different from the one we have heard one or two years ago. Those who have been loudest in crying out, "Down with capital! Down with capitalism!", are now also joining in the song of asking capital to come into Singapore. They are asking capital to watch out as to who would be coming into power in the next elections. But all of them want capital to come in in order to help Singapore! I suppose as politicians live and learn, they become wiser and more responsible; but if we recollect what has been going on all these years, we can pinpoint where the trouble comes from and how the problems created have arisen. However, coming back to this Bill, I would like the Minister to note that at present every undeveloped country is holding out a lot of promises to capital, giving it as attractive terms as possible in order to induce it to come and build factories here. I just want to make a comparison between Singapore and our immediate neighbour, the Federation of Malaya. Both countries hold out promises; both of them have tax holidays; both of them have all sorts of other things which give benefits to the manufacturers. But we must think from the investors' point of view. "Two territories asking us to invest our capital there. Where shall we go?" The investors will definitely weigh all the factors. Which territory is more beneficial to them? Factors favourable to the Federation are tariff protection, a large and expanding market and, most important of all, a stable political climate. What do we have in Singapore? We have easy means of transport, but that is about all. We are the focal point of communications. We are an entrepot. We have nothing more to offer them. I think the only thing which Singapore can offer those who want to come and invest their money here will be a sense of security. That can only be achieved with Government in the lead creating it and the people of Singapore following sanely. The people of Singapore must realise that the problem of unemployment is one that is facing them and not those people with money. We must see that our children have a means of earning their living when they grow up, and the only way of doing that is to see that sensible people will always hold the reins of government, not those who shout slogans to frighten away people who wish to come to give us jobs and to give us prosperity in the matter of business. I have always said that I am all for labour, and yet you may ask me, Sir, why I am saying this. I say this in order that we might give capital a little benefit. Yes, Sir, we must give capital some benefit in order that we might benefit ourselves. We are helping capitalists not because we want to help them just for the sake of helping them, but because by helping them, they will help the labourers. We want to give them a fair share of the profits so that we may have a fuller share of employment and the people of Singapore will have a chance of feeding themselves and not rely on social welfare benefits. Sir, the next general election is about the most important in Singapore. By that election, the people of Singapore will know whether their rice bowl will be broken or whether it is going to be filled. If those who have proved themselves to be irresponsible and have chased away capital are going to come into office, there will be no future for the workers of Singapore. They will go unemployed and whatever money Government will have will be insufficient for social welfare benefits. Let us look, Sir, at those other facilities that Singapore can offer. Previous speakers have spoken about the City Council. I personally feel, Sir, that if the Government is responsible for promoting business and bringing happiness and fuller employment to the country, then the local government should also be as responsible. If the Government wants to attract capital knowing that it is good for the people, I believe, Sir, that the local government too should realise that. They are just as responsible to the people and if they put obstacles in the way of progress, then I think they are not serving the people. They are only looking on the symptoms of a disease to effect a cure and not curing it by knowing what actually causes the disease. If a person is suffering from T.B. and the doctor says, "Take a cough mixture because you are coughing", then he is doing the patient a great deal of harm. But if the doctor knows that it is T.B. and then treats him for that so that the patient has a chance of recovering then he is doing his duty. If the doctor knows that a person is suffering from T.B. and yet gives him a cough mixture, that doctor ought to be struck off the register and not be allowed to practise! If the City Council want more employment for the people but yet obstruct opportunities for increasing employment, then they are not a responsible body and are not beneficial to the people! Sir, coming back to this Bill, I certainly feel that it is one which shows that the Government today is aware of what it is doing and that it is striving to do its best in order to attract people to build factories here. However, I would like the Minister to note that although we want to attract new factories into this country, we must also help or protect our existing industries. Let us conserve what we have and at the same time strive to make new gains. Let us tell the Industrial Promotion Board, which has received the blessing of this Assembly, to go ahead with the job of helping locally established industries, or those industries in Singapore that need financial assistance. Let us help the shoe factories; let us help the beehoon factories; let us help all the existing factories that need a helping hand from the Minister for Commerce and Industry. 11.06 a.m. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

In reply?

In reply, Sir, I am glad that at this late stage I have been able to arouse some debate in this House on economic matters. Usually it is political matters which appeal to the public and the Gallery and which arouse a lot of debate. I am particularly glad, Sir, that I have been able to draw out the Member for Tanjong Pagar because up till now he has been a big question mark as far as economic matters are concerned. Sir, before I come to the serious part of the debate, I just want to correct what might perhaps be a misapprehension in the mind of the Member for Telok Ayer, and that is I have no inclination to criticise or attack him. I was only giving a factual reply to a reportedly actual statement which I read in the Press on my return. Sir, I have great regard personally for the hon, gentleman - for obvious reasons - but not for his politics, and I would not want him to get the impression that I attacked him personally. Sir, the Member for Tiong Bahru in his usual way tried to give the credit to somebody else rather than to the Government. He proclaimed loudly that he thanked the Federation for introducing its Pioneer Industry Bill first, and that we were mere stooges who followed the Federation. But in point of fact that is not correct because - memories are not short - it was in November 1956, in a statement on industrial policy which I made to this House (if I remember the date rightly, it was 11th November, 1956) that I announced amongst other things, that capital repatriation would be guaranteed, profit remittances would be guaranteed, and so on. I said then that the question of giving tax holidays to industry was being considered. Since income tax is a Pan-Malayan subject, we then approached the Federation. In fact, I can truthfully say that it was our move first, We approached the Federation first and put the idea to them. Whether or not they first originated the Bill is immaterial. The time difference is very small. I am not trying to say this to steal the credit from the Federation, but I am just trying to correct an impression which the hon. Member tried to create, and that is that we just followed the Federation like "stooges". In fact, it was our idea first. The hon. Member then waxed and waned over the delay in introducing this Bill. I can only say, Sir, that the machinery of government does not run as quickly as an individual's can run. Because it is a Pan-Malayan subject, there had got to be consultations between the Federation and Singapore, and that of course has meant delay. Then the hon. Member asked, "Has the Ministry approached the City Council on the electricity problem?" That was the stage, I think, Sir, where you indicated that the microphones might not be able to bear up with such a loud voice. Sir, on this question of the City Council, how does he know? Has he access to my files? How does he know that we have not approached the City Council? Has the Minister got to inform the Opposition of every action performed by him and his officials - that I have done this and my officials have done that? There are hundreds of actions that we have to take. Even matters which are beneficial directly to the trade and which have resulted in great profits, and matters where we try to smooth out difficulties that arise in our day-to-day transactions with Indonesia, are not heard of by the public at all, because those are matters of routine for us. If we start making a song and dance about it, you will have to sit here for days and days listening to a recital of what we have done in the Ministry. Sir, the Member for Changi - I will come to the Member for Tanjong Pagar last because that is the juicy part of my reply -

A great man!

- has repeatedly tried to pin me down on one question, and that is whether we have approached the Federation on the question of consideration of economy on a Pan-Malayan basis. Sir, I wish I could give him all the inside information but I am afraid I cannot do that. It is not considered right for me to do that, but I can just tell him in one word, and that is, 'Yes' and that yes is pregnant with meaning.

Thank you.

We have made such approaches. Now, Sir, I come to the Member for Tanjong Pagar. I am sorry, Sir, to see that he is not here and I do not like to talk behind a person's back, but I suppose he will be able to read what I have to say in the Hansard, or his hon, colleague will convey to him, I hope, without due embellishment, what I say and in its proper perspective. The first thing, Sir, was that he launched into a tirade against me for attacking the City Council, but if he had only let me elucidate at that moment he would have saved his breath and would have been saved the embarrassment of showing to others that he had not followed the debate. In fact, I defended the City Council. Sir, the attack on the City Council came from the Member for Tiong Bahru. I defended the City Council and said that they are an elected body, that whatever they do is their business, and that the Government cannot do anything about it. However, as a result of that, Sir, he has given me an opening which I had not taken before in past debates, and that is that the P.A.P. have never come out with what their economic policy is or is going to be if they come into power; and if what is happening in the City Council during the last year is an indication of what their economic policies are going to be, then the P.A.P. Government will have no hope of attracting capital at all. Sir, in the past - I would not say the P.A.P. - but sources closely connected with the P.A.P. have been responsible for alleged anti-White and anti-capital activities - especially anti-White activities. Let me make it very clear, Sir, that I have no love for the British but the PAP, must recognise this fact and, in spite of running the risk of being unpopular, I am going to ask the House and the public: who are the capital exporting and importing countries today in the world? No Asian country has got surplus capital. Every Asian country, whether it is India, Ceylon, Indonesia, Malaya or any African country for that matter - Egypt and Ghana - is capital importing. They all need capital. The exporting countries are the European countries - the Whites - that is West Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and, to a certain extent, Australia and Canada. Now. Sir, I remember distinctly the day the Member for Tanjong Pagar turned round to Mr Sutherland, who represented British capital interests, and said, "You wait till we come into power." That, Sir, had a very great scaring effect on capital.

Good show!

Now, Sir, I do not say that I love the British any more than the Member for Tanjong Pagar does, but I am in my right senses. Sir, I recognise where the benefits come from and where the exploitation is, and I will fight exploitation at every step, for example, my plan for a People's Cigarette Factory, but where they are beneficial to us, we want their co-operation and we must give them that co-operation without strings attached, because if you attach strings, there are other countries which are willing to give them that co-operation without strings attached. It is to our own advantage. The real reason why capital is scared and is not coming here is not because, as has been suggested that this Government is not stable and subject to permutations and combinations in its composition, but it is because of the P.A.P. The investing public are scared as to what will happen to them if the P.A.P. come into power. That is a big question mark which the Member for Tanjong Pagar has never thought fit in the interest of Singapore - never mind his Party, Singapore is a bigger interest - to answer and to inform the public what the P.A.P. attitude to foreign capital will be. I can conceive of one Party being in power in two bodies - both in the Government and the City Council. If the City Council is only thinking of how to sell electricity at an economic price, without caring that the Government is trying to encourage industry, the policy of the P.A.P. in the City Council may come into conflict with the policy of the P.A.P. in the Government. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has suggested that the City Council will only consider their job: and that is how to sell electricity at an economic price, and if their Government policy was, if they were in power, to encourage industries, then what would happen, Sir? The City Council would say, "Sorry, we will put the electricity rates up." The Government would tell the City Council, "Please do not, because we want to encourage industry." What would happen then? If their policy in the City Council is an indication of the shape of things to come in the economic field, the people will be scared. They are scared not because of the present government not being stable. Sir, the Member also suggested that if the Government wished, it could subsidize industries. In fact, this Bill is for an indirect subsidy. That is exactly what we are doing. We are inviting capital. Government says, "Go ahead, come in for five years. You do not have to pay any taxes." That is an indirect subsidy. I think, Sir, I have said enough on this subject, but I am glad that I have been able to excite the interest of Members on such subjects. I hope in future we will have more views from the Member for Tanjong Pagar on economic matters, especially his Party's policy on the economic front.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Committee Wednesday, 14th January, 1959.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.18 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Governor has signified his consent to this Bill being proceeded with and I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Not so long ago reports appeared in the Press of exploitation by employment agencies of job seekers. Some of these bogus employment agencies have closed down as a result of Police investigations. It has been found that in the absence of legislation it is extremely difficult to investigate the activities of these bogus agencies and bring to book those responsible for exploiting job seekers. Hence, the introduction of this Bill for the regulation of employment agencies. Under this Bill, Sir, every employment agency must obtain a licence; charge only prescribed fees for registering a worker for employment; keep proper registers, and submit monthly returns. Appropriate penalties are provided for; in particular, it is sought to prevent such agencies being used for trafficking in women and girls. As it is intended to apply the provisions of the proposed Ordinance to certain types of workers only, it is hoped that the Government Employment Exchange will be the normal and only avenue for all other types of workers who wish to register for employment. This will make the employment exchange a more effective instrument for placement of such workers and, at the same time, prevent the exploitation complained of. Sir, the placing of this Bill on the Statute Book will not only bring Singapore in line with the recommendations in the relevant convention of the International Labour Organisation, but it will also mark another milestone on the road of social progress in Singapore. Sir, the implementation of this Bill is expected to cost the Government about $2,500 per annum, which will be the salary for additional staff. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.20 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill is most welcome, although it is a known fact that job seekers or those unemployed in Singapore have been exploited by these bogus agencies. The Minister himself has just admitted that during the last one or two years the Police have been making investigations, and unless some kind of legislation is introduced, it would not be possible to investigate into these bogus agencies. I have, after much trouble in the past one and a half years, got the Government to introduce this Bill. My first attempt was in April last year. I will quote, Sir, from the Hansard, my Question tabled on the 24th April, 1957, which appears in col. 1491 of Vol. 2, No. 21: "Mr Lee Choon Eng asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare whether he is aware that some private employment exchanges in Singapore are exploiting employment seekers, and what does he propose to do about such concerns. Mr Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I am aware of one recent case in which four aggrieved employment seekers made a report to the police which led to the arrest and conviction of a man who had been operating a private employment agency. I have good reason to believe that although some private employment agencies are long established, there are others which exist only to exploit employment seekers. I am looking into the possibility of introducing new legislation under which private employment agencies can be effectively regulated. However, most of the bogus agencies which exploit the unemployed are mushroom growths, here today and gone tomorrow. The remedy in such cases is not new legislation but for the intended victims to make early reports to the police so that prompt action can be taken against them under the existing law." Sir, my second attempt was made in July 1957. I waited for a few months because I expected the Government to introduce such legislation. Until July, Sir, there was not a step taken by Government. Therefore, on the 17th July, I again tabled another question. It appears in Vol. 2, No. 29, col. 2081 of the Hansard. It reads: "Mr Lee Choon Eng asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare-

On a point of order?

On a point of order, Sir. Is it right and proper for the Member for Queenstown to bring into this Assembly, and quote to this Assembly semi-pornographic material?

I do not think I am in a position to judge until I have heard the passage.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know the nature and quality of the Week-Ender, though I imagine most of us will only admit to having seen its outer cover. It must border on the very risque!

I do not think the hon. Member is really asking me to anticipate what will be placed before the Assembly, but I take it that the hon. Member for Queenstown, as an honourable Member of this House, will be careful as to what he reads.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be very careful. In this particular case it refers to the investigations made by a reporter of the paper and does not refer to the pictures as expected by the Member for Tanjong Pagar! After the thorough investigation by the reporter of this newspaper, it exposed certain facts, and this is what it said: "During this series of articles, compiled from the files of our investigators this newspaper has tried to show its readers how thousands of them when searching for a job can be tricked by the ghouls who prey on the workless." And these are a few of the facts exposed: "WE REVEALED how poor handicapped ..." - X-I will not mention her name - "and hundreds more like her are considered 'fair game' by the mobsters running phony employment agencies. WE EXPOSED the smarties, who told how their 'immediate vacancies' existed in the columns of the daily papers. WE PICTURED what happened when an astute investigator asked for time to read 'a registration form' only to be shown the door on the plea of: 'I have no more time to spend on difficult people.' WE WARNED readers to beware of the smooth-tongued scamp with the pal, who, 'for ten bucks can fix you up with a job in no time.' AND WE HAVE ADVISED you to seek the aid of the Government Employment Exchange should you need a job." A bouquet to the Government! "Now WE UNCOVER the more sinister side of the phony employment racket - THE USING OF OUR YOUNG WOMEN AS HUMAN BAIT TO CULL DOLLARS FROM THE POCKETS OF THE MORALLY WEAK. PERHAPS IT IS HARD FOR DECENT FOLK TO ACCEPT THAT THERE ARE HUMAN BEINGS WHO ARE PREPARED TO SINK SUCH SLIMY DEPTHS." This was reported in the Week-Ender and that, I think, is decent enough for the Member for Tanjong Pagar!

A great man!

A great man! Sir, this Bill is a very good one, but after going through it I find it is not adequate enough to deter some hardcore professional criminals. A matter of $500 fine for the first offence is not heavy because it can easily be met from an income of a few thousand dollars a month. In Singapore, Sir, we have many types of crimes - robbery, etc. - but exploitation of the unemployed and the luring bf innocent girls into this social evil profession is more serious than crime. Robbers can only rob those who have. But to exploit the unemployed who do not even have funds is certainly a far more serious offence than robbery. Some of these unemployed might have borrowed money to get themselves registered [Laughter]. This is no laughing matter, because I was once unemployed myself and I know how difficult it was to get not only a dollar but even ten cents. For the unemployed to get themselves registered, a fee has to be paid, and they might have to borrow or even go to the extent of pawning their wives' jewellery. [Laughter] This is no laughing matter at all. These are real facts. I have even known of cases of the unemployed who have had to sacrifice the milk meant for their children or even the rice meant for their family just to get themselves registered. Sir, is this exploitation by employment agencies not a far more serious crime than robbery? As I have said, you can rob only those who have, but the unemployed, who do not have money, are being robbed. Only by strict control and heavy penalties can you deter such criminals from establishing these bogus employment agencies. When a person is unemployed, Sir, he is definitely downhearted, and it is really disheartening to learn that after trying to get a few dollars to get himself registered, he is being exploited and cheated. In case he has borrowed the money, what will his family think if, by getting himself registered, he finds that the money is going into somebody's pocket without getting anywhere? Some may even go to the extent of trying to commit suicide after having gone through so much trouble to get the money to get themselves registered. When this Bill becomes law, Sir, I hope the genuine employment agencies will co-operate with the Government by coming forward and informing the Government of the existence of any bogus employment agency. It is only through such co-operation that we can maintain the existence of genuine employment agencies. Sir, in this Bill, I see that it is only envisaged to control employment agencies. There should be some provision for exemption of charitable organisations or trade unions. This matter has not been looked into. As far as I know, the Singapore Ex-Services Association helps its members in obtaining jobs. I also understand that the Trafalgar Home for lepers and S.A.T.A. make an attempt to find employment for those patients who are cured. The After-Care Association, which is an Association for ex-prisoners, also tries to find employment for them. Recently, I read in the papers that the President of the After-Care Association, the Acting Chief Justice, Mr Tan Ah Tah, made an appeal to the public and to big commercial firms to find employment for these ex-prisoners. In some trade unions and voluntary organisations like community centres and the Straits Chinese British Association, they have set up employment sections within the organisation itself. Certainly all these organisations cannot be considered as employment agencies, because they function within their own organisation and do not cater for the general public. These organisations also do not charge any fee for registration because it is only confined to the members themselves, in clause 4 of the Bill there is a provision which enables the Minister to make exemptions, but the clause is not very clear to me. I hope the Minister, in his reply, will enlighten me on this point.

Order. The hon. Member must realise that we are now debating the Second Reading, and that he must confine himself to the principle of the Bill. These details are details which he could raise in Committee. The hon. Member knows that the Minister proposes to go into Committee today, and if he had any amendments to suggest to the Bill, it was his duty to give notice of those amendments. But in any case, it does not prevent him from commenting on the details in Committee, of course; but at this stage, will he please confine himself to the principle of the Bill?

I will try my best to confine myself to the principle of the Bill or to the clause itself. What I was trying to point out is that in this clause the interpretation of the words "employment agency" is far too wide and it does not, in fact, exempt charitable or voluntary organisations. Since you have ruled that I have to confine myself to the principle of the Bill, Sir, I will not then speak on clause 4. Sir, if there is no provision in this Bill which will cover these voluntary or charitable organisations, then all the sections devoted to seeking employment for the members within the charitable or voluntary organisations will come within the meaning of employment agencies. I certainly believe that the Minister does not want to classify all these sections as employment agencies. As I have pointed out, these sections within the organisations do not charge a fee for registration, and, apart from this, the officials of these organisations work without any pay. They help the members to get employment. So I do not think it is fair that these sections should come within the meaning of "employment agency". Sir, when this Bill becomes law, I hope that the newspapers will give it the widest publicity so that the unemployed will know that Government has introduced it and there is legislation for the control of such agencies. When this legislation comes into force, job seekers should always try to ascertain the reputation of the firms with which they register, because in most cases, although there is control, some of these firms do ask for a deposit for some type of employment; for instance, bill collectors, cashiers and so on. If the unemployed do not ascertain the reputation of the firm, they will find that, after paying the deposit or the cash security or whatever it is, that firm will vanish after a few months. Big and reputable firms, I am sure, do not require cash deposits. What they require is either a security bond or a fidelity insurance, and if that be the case, well and good. Wherever a cash deposit is demanded, I appeal to all the unemployed to look into the nature and reputation of the firm before paying such a deposit. This Bill, Sir, is a very important Bill. It is being introduced in the interest not only of the job seekers themselves but also of the genuine employment agencies. I have in mind, Sir, to ask the Government to allow me to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, because it will give a chance to those unemployed who have been victimised to come and make representations. It will also give an opportunity to the genuine employment agencies who have studied the Bill to make improvements. May I then formally move, That the Employment Agency Bill be referred to a Select Committee with you, Mr Speaker, as Chairman and such other members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Is not the Member too previous? We have not even completed the Second Reading!

He must have been reading the Week-Ender! 11.41 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly support this Bill, but I think if Government has the interest of the unemployed at heart, it is not necessary to introduce this Bill. We have a Labour Office in the Ministry of Labour and Welfare at Havelock Road. Unemployed people go there to get themselves registered for jobs. It is the responsibility of the Government to provide jobs for these unfortunate people. Such people got themselves registered, and after registration they made daily calls at the Labour Ministry to see if they could get jobs. In spite of the fact that they had spent time and money in going there, they were told that there were no jobs for them. They came back feeling frustrated because the Government is not in a position to solve the problem of unemployment and to provide jobs for them. So they eventually got fed up and lost faith in the Labour Office to find jobs for them. Then what happens? A group of unscrupulous private employment agencies have cropped up like mushrooms all over the City to exploit the jobless. These unemployed are asked to pay $5 to get themselves registered in order to get a job. Some have even to contribute their first month's salary to these agencies. In spite of the ridiculous demands made by these employment agencies, the unemployed still go to them, with the result that they are squeezed dry. These unfortunate people with so many dependants to support have experienced the pangs of hunger. I wonder how many hon. Members sitting opposite have experienced these pangs of hunger. As the Member for Queenstown has asked, what did these unemployed people do when they were jobless? They turned anything valuable into cash. They pawned their goods. Some even sold their children to support other members of their families, just to keep them alive. A few very desperate people, at their wits' end - what did they do? As my good friend, my colleague on this side of the House has said, they committed suicide. If the Government is doing a proper job, it is its duty to find jobs for these people and to control these private employment agencies so that they could not exploit the jobless. The unemployed have no faith in the Labour Office, Sir. I also have no faith in the Labour Office, and it may be as well for the Government to close down the Labour Office and not waste the public's money. 11.45 a.m. Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

In reply?

In reply, Sir. We are indeed entering more and more interesting times as we approach the elections which will take place early next year. The Government, in moving the Second Reading of a Bill to look after the interests of job seekers and to see that they are not exploited, took just three minutes on the Second Reading without making a political speech; whereas some Members of the Opposition - the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Tiong Bahru - stood up to tell the people of Singapore how sad they were at the spectre of unemployment, how bad this Government was, and what the Government should and should not do. Let us take the speech of the Member for Tiong Bahru first. He said that Government should do its duty to find jobs for all those who apply for employment. Surely no government in the world can find jobs for all those who apply for employment if jobs are not available. We are just trying to do a service free of charge - to try to help place the unemployed in employment and we have to seek the co-operation of employers. So long as the employment potentiality is not there, the Government Labour Exchange cannot find a job for each and everyone who applies for employment. The Member for Tiong Bahru also said that if the Government had done its duty properly, then there would have been no need for this law. Then in the same breath, he asked, "What is the Government doing about controlling these employment agencies to see that they do not exploit job seekers?" Sometimes, Sir, in the desire to make a political speech one does say things rather recklessly without considering what one is saying and in the next breath contradicting oneself. He said, "There is no need for employment agencies if the Government Employment Exchange is doing its job properly", and then he said that we must control these employment agencies -

After the Government has failed.

- if job seekers are not to be exploited. Then we have the Member for Queenstown who took about 174 minutes trying to explain how good he is to the poor and the unemployed. Quite rightly, he pointed out that he took this matter up as far back as last year but he must remember also that since then I have been getting my Ministry to get on with the job and it takes time to draft a Bill for my consideration. He even went to the extent of quoting The Week-Ender. He also stated that perhaps the newspapers could give wide publicity to this Bill. I therefore hope that The Week-Ender will in its forthcoming issue give him full coverage.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, though I originally intended to move that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee, it appears to me that the Minister and his Government are rather unhappy about it.

Order. The hon. Member either moves or he does not. Is the hon. Member moving? If the hon. Member is moving he should move simpliciter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the fact that I do not intend to move that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee, may I move that it be discussed -

Order. The hon. Member either moves, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee," or he does not say anything. He will have an opportunity to say what he wants to when we go into Committee. Is the hon. Member moving under the provisions of Standing Order 48 which reads: "When a Bill has been read a second time it shall stand committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly unless the Assembly on motion commits it to a Select Committee. Such motion shall not require notice, must be made immediately after the Bill is read a second time and may be proposed by any Member; the question thereon shall be put forthwith and shall be decided without amendment or debate." I trust that that is clear.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I then seek your guidance? I would like to ask the Government to defer consideration of the Bill in Committee until 14th January, 1959, instead of going through the Bill today in order to give me an opportunity to table amendments, if necessary, because I have not prepared my amendments to any of the clauses.

I continue then with the Standing Order which reads: 'On the Member in charge of a Bill asking for the committee stage of the Bill, to be taken forthwith, he shall move "That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill" and a debate may arise thereon.' Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Tun Lim Yew Hock, Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill." Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much for your guidance. Although I do appreciate that the Minister would like to push the Bill through today in the interest of the unemployed, I feel that some amendments are necessary to two clauses in the Bill. I have indicated earlier that I propose to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee but since I have an indication that the Minister is not happy about it, I will ask the Government to defer consideration of the Bill in Committee today until 14th January, 1959, when I can be given the opportunity to move amendments if necessary. I have not prepared any amendments today and even if I had done so I would have had to give two clear days' notice, and this would disqualify me from moving any amendment now. May I then appeal to the Government to defer consideration of this Bill in Committee until 14th January, 1959?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Order of the Day has been in the hands of the hon. Member for some time and he knew, when this Bill was introduced last month, that the Second Reading would take place today. If, I respectfully submit, Sir, the hon. Member had spent more time in studying the Bill than The Week-Ender, perhaps he would have been in a position today to submit amendments which he thought were necessary to strengthen the Bill and to look after the interests of the organisations which he has named. Sir, I can assure the hon. Member that all the points brought up by him can be easily met in the "exemption" clause - clause 4. I can assure the hon. Member that it is not the intention of the Government to make things difficult, or to require that the organisations named by him should have to go through the process of keeping registers to observe the requirements of this law. If that is satisfactory to him, Sir, I will ask that he let us go into Committee on this Bill straightaway so that, as from 1st January next year, all employment agencies will have to be registered in Singapore.

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

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

Mr Minister, in page 1, lines 18 and 19, it is suggested by me, subject to what the Minister has to say, that after the word "Ordinance", there should be a semi-colon and that the word "and" in line 19 be deleted.

Is it necessary for me to move that amendment?

If the Minister agrees, then we will do that as a typographical correction.

I agree, Sir, Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4-

The Member for Queenstown was interrupted at the Second Reading. I do not know whether he wishes to say anything further now on this clause in detail.

Mr Chairman, Sir, since I have the Minister's assurance, I will leave it to him to cover the points I have raised as far as he can. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 16-

Mr Minister, in page 5, line 26, it is suggested by me that a comma should be inserted after "same". Is that agreed?

Yes, I agree.

That will be inserted as a typographical omission. Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 18- Question proposed, "That clause 18 stand part of the Bill,"

Sir, I wonder whether the Minister would consider, in view of the seriousness of the offences under clauses 16 and 17, he is prepared to increase the fine of $500 on conviction in respect of the first offence to $2,000 so that this will deter people from running bogus agencies?

Debate on that matter cannot take place unless there is a motion to amend. If the hon. Member wishes to comment on it, he can do so. On the other hand, if the Minister considers that the amendment should be made, then he can act under Standing Order 23 which dispenses with notice of amendments with the consent of the Speaker and the general assent of Members present. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to comment further on clause 18 before the Minister replies.

As we all know, Sir, these bogus agencies are exploiting the jobless and I feel that a fine of $500 is inadequate. In order to deter this exploitation of the unemployed, would the Government consider increasing the fine?

A fine of $500 is intended for a first offence. After that, it will be a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I also have the same point in mind but, as I have said, I do not like to obstruct the passing of this Bill today. I am prepared to accept it as it stands today but I would appeal to the Government, if there is any necessity of increasing such penalties, after the passing of this Bill, not to hesitate to introduce an amendment to this clause so that heavier penalties could be imposed on subsequent offences, even to the extent of imposing the same penalties as for murder, because, as I have said in my speech, the exploitation of the unemployed is a crime which is far more serious than robbery and murder.

Sir, when this Bill is passed, it will give my Ministry the necessary powers to investigate thoroughly into allegations of the existence of mushroom or bogus employment agencies which have not been properly licensed. At the present time, it is because of the absence of this law that employment agencies could function with impunity, but once the law is on the statute book, they will not dare to do so. They will have to apply for a licence before they can operate, and once licensed, they will have to observe the conditions of the licence, otherwise they too will be deprived of the means of earning their livelihood and they might have to go to other employment agencies to register for employment.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I do appreciate that these bogus employment agencies, after the implementation of this Bill, will not dare to function; but, as I have said, there are hard-core criminals who are prepared to take the risk. After the passing of this Bill, as I have said, if the Government do find that this Bill is not adequate enough to exercise sufficient control over these mushroom employment agencies which might operate in the dark, then I appeal to the Government not to hesitate to introduce any amendment to impose heavier penalties.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 19 to 23 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 12.06 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Governor has signified his consent that this Bill be proceeded with, and I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill, as shown by its long title, seeks to provide for the appointment, powers and duties of notaries public for which there is as yet no local legislation. A notary public is a duly appointed officer whose office it is, among other matters, to clear, attest or certify deeds and other documents, including conveyances and powers of attorney; to note or certify transactions relating to negotiable instruments; to prepare wills and other testamentary documents, to draw up protests and formal papers relating to occurrences on the voyages of ships and their navigation, as well as the carriage of cargo in ships. His office is one of great antiquity and has been recognized in all civilized countries. The existing notaries public in Singapore, Sir, are English notaries public, appointed by the Master of the Court of Faculties of the Archbishop of Canterbury in London, and are also advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court. Such English notaries public will be allowed to carry on their powers and functions in Singapore but power is given in the Bill for the Attorney-General to make a declaration that an English notary public, who has been struck off the roll of notaries public in England, or has been struck off the roll of Advocates and Solicitors of the Supreme Court, shall no longer be entitled to have and to exercise the powers and functions of notaries public in Singapore. In the Malay States, notaries public have been locally appointed under local enactments, some of which date back to 1898, and the Malayan Union Notaries Public Ordinance of 1947 consolidated these enactments and extended the power to appoint notaries public to the whole of the Federation. The Bill, Sir, follows closely the Notaries Public Ordinance, 1947, of the Federation of Malaya. It provides for the appointment by the Attorney-General, after consultation with the Bar Committee, of local notaries public who must be practising advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of at least seven years' standing; and it also provides for the exercise of the powers and functions of notaries public in Singapore by English notaries public and local notaries public. Power is given to the Attorney-General to revoke the appointment of a local notary public where such person has been struck off the roll of Advocates and Solicitors of the Supreme Court. Sir, the draft of the Bill has been approved by the Singapore Bar Committee. Sir, I beg to move.

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

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

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 7, to leave out "of Singapore". This is redundant. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, lines 11 and 12, to leave out "name has been struck off the roll of local notaries public" and insert "appointment as a local notary public has been revoked". Sir, there is no provision in clause 5 or elsewhere in this Bill for a roll of local notaries public. There is mention in clause 5 of a revocation of the appointment of such persons by the Attorney-General, and this amendment is therefore necessary to tidy up the Bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6-

There is a note, In page 3, line 5, to leave out "Notaries Public" and insert "notaries public". That will be done. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8-

There is also a note, to spell "Rules" in two cases with a small "r". That will be done. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with Amendments; read the Third time and passed.

Perhaps the Member for Tanjong Pagar will indicate whether this is a convenient time to suspend.

Indeed, Sir.

The Assembly is suspended. I will take the Chair again at half-past two p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.12 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, namely, That this Assembly resolves that it is of the opinion that election writs be issued for General Elections to the Legislative Assembly under the new Constitution on or before April 2, 1959, and that an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor to fix the date for the introduction of the new Constitution in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference 1957 contained in Sessional Paper No. Misc. 2 of 1957. Sir, on 2nd April, 1955, 25 Members of this Assembly were returned amidst tumultuous applause. One has since left us. The motion that I seek to move today is to end the life of these 24 elected representatives and the 25th who has joined us as a result of a by-election. As the last record is being put on in this round of musical chairs, it is likely that there will still be many more turns before the curtain finally drops and the music runs out. But what I want to remind the House today is that according to section 67 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, the music is deemed under the law to run out on 2nd April, 1959. Sir, I would like briefly to take Members through the legal and constitutional position so that there would be no doubts in our minds as to what we are debating. We are going to be asked to approve the Budget in the next two weeks. Once that Budget is approved, the Government has legally equipped itself with finance for a period of one year for the whole of 1959. According to section 67 of the Rendel Constitution, subsection (1) says: "The Governor, after consultation with the Chief Minister, may at any time prorogue or dissolve the Assembly by Proclamation published in the Gazette." Subsection (2) of the same section reads: "The Governor shall dissolve the Assembly at the expiration of four years from the date of the return of the first writ at the last preceding election, if it shall not have been sooner dissolved." What it means, Sir, is that the Governor can dissolve, after consulting the Chief Minister, at any time. But in any case, he shall dissolve after four years from the return of the writ in the preceding election, and this writ was returned on 2nd April, 1955. Unless, therefore, something is done to alter that, this Assembly fades out in exactly 119 days' time - 27 days in December, 31 in January, 28 in February, 31 in March and 2 in April. What is interesting to note is that Ministers do not fade out on the 2nd of April. Sir, according to section 22 of the Rendel Constitution, subsection (3) (b) reads: "The office of an appointed Minister shall also become vacant if he ceases to be a Member of the Assembly for any reason other than a dissolution thereof." We will all cease to be Members of the Assembly on the 2nd April, 1959, but the offices of the Ministers are not dissolved. They carry on, because they have been appointed by the Governor. We did not appoint them. So they will be able to carry on without an Assembly. The only disadvantage of not having an Assembly is that you cannot get votes for money, because that is the right of the Assembly. But if the votes for money have already been given in this Budget, then it will save a lot of embarrassment and unnecessary debate. The Ministers could, legally, carry on until three months from the 2nd of April. That is contained in section 68 of the same Constitution which says: "There shall be a general election at such time within three months after the appointed day, and thereafter within three months after every dissolution of the Assembly, as the Governor shall by Proclamation publish in the Gazette appoint." Assuming for one moment that there is no complication in this new Constitution, the position is this. If we want, so to speak, to live out our lives to the bitter end, we go on to the 2nd of April, 1959. Then the Governor, unless he receives orders to the contrary and there has been a change in the law, will have to dissolve the Assembly. Under the present law a general election will then have to be held within three months from the date of the dissolution. Presumably the Ministers will carry on as a caretaker Government without an Assembly whilst proceedings are taken for the holding of an election. But under the new Constitution - the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958 - it is provided in section 2: "This Order may be cited as the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, and, save where otherwise provided, shall come into operation on such day as the Governor may appoint by Proclamation in the Gazette of the Colony of Singapore." And when the Governor so appoints by proclamation, section 3 of the same Order will come into operation revoking the Singapore Colony Orders in Council, 1955 and 1956. So under the new Order in Council the moment the Governor names an appointed day the old Constitution dies. The new one springs into being, presumably on polling day under the new Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance - which we are supposed to pass in the not too distant future before 2nd April, 1959. Sir, this is not provided for in the Constitution itself. It has, however, been provided for in the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference held in London in March and April 1957, published and tabled in this House as Sessional Paper No. Misc. 2 of 1957. Section 54 of that Report, to which the then Governor was a signatory, together with five other Members of this Assembly, provides for this: "It was agreed that the date should be fixed by the Governor after he was satisfied, after considering an address from the Legislative Assembly, that a reasonable period for the registration, as provided in paragraph 50 of this Report, of persons eligible for Singapore citizenship had elapsed." Sir, I hope the House will bear with me if I read the whole of that paragraph because it is quite some time since we last debated this Report. "It was the view of the Singapore Delegation that elections under the extended franchise which would result from their citizenship proposals set forth in paragraph 50 must precede the coming into force of the new Constitution. We therefore agreed that an exact date for the introduction of the new Constitution could not be determined at this stage, but that it should be brought into force on a date after the 1st January, 1958." and then follows the sentence which I have just read. It means simply that what was agreed was that in any case the new Constitution which we then expected was not to come into operation before 1st January, 1958. But, any time after 1st January, 1958, we in this Assembly have the right to present an address to the Governor to ask him to fix the date for the introduction of the new Constitution. The Governor has two things to consider: first, the address; secondly, the fact that he must be satisfied that a reasonable period for the registration of the new Singapore citizens has elapsed. Sir, a reasonable period for the registration of Singapore citizens has elapsed. In fact, electoral registers have been compiled with their names in them. They have been open for viewing by objectors. All objections that can be made have been made, and I imagine the registers should be ready for use at any time. Therefore, there are no obstacles to our presenting this address. What I am seeking to move in my motion, Mr Speaker, Sir, is to express the opinion of this Assembly "that election writs be Legislative Assembly under the new issued for General Elections to the Constitution on or before April 2, 1959, and that an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor to fix the date for the introduction of the new Constitution in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Report...". Sir, if the House agrees to this motion without amendment, as I hope it will, it means that on or before the 2nd of April - if everybody wants the extra few odd days of the 119 days left, so be it - the Assembly will be dissolved by the Governor. Then under the new Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance which we will have to pass, the Governor will issue writs for general elections. The writ will also name the date for the return of the writ, which will be polling day. This will presumably also be the appointed day on which the new Constitution springs to life. Sir, one of the factors which has prompted my Party to table this motion is the concern in certain quarters at the talk of certain wild men connected with a certain new Party. Sir, it has been openly said by men, who ought to have been responsible enough to know better, that there will be no difficulty in winning the next elections, if the P.A.P. or any other Party is not in its way. If I may quote the Minister for Communications and Works - I am not quoting him for what was supposed to have taken place - in his description of two former Presidents of the Labour Front, who both became Chief Ministers and who both now lead new Parties - I think, of all the astonishing things the Labour Front has ever done, this deserves a gold medal! In the short space of four years, to quote the present Secretary-General of the Labour Front: two Presidents, two Chief Ministers, both leading two new Parties! Sir, we are not concerned with the last turn of the acrobat as the elephants dash by. But we are concerned to know that beyond any doubt one Chief Minister said to another Chief Minister - we are not sure who said to whom - "Why not let us scrap the P.A.P.? Then there is nothing to stop the Singapore People's Alliance." Sir, I bring this up for one specific purpose; just to tell the world at large, first, that we are not so easily intimidated; and secondly, to remind those who might be foolish enough to believe in such idle talk that the power to proscribe is not in the hands of elected Ministers alone. The ultimate responsibility is with the British Government who will have to answer for it. The portfolio is that of a nominated Government official and ex-officio Minister, and that there are certain repercussions which the head of the ex-officio, the Minister in Westminster will have to consider if he were ever advised to weigh the advisability of such a course of action. Let me put it bluntly this way. May I preface my remarks, Mr Speaker, Sir, by saying this? The British democratic system is deemed to be superior to a non-democratic one because in a democratic state things are done publicly and above board. The public knows what its rulers are doing, and will support them in what they are doing because they know the reasons for doing it are right and proper. I wish openly to crush this mad talk because I think an atmosphere of plotting and conspiracy is inimical to the continuance of the democratic spirit. Let me put it bluntly like this. If it is the British who want to ensure that the so-called extremists do not win the elections - let us put it bluntly that they do not want the P.A.P. to win the elections - there is nothing to prevent them from scratching us out from the race. There will be certain long-term and certain immediate repercussions. The immediate ones can be looked after by the Armed Forces; but the long-term ones cannot. There is one weakness in that line of thinking because, whilst you can prevent a particular group or Party from winning, you cannot make another Party win. Putting it in simpler words: assuming one scratches out the P.A.P., then one has got to do something about the leaders. If the leaders are at large, then, in the public eye, there is no difficulty for them to muster, rally and fight back. It would then become necessary to put away the leaders. If some leaders are put away and others are not, then the others who have not been put away will fight for those who have been put away. If all are put away, there is still the problem of making the people vote for those who put those leaders away. Ultimately the result is zero for those who hope to win by adopting such tactics. I will say this for the Chief Minister - that I do not believe for one moment that he is politically an imbecile. I think he is one of the most cunning politicians who ever graced this Assembly. For a man to bridge three eras - 1948, as a nominated Governor's man, into the Rendel era as an elected Minister of the first semi-elected Government - is an achievement not lightly to be dismissed. I therefore credit him with more intelligence than the people who spread this kind of wild talk credit him with. But there are other Ministers not known for great political dexterity and skill who have also joined in such wild discussions, and it is for their benefit that I have raised this matter and brought it into the open. Sir, once everybody understands what is on the time-table, two things can happen. The wild talk ceases as reality is brought home, or in precipitate haste then proceed with their nefarious schemes. I am quite confident that these wild men will be swept into the limbo where all wicked politicians, I hope, will ultimately be put to rest -

With you!

- and a saner and cleaner atmosphere will prevail. Once this motion is passed, it will be your task, Mr Speaker, Sir, to convey this address to the Governor. And, according to paragraph 54 of the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference held in London in March and April, 1957, it will be his duty to set at rest all the doubts and speculations as to the date on which the new Constitution will come into force, and a new Government will take over. Sir, three years ago, when this Assembly first met, there was an atmosphere of promise. Today it is a stale and a dreary Assembly. There is nothing that can happen between now and 2nd April, 1959, which is likely to alter the views of those who have had to sit through dreary and sometimes disheartening hours watching men who can never grow up politically. There are some speakers who mount the platform and who do not know when it is time to stop. Therefore, it is useful, when one starts off a meeting with such people, to have a sign by which we give them an extra two minutes and cry halt! This is what we are doing today. Members of this Assembly can take it that my arithmetic has not been weak. In exactly 119 days from today, if we pass this motion the bells will be rung. We hope to get a reply from the Governor in the very near future. Then we will have the last act in which I believe there will still be many more twists and turns, but none of which will turn this tragicomedy into either tragedy or altogether comedy. Let us hope this play has a quiet and peaceful close. If there is one thing that we hope could happen anyway in this Assembly, it is that they go out quietly and peacefully - and then the hustings. We hope that all wise, brave, honest, and truly good citizens will receive tumultuous acclamation and applause, and come back with new life and new vigour to open a new chapter in the history of this little island. 2.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion. It is important that Government should do something immediately to clear up the prevailing uncertainty about the date of the general elections to bring in the new Constitution for Singapore. Mere statements by the Chief Minister and Government spokesmen to the Press indicating that the writs and other things for the general elections will be issued before the date of the expiry of the Rendel Constitution are not enough. We want more positive action than that. My leader has just now moved a motion which is to bring in the new Constitution, and this is to give the Hon, the Chief Minister an opportunity to say openly and publicly the Government's intention in this matter. The public of Singapore, Sir, have been amused and confused by the gymnastics that have been going on in political circles recently, and the new Alliance which has been formed and known to the man-in-the-street as the Rojak Party has succeeded beyond all expectations in making confusion worse confounded! Sir, in the midst of this shabby political manoeuvring, the Government still maintains the strictest silence about its intentions.

Order. I think the hon. Member has used the expression "shady political manoeuvring" - or "shabby", it makes no difference - but if that expression has any reference directly or indirectly to any Member of this Assembly, then he must withdraw that expression.

I am sorry, Sir. I did mention "shabby" just now.

Order. That, of course, is not the point. The point is does that expression have any reference to any hon. Member in this Assembly? If the hon. Member thinks it has, then he ought to withdraw the expression.

Sir, I will withdraw it. It is believed, Sir, that all that the Government wants to do is to remain in power longer than the time allowed. If this is not what the Government is trying to do, Sir, I challenge Members of the Government to state here, openly and publicly, that the Government is committed to initiating action to hold general elections to bring the new Constitution of Singapore into being, and even before the expiry date of the present Constitution on the 2nd of April next year. Question proposed. 3.02 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am instructed by the Hon, the Chief Minister to say that the Government accepts the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. I am very happy to learn that the Government has accepted this motion. This has cut down much of what I originally intended to say. One thing I must say, and that is that the U.K. Government is the only colonial power of any consequence left in South-East Asia. They have offered this constitution and if anybody hinders the progress of Singapore, he is a traitor to Singapore. In any country, once a constitution is granted, it is accepted immediately. There should not have been such a long wait. Sir, the past is past. Let us face the electorate who will judge us by what we have done in this House for the past few years. I am very glad that the Government has accepted this motion. 3.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker. I thank you very much for calling me. I was hesitating trying to pick out the most fitting and most beautiful phrases to echo the lovely speech which has just been delivered by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Sir, I must thank the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to speak on his motion. In recent months, Sir, my health has been troubling me; so I consulted a doctor and after making an examination, he said, "Mr Lim, you had better be careful. Your heart is rather weak." He asked what caused my condition to be like this. I could not think of any reason then. Later I consulted my wife and she said, "Maybe you have been hearing too many speeches from the Member for Tanjong Pagar!" Sir, I am sure that, vice-versa, the Member for Tanjong Pagar must have been getting headaches and feeling disgusted lately because of my speeches! As a result of this motion, it may be that next April the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar will remain here; or maybe I will remain here; or maybe both of us will be very happy to have departed from this place! Maybe I should address the hon. Member as the most honourable man, a great man, the decent gentleman from Oxley Road, the champion of the underdog, the saviour of the prisoners of Changi Jail; and, of course, the most honourable the regular Island Club golf player.

Order. I do not know what the honourable nicknames being given to the Member for Tanjong Pagar has anything to do with the motion. Perhaps the hon. Member should go on with his speech on the motion.

Sir, what I have been addressing the Member for Tanjong Pagar is not irrelevant to my speech which follows. This morning, Sir, I happened to pass in front of Government House. I do not know whether hon. Members observed that the Military and the Police were holding a joint security exercise, with troops heavily armed and the erection of barbed wire barricades. I must thank the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and the Commissioner of Police for holding this exercise. If it was not done on purpose, surely it was a coincidence to hold it on such a beautiful day - on the same day as the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar is moving his motion. This joint manoeuvre by the Military and the Police will, I hope, serve to remind the hon. Member and other Members of this House of the status, of Singapore today. Sir, when I was just now interrupted by you. I forgot to add that the Member for Tanjong Pagar is the most honourable anakan tanah ayer Singapura - that means the most honourable son of the soil. Sir, next year we will have to address the occupant of Government House as either His Majesty or the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, but still we are going to be protected by British tommies and the Police. Sir, I am very happy with this motion because it will fix a date which will decide whether the Member for Tanjong Pagar or I will be sitting in this House next year. The Member for Tanjong Pagar used the opportunity in moving his motion to deliver his Queen's trained English. Sir, many months have passed since the hon. Member made three trips to England to negotiate this new Constitution. He said that actually the agreement arrived at was set for January 1958. I am sorry that he did not enlighten us sufficiently as to why he waited until today, 4th December, 1958, to move his motion urging the Government to set the date. It has taken him eleven months to do so. But let me tell you why. I have been asked thousands of times by people, "Mr Lim, when can the election date be fixed?" I told them that I was not qualified to answer that question. The only two men in Singapore who were qualified to do that were the Member for Tanjong Pagar and the Hon, the Chief Minister. They were the "abang adek" who could fix everything for us. "If abang says, 'Set it later'; yes, that date will be set." But I hope that is not true. Sir. What I wish to say is that the matter is in the hands of the P.A.P., in the hands of a petty dictator, as I have once addressed it. "We only want the elections when our house is in order." Sir, this is the secret I am going to tell. The people most anxious for the P.A.P to be returned to power must be the British. I will explain why, Sir. There is a Chinese story - a travelogue - called Si Yu Chi [A travel to the West]. There was a monk called Sien Chuang Pang Teng, and there was a monkey God who was very clever and popular. He could do everything. But unfortunately this monkey God had a magic ring at the top of his head. When the monk thought that the monkey God was playing too much, he simply chanted, "O li toh, o li toh!" and then the monkey God had to kowtow and obey the monk's orders! The monk was very weak but very clever. The monkey God was very clever and very powerful. And who is the monkey God in this instance, Sir? - I hope you will not rule me out - it is the Member for Tanjong Pagar! Who is the monk, Sir? The monk is the British Colonial Office in London whose head is the Rt. Hon. Sir Alan Lennox Boyd. And what is the magic ring on top of the monkey God's head? It is this so-called party-supported Constitution. Sir, why worry if the P.A.P. are returned to power next year; or even Mr Chin Peng becomes the Prime Minister of Singapore next year? So long as this Constitution exists, the British do not care at all. They can suspend the Constitution. They can even ask the Federation Government to interfere. So this is the secret - those who are so eager and even anxious to let the P.A.P. come into power are not only the P.A.P. themselves, but also the British! The second secret is this, Sir, that within this year -

Order. I think we have heard of one secret which, to me, does not appear to have any relevance to the motion. I hope the second secret will have some relevance to the motion.

I am sorry, Sir, that you think it is not relevant, but at least the Government does not think so. I am sure it is very relevant because I want to challenge the sincerity and the motive and judge the reactions after this motion has been carried. What benefit there will be for this country once responsibilities lie in the hands of the P.A.P. Sir, the P.A.P., after having successfully put right their own domestic affairs - some have been sent to Changi Prison; some have been struck off the citizenship register; some are, I think, on the black list and after having strengthened their Party executive, think that this is now the right time to move this motion, and that this is for their benefit. I believe it is my duty to let the House know all this. Then there is another secret which is also very relevant. They hope to succeed in fooling the Malay masses that only the P.A.P. are the anak tanah ayer Melayu [sons of Malaya]. The Malays must support the P.A.P., because the P.A.P. are genuine Malayans, and no other people. The P.A.P. support the Malay language as the lingua franca. Sir, may I quote from the Straits Times of Monday, 1st December? "MAKE CHINESE AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE M.C.A. Leader: Call from Loyal People Whose Hopes Are Tied Up In That Question Dr Lim Chong Eu, President of the Malayan Chinese Association, said here last night." The P.A.P. are trying, by some clever means, to convince the masses in Singapore to prepare for the taking over by the P.A.P. of the administration next year. If there is any trouble or failure faced by the present Government, the P.A.P. say that it is because we cannot achieve a merger with the Federation. Because you do not support Malay as the lingua franca, there is therefore a failure. Sir, this motion only suits the interests of the P.A.P. and not those of the people of Singapore. Sir, I was very careful to notice that the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar in his speech just now was simply interested as to when the election writs will be issued, his call for a general election. What we would like him to do is to give us a clear-cut picture of the future elections. Why does he want elections? Is it merely because this new Constitution is going to bring us stability and solve our unemployment problems? Or is it to achieve a merger with the Federation? The people of Singapore would like to hear from him. But I could not find anything connected with these issues from the speech he made just now. I agree, Sir, that it was a beautiful speech; but there was no substance in it. Although the motion is closely linked with the relationship with the Federation of Malaya, not a single word about this was mentioned. Sir, there is a news report in the Straits Tunes of Monday, 1st December, which I will quote: "MERGER CLAUSE 'MAY BREAK ALLIANCE' Kuala Lumpur, Sunday. The Minister of Commerce and Industry, Mr Tan Siew Sin, tonight warned that one of the objects of the new M.C.A. constitution for a merger with Singapore might break up the Alliance." On what grounds did Mr Tan make his statement? He said that Tunku Abdul Rahman has repeatedly said that he does not want an immediate merger with the Colony. Sir, I have purposely quoted these two instances which I think are sufficient to support my charges that the mover of this motion moved it for selfish party interests. Sir, serious problems lie ahead - our economic stability and our political stability. As the hon. Member for Ulu Bedok has said, we must not play communal politics. Yet the P.A.P. are the champions at it. He says that the Malays fear the Chinese. Why dues he not defend the Chinese who fear the Malays? And the language -

Order. I hate interrupting the hon. Member, but I would ask him to read the motion very carefully and try to relate his remarks to the motion. He is straying very, very far away. The Chief Minister rose -

Is the Chief Minister moving a business motion?

3.24 p.m.

Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, as it is clear that the debate on this motion will not come to an end by the moment of interruption, may I move, That the proceedings on the remaining item of business set down for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7.

I second the motion.

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

3.26 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have the assent of this House to move a motion for the purpose of arranging for the meeting to be fixed for Friday, 12th December, which is not a sitting day?

Is it the pleasure of Honourable Members that the motion should be moved? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I move, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to 12th December, 1958.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to 12th December, 1958.

Debate resumed. 3.29 p.m.

Sir, I think it is about time for me to end my speech. As to the statement made by the mover of the motion that there was some wild talk to proscribe the P.A.P., I would think that if such an action were taken, it would be wrong. The power to proscribe the P.A.P. does not lie in the hands of any individual, or even in any political Party. It lies in the hands of the people of Singapore. Let the people of Singapore decide when it is time to take action to proscribe the P.A.P. Sir, I beg to support the motion. 3.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as indicated by my colleague, the Minister for Health, the Government accepts the motion before the House. Sir, I have on many occasions said publicly to the Press that the Government does not intend to continue in office beyond 2nd April, 1959. It would appear that statements of this kind given by me to the Press are not accepted by the hon, seconder of the motion as public statements. He has therefore challenged me to state here openly whether or not the Government intends to advise the Governor to hold elections on or before 2nd April, 1959. 1 would like to correct any wrong impression that the members of the public may have because of the wild talk by members of other political Parties that there is in my mind an idea to proscribe the P.A.P. and thereby make the whole thing clear and easy for my Party, my coalition partners and other more democratic political Parties in Singapore. It is ridiculous even for me to have to stand up here and refute such wild rumours coming from the enemies of democracy. If it had been the intention of my Government to proscribe the P.A.P., the time would have been in 1956 and 1957, but not now. In fact, the strong action my Government had taken had helped the P.A.P. to survive today. Therefore any talk of the Government's intention to proscribe the P.A.P. is definitely groundless. We have done all we could for democracy. We have even tried to help the P.A.P. to become more democratic and have given it the opportunity to behave democratically, to the exent of putting in prison those subversive elements who has been the despair of the present leaders of the P.A.P. I do not know what he meant when the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar said, "If you put some of us in prison, others who are outside will be able to muster, rally and protest and will certainly fight for those who are inside the prison." Did he mean to include those ex-members of the P.A.P., who are now in prison, detained as subversives? I am sure the general public would be very anxious to know the stand of the P.A.P. today as to whether or not they are still of the firm opinion that those ex-comrades of theirs in Changi Jail are still their comrades-in-arms. A statement from them will definitely clear the air so that the democratic, peace-loving voters of Singapore, will know how and why, if they feel that they should vote for the P.A.P. Sir, allegations have been levelled at my Government that we desire to continue in office. Members of the Opposition seem to think that it is a lovely thing to be Chief Minister. I have on many occasions in this Assembly said that it is the greatest cross that I have had to bear when this Chief Minister-ship was thrown at me. It is because of my sense of duty to the people of Singapore that I am continuing to carry this cross, and I am indeed glad that I will not be called upon, under the Rendel Constitution, to carry it beyond 2nd April, 1959. Insinuations have been made too in the speech of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar that the new Alliance that we have formed is not strong enough to beat them. It is not for me to reply to these insinuations, Sir,It is for the electorate to do that. The verdict is theirs, and not his. I am sure that the hon. Member knows that the electoral machinery will require about six weeks at the quickest for elections to be held after the Assembly is dissolved. Under the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, writs will have to be issued as soon as the Assembly is dissolved. It may take a day or two, and then under certain sections of this Ordinance the Governor will have to name the polling day. He will be guided in this, depending on the number of candidates that have been put up for the contest and the length of time required for the election campaign to be held. The period granted for this under the Ordinance is not less than three weeks and not more than eight weeks. In regard to this, Sir, I give an assurance to Members of the Opposition that they will be consulted not long after this sitting as to whether three, four or five weeks is enough; and after this, I shall advise the Governor that it is felt that four weeks - or whatever the period may be - for the election campaign is sufficient. He will then be in a position to inform this Assembly of the probable date of the general elections which will bring into force the new Constitution. 3.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, though this is a very important motion, I am really surprised that the tone of the debate this afternoon has been very mild, except for that of the Member for Changi who gave us some very amusing stories and disclosed some secrets. We could understand him in spite of his Teochew accent, which the Member for Tanjong Pagar criticised. He did create a lively atmosphere in this House. The Member for Tanjong Pagar has no trouble about his English because he has had all the chances of studying the Queen's English and he can certainly easily express himself in such a way that it can be understood that he is speaking the Queen's English and a colonial language. It is surprising that he should criticise a Member of this House for his English, when he knows very well that most of the Members here did not have the same privilege and chances that he had of studying the Queen's English. Furthermore, his livelihood depends on his ability in this respect. What is most important, Sir, is the context of the motion itself. I remember when the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance was debated in this Assembly, the leader of the P.A.P. - the Member for Tanjong Pagar - said that he would introduce this Ordinance when his Party came into power; but I believe three and a half years ago when the same Ordinance was debated, he was very much against it. Why is it so, Sir? May I ask him: is he really sincere when he says that he will certainly introduce the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance if his Party comes into power?

Order. I think if the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar tries to answer that question, he will be ruled out of order. It is completely irrelevant to the motion. Please stick to the motion.

I am sorry about this, Sir. I said that because it struck me that this motion was introduced today for some purpose. If not for all the somersaults of the P.A.P., I doubt very much whether this motion will come before the House today. As the Member for Changi has asked, "Why wait until this very hour to table this motion?" If the Member for Tanjong Pagar had been sincere, he could have done so much earlier. He was a member of the All-Party Delegation that went to the United Kingdom for the constitutional talks. He knew very well what the new Constitution would be, and as soon as he came back he could and should have tabled this motion in the Assembly. Why wait until this day to do so? 3.40 p.m. Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in reply?

Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is only one point worth answering, and it is the question which the Chief Minister has posed me about my ex-comrades in Changi. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is one thing about the P.A.P. which perhaps those who form, un-form and re-form political Parties do not understand. When we form a Party, there are certain abiding principles that bind us together. They were my comrades in 1954 when I formed that Party. They are my comrades now in 1958. They will be my comrades next year. If and when anyone departs from the Party programme and Party policy, then he ceases to be my comrade. I am surprised that the Chief Minister has chosen to remain silent on the story that two Chief Ministers had met and one had said to the other certain things which should not have been said. However, I am obliged to him for having been honest enough not to have denied something which he must know to have been true. Sir, I hope when you convey the address of this Assembly to the Governor you will indicate to him that we would be grateful if he could give us a reply in the not too distant future. This is like the trigger of the atomic bomb. Once this motion is passed, assuming that no new laws are passed to intercept the proceedings which will be set afoot, this Assembly will logically and systematically come to its close on 2nd April, 1959. I am grateful to the Chief Minister for having indicated that he is prepared to consult the Opposition on the length of the election campaign. Mr, Speaker, Sir, I beg to move my motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that it is of the opinion that election writs be issued for General Elections to the Legislative Assembly under the new Constitution on or before April 2, 1959, and that an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor to fix the date for the introduction of the new Constitution in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Report of the Singapore Constitutional Conference 1957 contained in Sessional Paper No. Misc. 2 of 1957.

I shall duly present an address to His Excellency the Governor in terms of the Resolution.

3.45 p.m.

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

Sir, I second it. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry to have to torment the Minister for Education - he is such a likeable fellow in many ways. But I was very much shocked by his declaration yesterday that he was going to be his own judge. Sir, many of us have been outraged by his statements that the school certificates and all the passing-out certificates would not be worth the scraps of paper that they are written on. We often wondered why he said it. We thought that perhaps the Minister for Education did not understand the purpose of education. But when the leak about the examination papers came out, the conclusion naturally was drawn that, of course, it was because you could buy these scraps of paper! That is why the Minister said that it was not worth the paper it is written on. Sir, there have been three minor scandals: one, the English examination; two, the Chinese examination; and three, a story of embezzlement involving a sum of money in the region of a million dollars. I was told by the Minister during the luncheon adjournment that he strenuously refuted this story which was carried in an English language newspaper, and I would be glad if he would touch upon it in his reply. When the machinery of State falls to bits in this way, little flywheels fly off from the axle and go into nothingness; papers can be sold and bought; money is missing; and the Minister says, "I am looking into the matter - I have a clear conscience and my Permanent Secretary has a clear conscience too," - then I say that those of us here who have to listen to this twaddle would like to know from him why he thinks he has got such a clear conscience. If I were the Minister for Education and these things happened in my Ministry, I would be a very troubled man indeed. It is no use just telling the public that you have got a clear conscience. You have got to tell them why your conscience is clear and, furthermore, why the public should believe that the Minister should be allowed to carry on looking after what he obviously had not been able to look after. Sir, I promised the Hon, the Chief Minister yesterday that I would not unduly prolong the debate today. I would therefore like to shorten the proceedings simply by asking the Minister for Education to tell us frankly why he thinks his conscience is clear; how much money is missing; and when he intends to tell us the real story behind it all. 3.47 p.m.

Sir, I had intended to keep quiet, but after listening to the Member for Tanjong Pagar I would like to say a few words. It is a pity that a criminal lawyer like the Member for Tanjong Pagar should have picked out a few words from the statement delivered only yesterday morning by the Minister for Education, namely, "My conscience is clear and my Permanent Secretary's conscience is also clear", and made it the subject of a debate on the Motion for Adjournment today. The Member for Tanjong Pagar should have made up his mind about bringing up this matter at least a few days ago. Sir, I think it is most improper. But it cannot be helped, since it is the custom with the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Only statements or speeches delivered by him or his Party are not "wild" talks! In the case of others, they are merely for the purpose of vote-catching. Sir, I wish to state that this debate on the Motion for Adjournment is 100 per cent vote-catching. 3.48 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stated categorically yesterday the reasons for the leakage in the first examination, namely the English Secondary School Entrance Examination, and where the leakage occurred. As regards the second leakage, investigations are still proceeding and, as I have said, for obvious reasons, I do not want to state more than that. I will give a fuller story perhaps at the next sitting of this Assembly. The question has been posed to me as to why I said that my conscience and that of my Permanent Secretary is clear. Doubts have been raised as to why I should investigate matters myself. I would like to tell hon. Members that my Permanent Secretary and I are taking every step to look into the matter. The Police have been brought into this. Now, as regards embezzlement, there was no such case. I refuted that in a public statement on 21st November in the Straits Times, the heading of which reads "MINISTRY DENIES INQUIRIES ON EMBEZZLEMENT". I have also been asked: How much money has been lost? What is the real story? There might have been irregularities. Sir, but "irregularity" does not mean fraud or misappropriation of funds.

Money is missing.

There is no money missing. The Director of Audit has been asked to go into these reported irregularities and he is checking every case. The Grant-in-aid Regulations came into force in 1957. Many Chinese schools could not apply earlier than 1957 for provisions to be made in the 1958 Estimates. Under Regulation 88 of the Grant-in-Aid Regulations, 90 per cent of these Chinese schools would not have been eligible for payment of capital grant. This would have created a situation contrary to the recommendation of the All-Party Committee. One of those recommendations is that where schools are below standard, every facility must be afforded to them by Government in order to assist them to come up to the standard required. In view of that recommendation and in view of Government's policy formulated as a result of that recommendation, there has been a relaxation of Regulation 88, thus making it possible for Government to pay, in 1958, bills dated as far back as 1955 and 1956. Now we must realise that in the past Chinese schools have been neglected for a long time, and so they are in a special category, especially during the first few years of the operation of this school grant-in-aid scheme. At some of these Chinese schools, work of a capital nature was carried out prior to 1957 and the bills were sent to Government for payment in 1957 and 1958. The Public Works Department could not therefore check and certify that such work had actually been carried out; but as I said, allowance must be made for such cases and I accordingly authorised payments to be made to these Chinese schools. The payments were very small - it may be boring, Sir, but I will quote here several of the schools and the amounts given to them: $ c. Way Sin School 305 00 Chiang Teck School 822 48 Ban Lay School 4,105 00 Pei Mi Public School 822 28 Loke Yung Public School 246 93 Sin Min Public School 676 58 and so forth. These might be termed irregularities because, as I said, the P.W.D. could not check or certify that the work had actually been done; but there was no doubt that bills were presented by the schools concerned to the Ministry for payment. As I said, no public funds have been embezzled at all. The Police have been told. The Director of Audit is going into every case. Sir, I hope to be able to give a fuller story at the next sitting of this Assembly.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes to Four o'clock p.m. to 12th December, 1958.