Hansard, 1959-01-26

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (3) (i) of section 47 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from meetings of the Assembly: Mr Seah Peng Chuan (Kampong Kapor) - from 20th to 31st January, 1959.

10.01 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, under Standing Order 9 (2) , That items 3 and 4 on the Order Paper be taken after item 8. In explanation, Sir, the Ministers in whose names the items stand, are due to attend the official opening of the Pacific Area Travel Association Conference now being held at the Victoria Memorial Hall, and it is unlikely that they will be able to return this morning in time to move their motions.

Sir, I beg to second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That items 3 and 4 on the Order Paper be taken after item 8.

10.02 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, viz., That the Report of the Select Committee on the Housing and Development Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 20 of 1958, be adopted. Sir, the Report of the Select Committee has been in the hands of hon. Members since November last. Hon. Members have had sufficient time to read the representations received on the Bill, and which were given careful consideration in Select Committee. The only major amendment which has been made to the Bill is the deletion of the clause providing for the relaxation of building by-laws in connection with the Board's operations. Similar clauses appear in legislation in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and while the Government remains of the opinion that the inclusion of the original clause would not be unreasonable, it considers that the arrangements with the local authorities for waivers has worked reasonably well in the past, and does not consider it necessary to press for its inclusion in the Bill. However, Government will do so by way of an amendment, if the operations of the Board are found to be hampered as a result of local authority by-laws. The remaining amendments to the Bill in Select Committee were mostly minor and of a purely technical nature, and were intended to improve the drafting of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it. Question proposed. 10.05 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure this House is at last happy to note that the Housing Authority can be put into reality. But certain details should still be patched up - especially those that raised consider, able debate in Select Committee. I wonder whether the Minister was aware that those points had been raised by the Opposition with very, very strong reasons behind them. Sir, may I quote an example? The automatic transfer of the Singapore Improvement Trust staff without reference back to the Public Service Commission. To me, I think this is a most dangerous move. We are aware that the determining of posts is in the hands of a few persons. I just wonder what is the merit and purpose of the P.S.C., a body on which this country relies so much. To ensure the stability of a country the public service is of vital importance. This is especially true when we see the pocket-size government of the P.A.P. in the City Council. How the City Council employs its staff is seen in the policy of the P.A.P. Now the Minister proposes that the present staff of the S.I.T. be automatically transferred to the Housing Authority. Sir, maybe the public or this House has confidence in the present Minister and the present S.I.T. staff, but what about the future? Will filthy party politics play a great part in all public appointments? I wonder if this Housing Authority is keen to serve only certain Parties' interests, but not all. Sir, because of this point, I strongly urge the Minister to consider putting in the hands of the P.S.C. the appointment of staff for the Housing Authority. Any grievance or any technical points of assurance raised by the present S.I.T. staff should, I think, be very easy to deal with. But if this Bill is now passed without any amendment and we accept it as it is, then let these few persons hold the extraordinary powers to determine any appointment in the new Housing Authority. To me, Sir, what is the use of changing its name? Why not let us continue to use the name "S.I.T." rather than change it to the "Housing Authority"? We hope, Sir, through the P.S.C. and through the wisdom of our Minister we can try to do something to improve the machinery of the S.I.T. - which undoubtedly has not satisfied the public demand for housing - and thereby help it to solve the housing problem. Sir, despite the pros and cons of this important point, I hope the Minister will not only think twice but three times not to allow any political Party in power in the near future to use this Housing Authority for their own ends. Sir, I strongly urge the Minister to give me and this House a satisfactory reply. 10.10 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this question of the Public Service Commission having jurisdiction over the appointments of employees in the City Council has been debated in very great detail during meetings of the Select Committee. The fact is that the Select Committee was of the opinion that, for the time being at least as regards the category of employees who are already in appointments with the Board of Trustees of the Improvement Trust, it would be unfair for them to appear before the Public Service Commission to be confirmed in appointments in which they have been acting or working for the past few years. However, I can assure the Member for Changi that with the coming into being of the Housing and Development Board, Government will do its best to see that politics should not be introduced into the workings of the Development Board, because, in the first instance, appointments to the Board will be made by Government not on the basis of political affiliation but purely on the merits and ability of the member to serve on that Board. Secondly, Sir, Government may also endeavour to extend the services of the Public Service Commission to new employees of the Development Board as well as the Planning Section. Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat resumed his seat. Mr Lim Cher Kheng rose -

Is it a point for clarification?

Yes, Sir.

The Minister has sat down. The Member is too late!

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Report of the Select Committee on the Housing and Development Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 20 of 1958, be adopted.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time." I would like to draw your attention, Sir, to a note in clause 1: In page 15, line 7, to leave out "1958" and insert "1959". Similar notes* are also applicable to clauses 2 and 27, and I seek your permission to effect the alterations. * The notes are as follows:- Clause 2: (1) In page 16, line 31, to leave out "1958" and insert "1959". (2) In page 16, line 31, marginal citation: to leave out "1958" and insert "1959". Clause 27: (1) In page 23, line 4, to leave out "1958" and insert "1959". (2) In page 23, line 7, to insert marginal citation "Ord. of 1959".

Sir, I beg to second.

The alterations will be made. Question proposed. 10.15 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry to take up so much time of the House, but I would like to raise a few points. The Minister in his reply has not satisfied me. Sir, as I said, the first point is that the P.S.C. should solve the technical difficulties of the present staff of the S.I.T. and to assure them of the security of their jobs. Secondly, I am sure the Minister has not understood me correctly. I said, at the present, maybe this House and the people have confidence in the Minister and his Permanent Secretary, but what about the future, Sir? I have already quoted one practical example and that is the present well-known method of employment in the City Council - if you want to seek a City Council job, you must be a member of a political Party, and you can then be sure of getting a job. Sir, it is obvious that party politics are creeping into our public service and the appointment of staff from the S.I.T. to the Housing Authority, which is such an important body, can only be determined by the decision of the P.S.C. Sir, let them determine who should remain or who should be asked to resign; or who should be humiliated and forced to resign. We have known that Mr Marcus of the City Council had to resign. Why should he resign from the Hawkers Department? It is evident that party politics are being played in the public service and therefore a principle is involved - should Singapore preserve a clean public service or not? Otherwise, if party politics are permitted to get into our public service, candidates would try to bribe or find a way to by-pass the Public Service Commission. That I think is the most dangerous, disastrous and sorrowful thing for the people of Singapore. Why allow one-

On a point of clarification, Sir?

If the Member will give way. Mr Lim Cher Kheng resumed his seat.

In regard to the present or future employees of the Singapore Improvement Trust, is the Member for Changi trying to say that the present employees of the Improvement Trust should be confirmed by the Public Service Commission in their appointments in the future Development Board?

Yes, Sir, I want all the present staff of the S.I.T. to be confirmed in their appointments since the S.I.T. is to become a Government authority; unlike in the past when the S.I.T. have for years been a statutory body. Once you allow this new Government department to by-pass the Public Service Commission in its appointments, then I am afraid many, many more Government departments would follow this Housing and Development Board. Therefore, by implementing this Bill, we create a very, very bad precedent. I wonder why the Minister cannot find any means to solve the technical difficulties of the S.I.T. staff, who are much worried and feel insecure in the confirmation of their appointments by the Public Service Commission. Sir, it is just a minor difficulty which I am sure the P.S.C. and the Minister can find a way out to solve, rather than embark on the implementation of this Bill. We want our public service to keep entirely away from politics. I have just quoted the example of party politics having already infiltrated into the City Council. You cannot deny it, Sir, and I hope the Minister for Local Government can take notice of such happenings. If you want to get a job in the City Council, you must be a member of such and such a political Party, and that is -

(Tanjong Pagar): On a point of information, Sir.

If the Member will give way. Mr Lim Cher Kheng resumed his seat.

Will the Member enumerate three specific cases, instead of making these unfounded allegations?

I want to quote the case of the Hawker Inspectors. When the City Council advertised in the Chinese newspapers for many more Hawker Inspectors, certain required qualifications were made known. You must have a Senior Cambridge School certificate or a Chinese Senior Middle School certificate. I learned from a reliable source that many applications -

Name three!

-came from India. These applicants even possessed B.A. degrees and they applied as Hawker Inspectors. There were still others who possessed even higher qualifications, but all these applications were turned down. If the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar wants to know the details, I think he can get the information from his colleague in the City Council, because an Assemblyman like myself has nothing to do with such political manoeuvring. I can only gather such information from persons who approached me for jobs. Many of these job-seekers have approached me these last few months since the results of their Senior Middle School examinations were published. They tried to get jobs in the City Council. I would like to quote a few names: Chan Yin Fong, who has just graduated from the Chung Cheng High School; another one, Miss Ng Teck Choi from Chung Hwa Girls' School. They approached me for jobs and the question that confronted me most was that they wanted me to recommend them to a, say,. Singapore People's Alliance or Lib-Soc. City Councilor. I asked the girl about the registration, and she said, "Oh, I have got through because I have enrolled as a P.A.P. member." Sir, these are the facts. Whether these applicants were really seeking jobs in the City Council or not, I have no right to question, but it is true, on their own words, that if you are seeking a job in the City Council, you must prove your political leanings. As they say, Sze Siang Tsen Chueh, which means that with a right political mind, you have more chances. Therefore, I strongly oppose the passing of this Bill without any amendments, particularly in view of the great danger of allowing this Government Department to by-pass the P.S.C. and I am afraid it is going to create a very serious precedent which a political Party in power in the future might follow. Then Singapore's days will be numbered. 10.25 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must congratulate the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, for being able at last after a period of four years, to present us with his Housing Authority. My only regret, Sir, is this: that whilst the Government has been giving its parliamentary draftsmen a great deal of practice on how to draw up Bills, many will be subsequently scrapped, because there is not enough time for the Government to get on with its ideas before it is thrown out of office. If I may remind the former members of the Labour Front, this was one of their key planks in their last election platform. They talked about it for four years and now, when they are on their way out, they present us with this Report of the Select Committee. Sir, it is not without significance that the senior staff of the Singapore Improvement Trust are concerned about their future and want to entrench themselves before this Government goes out of office. That is a well-known fact. It is also a well-known fact that they would like to build themselves into new jobs - unlike what happened to the City Council senior officers who were unable to get the old Council to put protective amour-plating around their jobs before they, the old councillors were swept out of office. We have no objections to this Bill being passed, but I do ask the Minister to consider seriously whether he should embark on the implementation of such an important task when he knows full well that his Government has got only another eight weeks to go. The next government may well have very different ideas as to how this Bill should be implemented, even though it may be of the opinion that there should be an independent or separate Housing Authority. The next government may well be of the opinion that this Housing Authority should be under the direct control, direction and drive of a Minister for Housing, and not under an appointed Chairman. I therefore submit this view for the Government's consideration - that the administrative apparatus of the Government should not be strained to breaking point by last-minute switches in policy. If the Government goes on with the implementation of this Bill, and the next government disagrees with it, in a matter of weeks all these gears will be thrown into reverse. That will not be good for the country - and they know it. I would also ask the Minister to remember this. Whatever the views of permanent Civil Service may be, and whatever the views of the S.I.T. Senior Officers are, the final decision has to be made by a political head. As the political head, he must assume final responsibility for what happens to the S.I.T. and this Housing Bill. I would also ask the Minister, if he has any confidence at all in his programme and his policy and what he intends to do, to place it before the electorate and get a mandate to get on with it. 10.28 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has now served us with notice as to what may happen to all Government Bills and Government planning if his Party gets into power. I am glad he has made clear the position of his Party, but what I do hope is that, should his Party get into power, the whole of the Government and its administration will not be in the same sorry state as the City Council is today -

It has never worked so well!

-as a result of irresponsible and rapid changes of administration of its office and of its administrative officers without regard to the public of Singapore as a whole.

On a point of information, Sir.

If the Member will give way.

No, Sir, I think, except for the extremists in Singapore, everyone will agree with us that the affairs of the City Council are not what they should be at all. And if this were to happen to the administration of the island of Singapore, then I shall be very, very sorry for all of us who think on exactly the opposite lines. I must therefore forewarn everyone of us to be prepared to meet that challenge. Mr Lim Koon Teck resumed his seat.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

The Member has sat down! 10.30 a.m.

Sir, I did not intend to say anything on this Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar that, of the Bills which have been passed last week or the previous month, some of them are very important, and should have been held over after the elections, so that the people who get the mandate can introduce them. But the present Government - most of the Members have changed their labels - have thought fit to bring up this important Bill on, I would say, the eve of their misrule of office. I would suggest that though they will get the Bill passed, it should not be implemented till the new Government comes into power. I am not going to enter into party politics as others have done, but it is the people who will elect Members to this Assembly on the basis of their past performance, and it is those people who have been elected who should implement this important Bill. 10.33 a.m. Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat rose-

Dato Abdul Hamid, in reply?

Yes, Sir, I think there is very little to reply. With regard to the statement made by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, I am somewhat unhappy to learn that, on the one hand, he supports the Bill and, on the other hand, he does not support its implementation. Sir, whether the Bill has come up in the first year or the second year or the third or even the last year of office of the present Government, we, on this side of the House, will, within the political and legal life of this Government, implement what is right. The Member for Changi was again harping on the question of the Public Service Commission. As I have said earlier, Sir, it is against all accepted service principles to insist that the present employees of the Trust should be rubber-stamped by the Public Service Commission in appointments which they have been holding for years and years. Furthermore, Sir, there is no comparison at all, in my opinion, between the City Council and the future Development Board. The alleged happenings in the City Council could probably be because that body is a fully elected one. The Development Board, on the other hand, will have members who will be nominated by Government and who will not be elected members, as it is in the City Council or even in this Assembly. So the chances of politics getting into the Development Board would, in my opinion, be very remote. I still say, Sir, that it is unwise, and we should not attempt to introduce the powers of the Public Service Commission into the Housing and Development Board, at least in the case of the present employees who have been with the Board, some for twenty or thirty years. Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat resumed his seat.

On a point of information, Sir.

The Minister has sat down.

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

10.36 a.m.

Sir, I rise to move, That the Report of the Select Committee on the Planning Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 21 of 1958, be adopted. Sir, this is a Bill of some difficulty, and it is for this reason that the Bill was committed to a Select Committee at the sitting of this Assembly held on 10th September, 1958. The Select Committee has had the benefit of representations from, among others, public bodies and institutions, such as the Singapore Harbour Board, the City Council, the Institute of Architects in Malaya, the Singapore Ratepayers Association, and the Society of Malayan Architects. The representatives of some of these bodies also appeared before the Select Committee to supplement their representations by oral evidence. These representations, Sir, were given very careful consideration by the Committee, even where some of them have had to be subsequently rejected. Many of the amendments which have been made in the text of the Bill in Select Committee have been the direct result of these representations. I do not intend to go through all of them, Sir, but would mention particularly the amendment now incorporated in clause 9 (11) as it appears in the Select Committee's Report, which makes it necessary for the Competent Authority to make known its decision within three months and the reason for such decisions if the applications were refused or granted subject to conditions. Clause 13 of the Bill in the Select Committee's Report also incorporates certain safeguards against arbitrary exercise of powers to enforce planning control by enabling, in sub-clauses 2 and 3 thereof, any person aggrieved by any direction of the Competent Authority to appeal to the Minister. The other amendments, Sir, while they have improved the working of the planning organisation are of a minor character. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it. Question proposed. 10.42 a.m.

Sir, my remarks on the Housing Bill apply with equal force to this Report which we are now asked to adopt. The Government must recognise that it has a duty not only to do what is right to themselves, but also to do what is right to the country. Knowing full well that the policy of the next government, particularly in regard to the implementation of housing policy, may well be different from the present Government's, they should follow what the Financial Secretary did when he presented the Budget, and leave the position open. If the Financial Secretary, who has now retired, had adopted the attitude which the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, perhaps without proper consideration, has chosen to strike in this Assembly, then he would have gone on with those development schemes and incurred for the country a waste of public expenditure when the schemes are reversed. Sir, we are prepared to face any criticism. And let me tell the Member for Paya Lebar this. It is because there is drive and energy at the top in the City Council that the people are satisfied that the City Council has never functioned so efficiently and politely on behalf of the public and for the public. Let me also tell him this. If the S.P.A. leaves the Civil Service in a state of coma and the bureaucracy in a state of paralysis, then he will get the situation where the City Council Pavilion in the Singapore Constitution Exposition is ready on time and the Government Pavilion is not. Everybody knows, and 20,000 people who went to the opening on Saturday also know, despite the conspiracy of silence in the Press, that the opening of the exhibition was delayed because the Government Pavilion was not ready, and not because the roads were not suitable for pedestrian traffic. If you want results, then you must have drive and dynamism. If Ministers just sit back and only bestir themselves on the eve of an election, having slept for the last four years, then I say that those who awaken from their sleep at such a late hour will find that the bus has already left. Sir, these two Bills - one we have already passed and one we are about to pass - are the instruments through which, not the present Minister, but the next Minister for Housing will have to push through his housing policy, and the question of policy is closely related to the question of personnel. Whilst we agreed in the main with the Housing Bill, I think the Minister did mc an injustice when he thinks that my Party agreed wholeheartedly with every single detail in that Bill. For instance, I had already indicated to him earlier that it is my opinion, and the opinion of my Party, that the head of the Housing Authority should be the Minister and not a Chairman appointed by the Minister. If it is to propel itself with the drive with which the Minister thinks it ought to be propelled, then the Minister should be present himself to see that his policies are pursued with vigour, and not do it by proxy. There are many amendments of that nature that we have in mind. All that will necessitate amending legislation. What is worse, we do not want the personnel to be fixed beforehand. If he had done this at, the beginning of the career of his Government, with three years ahead of him to carry out and implement his policy, then we would have no grounds for complaint. It is no use to talk about "We will do what is right and what we think is right in this respect." He knows full well that he has got only eight weeks before dissolution and that what is right for the Government to do now is not to queer up the position for the country by making it necessary for the next government to reverse gears. 10.45 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, very seldom have I been able to agree with the hon. Member for Changi, but I find myself in entire agreement with him today, particularly when he accused a certain Party of using the City Council as a propaganda machine for its political purposes. Sir, that has been amply confirmed by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, when he said just now that the City Council's stand in the Singapore Constitution Exposition is ready whereas the Government one is not, and that it is because of the drive and energy of his Party which is ruling the City Council. Sir, to many people like myself, I think it is a dreadful thing to say. It is not proper to use a local government, like the City Council, which is part of the Government, for its propaganda, to denounce the Government for what it has done.

For what it has not done!

What he said is completely wrong. I have been to the Constitution Exposition ground many times during the week, and I can say that the Government departments and all the pavilions were ready and willing to start on that night at the same time as the City Council, and their drive is no less than that of the P.A.P.'s.

On a point of information, Sir.

If the Member will give way.

No, Sir, I used to, but not now. That shows their defiance of the rules of the game and of the law. When the Committee decided that the public should not be allowed to go in, because that would disturb the work that is going on in the exhibition, they purposely put on the lights to defy the law and to get the people to rush in.

What law?

After all, they came in as a member-

On a point of information, Sir. Surely if the-

If the Member will give way.

No, Sir. Surely they enter the exhibition as part of the team under the aegis of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, who started the whole exhibition? Therefore, they should abide by the rules. If the Chinese Chamber of Commerce say that the exhibition has to be postponed, then the City Council should follow the rules; but instead of that, they saw in it a glorious opportunity to put on a blaze of lights, and say: "Here we are - ready, and everybody else is not!" That is, to my mind, definitely not fair, and that is why I want to see a fair game being played in Singapore and in this House. The exhibition is not ready because of the inclement weather we have had during the last two weeks.

I think I have allowed this aspect of the debate to go far enough. I think it is completely irrelevant to the Report and, therefore, I must stop any further debate on the exhibition. Let us come back to the Planning Bill.

Thank you, Sir, for your ruling. I must say that many of us, particularly those who have appeared before the Select Committee, are not at all happy about the Bill as it is presented today. Many points have been brought up, and most of them have been turned down. The only satisfaction we had was the amendment to clause 9 (11), as mentioned by the Hon. Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing. Under that clause, anyone who now submits plans will get an answer - yes or no - within three months; and if any condition is imposed upon the plan that is submitted, or if the plan is refused, the planners must give the reasons for the refusal. That is a step forward, Sir. At least those who want to develop or take part in the development of Singapore will know that they will get a definite answer within three months instead of, as they had before, being referred back to and fro by the Planning Department, and sometimes it took over a year to get the plans through. But changing of the law and giving a definite time for plans to be passed are not enough. We have now the authority of the planners decentralised by the creation of the District Councils. I do hope that the District Councils will use all the powers and energy to push through as many plans and as soon as possible when they are sent to them for approval. Sir, I think the duties of the District Councils, especially the Planning Department, are very onerous today. It has a backlog of plans to approve, and I do hope they will use the powers they now have to try and help the small man living in the area, so that he can repair his house or build extensions without encountering a great deal of difficulties, as has happened in the past. It is because of the difficulty of getting plans through that has encouraged or forced some people to commit breaches of the law and carry out repairs on their own. Sir, I hope that by changing this law we will be able to allow people who submit plans to build quickly, so that we can curb the number of illegal houses that are being erected every day in Singapore. 10.53 a.m.

Sir, I just wonder how many hon. Members will agree with me when I say that when a person is thirsting for power he can easily be lured and become a fanatic.

Order. I have already indicated that I wish to keep this debate on a proper plane from now on, and I rule that the word "fanatic" with reference to a Member of this Assembly is, unparliamentary, and that word must be withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to withdraw, but I substitute for it the words "a selfish, opportunist politician".

Order. If the hon. Member is not careful with his language, then, of course, I have power to stop him from talking at this sitting. I ask him to restrain himself, and try and be relevant to this Bill. He must now withdraw that expression.

Sir, I apologise to you, and I beg to withdraw the expression. But I must express my bitter feelings at the course the debate on this Bill is taking, because I have discovered that certain hon. Members are actually not interested at all in the debate, but are merely here to seek some other aims. Maybe you wish to rule me out again, Sir? As I have already said in my speech on the previous Bill, I still wish to repeat the same remarks on this Bill. The Minister has still failed to answer my query as to how he is going to assure the S.I.T. staff (now the Planning staff) that they will not be involved in party politics, particularly in the coming year. I wish to ask the Minister again whether he has any solution to such a minor technical point about the present staff of the S.I.T. who should feel secure in their jobs and be confirmed in their appointments by the P.S.C. It is important to preserve the integrity of the service and that can only happen if appointments are made by the Public Service Commission. Sir, if you will recollect, the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar challenged me to mention a particular case of party politics in the present City Council. May I crave your indulgence to name the appointment of Mr Jek as the Mayor's Secretary, who was appointed by-

The P.S.C.

Order. I cannot see how that is relevant to the Planning Bill.

I strongly oppose any appointment to the staff of the Housing Authority - where the P.S.C. has been by-passed. I maintain that in such an important body every appointment made must be referred to the P.S.C. and be confirmed by it. I wish to take this opportunity also to comment on the policy of the planning of Singapore. The Master Plan is, in the eyes of many people, still a myth, especially among the masses. The peasants and the ordinary man-in-the-street do not know the purpose of the Master Plan. They think it is only a plan to beautify the City and to build skyscrapers, or even for the benefit of the wealthy class of the population. This question has been constantly put to me by the people in my constituency, the majority of whom are fishermen and farmers scattered around the rural area. because they feel that even up to now the Master Plan has not provided them with houses. They want Government to provide some means to raise their living standard. They want to know whether the Government has anything in the Master Plan to provide them with houses, which they badly need, or a place where they can settle down. The Minister has mentioned before his plan to build a Malay settlement. I remember I told him that he should enlarge his plan for attap dwellers which he has outlined in his plan to include not only the Malays but also any person who is unable to rent a house provided by the Government or, as present, the S.I.T., and who has no chance to buy a house of his own. The farmers will be happy and contented if only the Government will give them a piece of land and allow them to build an attap house on it. Sir, I wish the Minister will give an answer to these two points. 11.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with mixed feelings that I speak on the Bill. On the one hand, I am very glad that at the end of four years we have seen an attempt to abolish that notorious organisation called the Singapore Improvement Trust. On the other hand, Sir, much as I would like to have imagined before my election, I could never have imagined that a Bill of this type could be made on this side of the House of which I am a Member. I have spoken many times in the Select Committee on the policy of the Trust and the people are tired of what it has been doing all these years. My one and only hope is that this new Bill will be able to stop all this dictatorship and corruption, and whatever else that goes with it. But I see nothing in this Bill that gives me encouragement on all the points I have raised. According to this Bill, you can do nothing except with the approval of the Minister or his appointees. There is nothing to say that you can get the plans passed or get a scheme approved except with the approval of the Minister or his officers. Take, for instance the question of design. Nowhere in the world has an architect been able to put in writing or in whatever form what is called good design. Yet the Government wishes to seek powers to control design. If the authorities concerned cannot find any reasons good enough, they can just turn it down and say, "No. Bad design." The word "design" can mean planning and anything that the officer can think of. I have no objection if the control of design is vested in the Local Authority. although I do not agree that they should have such powers. That is not so bad. But I think it is too much to ask for control of design at the initial stage of planning. I do not believe you can find such powers anywhere in the world. At present, if you want to submit a scheme to the planning authority of the Improvement Trust for approval, you just send in a site plan, indicating the number of storeys you intend to build, and for what purpose the building will serve, and then leave it to the authority to say yes or no. But if design is one of the points of approval and if the officer concerned insists on it, then the architect will have to submit a sketch plan. A sketch plan is a very expensive item. Take, for instance, the Polytechnic. It costs about $8 million. According to the scales for a sketch plan, an architect is entitled to charge 2½ per cent. If we know that the scheme is sure to go through, then that amount is worth spending because ultimately, before you make a working drawing, you will have to submit a sketch plan to the owner for approval. But to commit yourself to an expenditure of $200,000 without any assurance whatsoever, I think that is most improper. Then on the question of appeal, Sir. As it is, you have to appeal to the Minister. I have fought very hard in the Select Committee to make the point that before the Minister makes his decision, this appeal should go before the Committee appointed by the Minister. When I say that, I do not mean that I have to ask the Minister to follow whatever decision is made by the Committee. I just ask that the Minister, before he makes a decision, should at least hear the opinion of the Committee which he appoints. I think that is not too much to ask. I have never any doubt as to the ability and integrity of the Minister. But we know, Sir, that the Minister is a non-technical man. He has to depend on the advice of his officers. As there are no regulations to say what is right and what is wrong, so it is a matter of opinion in a lot of cases. The Master Plan has already been submitted and approved by the Government. Yet I find in many cases that even if a plan conforms entirely to the Master Plan, it is disapproved. So how can you expect the public to support the Government when they do not know what is right or wrong? As it is, Sir, the approval or disapproval of a plan, to a great extent, depends on the whims and fancies of the officer concerned. We know, Sir, even in the Improvement Trust today, that if a certain officer is in charge, you might get a disapproval, and when another officer is in charge, you might get an approval. The Bill has done nothing to alter or improve it. Planning, Sir, is not a matter, as many imagine, which only concerns the architect, the contractors and the estate people. It concerns everybody. If the Government makes it expensive for land to be developed, the cost ultimately will be charged to the people of Singapore. As I say, Sir, on the question of controlling design and having to submit a sketch plan, I am sure the architect would welcome clause 10. At least today, Sir, if we were asked to submit an application, we just type the application, enclose the site plan and submit it to the Improvement Trust. But if the Government insists on having a design first, as what the Bill provides, then you have to submit a sketch plan with the application. In this respect, Sir, you can be sure the architect will not render a service free of charge. It goes back to - who else? Is it fair, Sir, that the public should be burdened with this unnecessary expenditure? If the Government cannot tell the public what is right, how can they condemn what is wrong? That is why I objected very strongly to that clause in the Select Committee, and I object very strongly to it now. In the administration of laws, Sir, there are two sides to it. One is the law itself; the other is the officer who administers it. I know very well that I will not have the support of this House even if I decide to vote against the Bill. But I sincerely hope the officer who will administer this law will make it as easy as possible for the public to be granted the approval which they seek, if they comply with the regulations. 11.12 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I like the remarks of the last speaker, especially at the end of it. I think that in all ventures that we undertake, everything must be based on practicability. I have seen the S.I.T. planning section working for the last few years, and I have one or two observations to make. Firstly I know there is a Planning Department in the Singapore Improvement Trust. I believe that the work of this Department is to plan. I further believe, Sir, that we have many architects going to the Planning Department, but the work of the architect must just be to put up plans for houses. They should have nothing to do with the planning of an area. They should only plan as to how the houses should be built, and see that they conform to all the requirements of safety and so on. What I have actually found, Sir, is of a very curious nature. It seems to me that those who want to put up buildings have to go to the architects to have their plans drawn up. But the architects have also to put up a site plan and an overall plan for the whole area. That I think intrudes upon the work of the planners. We have experts in planning. The experts are now asking the architects, who should not be doing that job, to do the job for them. Perhaps, Sir, a great deal of the heartburn felt by so many people could be removed if we could ask the planning section of the S.I.T. - now the Planning Authority - to put up tentative plans for the whole area, including plans of where the roads should be situated, where bungalow lots should be situated, and other little details. Then when builders go to the architects, they have the area already planned out. The architects just draw to plan, and everything will be set in motion very quickly. Perhaps the answer may be that we have not enough planners, and if we do not have enough planners, then further details should be given to assist those who are going to do the work of planners, and not just say - this is a green belt, that is something else. The second thing I find, Sir, is that not all people know about the Master Plan. They only know very roughly what they can do. They may not even know what they cannot do. A man who wants to develop a piece of land may not even know that it is in the green belt and that nothing can be done about it. I would suggest to the Minister that further publicity be given to the overall planning of Singapore. I know that we have already one such publicity campaign whereby everybody is invited to go to the Victoria Memorial Hall and look at the whole area of Singapore. But I think that should be carried further. Every district should have a plan of it put up so that everybody in that district will know what he can do and what he cannot do and the intention of the Government with regard to the future development of Singapore. That will dovetail all the work of the Government and the people. I find also, Sir, that although this type of planning usually applies to the rich people, yet many of the people who can only afford to build attap houses come within the scope of that authority. I have known, in many advanced countries and also many not-so-advanced countries, that they have many types of plans put up for sale to the people. I have recently gone to the Rural Board to ask for cheap plans for the people. I find that these plans are out of stock. I would suggest to the Minister that plans for houses should be freely made available to the people, and if the people know where to build and how to build, it will solve a lot of problems. We know that there are plenty of unauthorised houses coming up, and that may be due to the inconveniences caused to the people, or to their ignorance of the plans of Government. I suggest that the Minister look into this in more detail in order better to help the people. 11.20 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are many sites on main roads in the rural areas where shop-houses could be built and yet they are not allowed to be built, just because these sites happen to be in the green belt or belts. It is well known that the housing shortage is very acute here, and if shop-houses could be built, at least the housing problem could be solved to some extent if, say, two persons were to live on the premises of a shop-house. There would be many thousands who would go to the shop-houses and overcrowding in their own houses would be eased. I hope whenever any developer or planner applies for permission to build shop-houses on the main roads in the rural areas, the Competent Authority will not put up obstacles such as general layouts. Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat rose-

Dato Abdul Hamid, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, most of the points raised by Members on both sides of the House have already been debated in the Select Committee and I do not think I will be called upon at this stage to reply to them. However, I would like to reply to the Member for Changi and the Member for Tanjong Pagar. The Member for Changi is still harping on the question of the Public Service Commission, but I would like to point out to him, Sir, that we are at this moment debating the Planning Bill. If he has read the speeches which I have made both in the Assembly and in the Select Committee, he should know by now that the Planning Department of the present Singapore Improvement Trust will be a Government department in my Ministry - the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing. Because it will be a Government Department, the Public Service Commission will naturally have jurisdiction over all the appointments and dismissals of the officers of that department. Secondly, Sir, about settlements. Again, the Member for Changi has asked me why I have been opening settlements for Malays in Singapore and why I have not done so for other nationalities. I would like to point out-

Point of clarification, Sir.

If the Minister will give way. Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I deny that I had asked why. I was only expressing the hope that while the Minister was planning to set up Malay settlements, he should at the same time set up a wider sphere of attap dwellers' settlements. I never questioned the merits or demerits of Malay settlements. What I want the Minister to do is to say whether he is in a position to enlarge the scope for an attap dwellers settlement.

The hon. Member said he hoped I would open up attap dweller settlements for other nationalities. But I would like to point out to him that every year Government is spending millions of dollars in buying up land and in resettling farmers in various parts of the island. Most of these farmers are from the Chinese community. I do not think I can, at this stage, agree with the proposal put forward by the Member for Changi that I should open up more settlements for the people of the rural areas. Now, Sir, I come to the Member for Tanjong Pagar. My reply to him will be the same as the one I gave him when the Housing and Development Bill was, debated earlier this morning. Again, Sir, he brought up the point where he insisted that this Government should not implement the policy embodied in the Planning Bill, because he said the present Government could only last a month or so. Again, he did say we on this side of the House have been sleeping for the last four years. I do not know who has been sleeping. He demands that we should not implement the policy of the Government in the Planning Bill. If only the Member for Tanjong Pagar would read the Report of the Select Committee, he would certainly find that his Party was represented in the Select Committee. I believe it was the Member for Sembawang. Also, at no time during the deliberations of the Select Committee did his Party Member put forward suggestions regarding the implementation of this Bill. We on this side of the House have a responsibility to the people, even though our responsibility may last only another month, six weeks or two months. We will carry out whatever policy is accepted by this Assembly and which we think will be good to the people of Singapore. Finally, Sir, let me warn my good friend, the Member for Tanjong Pagar. We on this side of the House, and particularly my Party, will not be intimidated by the People's Action Party. We will do everything possible for the people of Singapore because we know we are doing the right thing.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Report of the Select Committee on the Planning Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 21 of 1958, be adopted.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time." In this connection, may I draw your attention, Sir, to clauses 1 and 5, where the figure "1958" was mentioned. I think it should be "1959". With your permission, Sir, I hope it will be changed to "1959".

The alterations will be made.

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

11.27 a.m.

Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 5 of the Civil Defence Ordinance (Chapter 73), resolves that the Civil Defence (Singapore Auxiliary Fire Service - Service) Rules, 1958, made on the 23rd day of December, 1958, published as Gazette Notification No. S 4 of the 2nd January, 1959, and as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 1 of 1959, be approved. Sir, the Auxiliary Fire Service forms part of Singapore's Civil Defence organisation and, apart from one Staff Officer who is a regular fireman, is manned entirely by volunteers. Unlike other branches of the organisation, however, no rules have yet been made that clearly lay down the liability of members on enrolling into the service. The rules now before the House seek to rectify this omission by making detailed provisions in regard to hours of attendance, discipline and the type of service to which a member is liable. On this last point, the rules bring into being for the first time a reserve into which trained members can be transferred after completing the initial period of their enrolment. They are thus readily available in times of emergency. The rules also make active and reserve members liable for mobilisation in the event of an emergency - a liability that is essential if the regular Fire Brigade is to be expanded quickly and efficiently at short notice. It is also to be noted that the adoption of these rules will give the members of the Auxiliary Fire Service the same liability in regard to training, discipline and service as members of the other branches of the Civil Defence Corps. Further rules in respect of rates of pay for mobilised service and pensions for injury are in course of preparation. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 5 of the Civil Defence Ordinance (Chapter 73), resolves that the Civil Defence (Singapore Auxiliary Fire Service- Service) Rules, 1958, made on the 23rd day of December, 1958, published as Gazette Notification No. S 4 of the 2nd January, 1959, and as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 1 of 1959, be approved.

11.30 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Governor's recommendation to proceed with the motion. I beg to move, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1,189,681 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 2 of 1959. Sir, the Schedule consists of a list of three applications for supplementary provision. The reasons for these supplementary votes are explained in detail in the Sessional Paper. In all cases, there are full offset savings. Sir, I beg to move.

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

11.32 a.m. Schedule-

The summary is at page 3. Head 17- The sum of $18,000 for Head 17 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 19- The sum of $27,708 for Head 19 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 45- Question proposed. "That the sum of $1,143,973 for Head 45 stand part of the Schedule."

Sir, this is an opportunity to elaborate on the explanation given on page 2. Hon. Members will note that of the total of $1,189,681 asked for in the Schedule, about 91 per cent of it, namely $1,143,973, is asked for in respect of grants-in-aid. The capitation grant, as explained in the Sessional Paper, was increased from 30 cents per head to 50 cents per head for primary pupils, 75 cents per head for secondary pupils and $1 per head for Higher School Certificate pupils. The former rate of 30 cents per head had been in existence for about 30 years and it was felt that this rate should, be changed to enable the schools, especially the Chinese schools, to better their equipment. The Government decided to increase this grant so that these schools can have their equipment and the buildings can be made more presentable. The other item, as explained here, is the salaries of teachers. I believe that this question has been in the melting pot for many years. The salaries of teachers in Chinese aided schools especially have been neglected for a long time and it has taken the Government quite some time to streamline and bring the salaries of teachers of these aided schools at par with the salaries of the teachers in other Government and English schools. The arrears amount to a big sum and we ask the Assembly to approve this amount in the spirit in which the All Party Committee on Chinese Education recommended that the salaries of teachers in Chinese and other vernacular schools should be brought to the same level as that of the teachers in English and other Government schools. As I said, Application No. 264 covers two points: one, the increase of capitation grants to Chinese schools and the other the arrears of salaries to be paid to the teachers of Chinese aided schools.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $1,143,973 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sum of $1,189,681 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the motion. Motion and Schedule reported, without amendment. Question on the Motion put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $1,189,681 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 2 of 1959.

11.38 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Governor's recommendation to proceed with the motion. I beg to move, That the Assembly resolves that the sum of $105,327 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 3 of 1959. Sir, the Schedule consists of a list of four applications for supplementary provision amounting to $105,327. The reasons for these supplementary votes are given in detail in the Sessional Paper. My colleagues and I will be happy to give further information if required. Sir, I beg to move.

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

11.39 a.m. Schedule-

The summary is at page 3. Head 30- The sum of $57,927 for Head 30 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 37- The sum of $11,600 for Head 37 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 46- The sum of $35,800 for Head 46 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 49- . The sum of $15,000 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sum of $105,327 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the motion. Motion and Schedule reported, without amendment. Question on the Motion put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $105,327 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 3 of 1959.

11.42 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Nature Reserves. Ordinance (Chapter 235), resolves that paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the aforesaid Ordinance be deleted and the following substituted therefor : - "All that piece of land situate in Mukim No. XIII, Sembawang, in the Island of Singapore known as Kranji Forest Reserve comprised in Lot 163-8 and estimated to contain an area of 51a, lr. 10p., the boundaries of which are more particularly delineated and edged pink on Certified Plan No. 10401 filed in the office of the Chief Surveyor, Singapore.". Sir, the trunk roads which connect Johore Bahru to Singapore city carry a very heavy flow of traffic at almost all times of the day. Rapid developments in the northern part of Singapore island, both industrial and residential, have necessitated improvements in road communication in this part of the island. The trunk roads leading to the north have had to be considerably widened and dual carriageways have been constructed to facilitate the faster flow of traffic. Sir, in this road widening scheme, the construction of a dual carriageway at Woodlands necessitates encroachment on part of the Kranji Forest Reserve Lot 162-5, Mukim No. 13, Sembawang. The proposed excision of the Forest Reserve for road development comprises an estimated area of a little over two acres which is approximately 1/26th of the total area of the Kranji Forest Reserve. I must mention, Sir, that the Trustees of the Board of Management of the Nature Reserves, appreciating the Public Works Department's requirements of land for modernisation of the Woodlands Road, have agreed to the excision of this land with great regret. However, the Board has made a detailed botanical survey before the natural vegetation is lost for all time. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Nature Reserves Ordinance (Chapter 235), resolves that paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the aforesaid Ordinance be deleted arid the following substituted therefor:- "All that piece of land situate in Mukim No. XIII, Sembawang, in the Island of Singapore known as Kranji Forest Reserve comprised in Lot 163-8 and estimated to contain an area of 51a, lr. 10p., the boundaries of which are more particularly delineated and edged pink on Certified Plan No. 10401 filed in the office of the Chief Surveyor. Singapore.".

11.45 a.m. The Chief Minister (Tun Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the Report of the Select Committee on the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper L.A. 22 of 1958, be adopted, subject to the recommitted of the Bill in respect of a new clause immediately after clause 11 to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Report of the Select Committee on the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill has been in the hands of hon. Members for nearly two months. I refer to Sessional Paper No. L.A. 22 of 1958. Hon. Members are aware that the purpose of this amending Bill was to implement the recommendations of the Elias Commission by embodying them in the law with the object of eliminating malpractices during elections. As a result of oral and written representations as well as new proposals made in Select Committee, a number of amendments to the original Bill have been made. As hon. Members have had a good deal of time in which to study the Report, I feel it would be unnecessary for me to do any more except draw attention to the major amendments. Sir, the first major amendment is at clause 3. It has nothing to do with the Elias Commission, being solely concerned with changing the franchise for local government elections by permitting only those persons who have been registered as Singapore citizens to vote. The qualifications for voting at local government elections are now identical with those required for the Legislative Assembly elections. In other words, the franchise is confined to Singapore citizens. By virtue of the proviso at paragraph (d), the existing qualifications will remain unchanged for the purposes of any by-elections which may take place between now and the completion of the revision of the register of electors towards the end of the year. Sir, the second major amendment is shown at clause 16, by which a new Section 41A has been added to provide for compulsory voting. Views on this amendment were not unanimous as the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing voted against its inclusion in the Bill. The amendments made at clauses 2, 4, 11 and 14 are consequential on the provision for compulsory voting. The principle which is inherent in the proposal for compulsory voting is that persons who are now privileged to become Singapore citizens are required as a duty to vote and not simply regard voting as a right which can be ignored without redress. Under our new Constitution, we have taken into our Singapore family a large number of persons who, by virtue of only eight years' residence, are privileged to become Singapore citizens. By introducing compulsory voting, we bring all these citizens into active participation in elections. On the one hand, therefore, they have a proper status and a stake in this country and have a voice in its affairs, and on the other hand, they are expected to exercise their vote and demonstrate tangibly their interest and loyalty by discharging their duty by voting. Hon. Members will recollect that the Government had received representations from many organisations and individuals urging upon the Government to introduce compulsory voting and in deference to their wishes the Government agreed to give support to their representations. My colleague, the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing, however, is under a special directive from his Party to oppose compulsory voting and I have therefore given him and the Assistant Minister for Education permission to take their Party's stand on this issue. As this is a matter which concerns all political Parties represented in the Assembly and as Members of the Select Committee were drawn from such political Parties, it was fully discussed at informal meetings and, apart from the Minister for Local Government. Lands and Housing there was no opposition to compulsory voting. It is also considered that compulsory voting will, together with the other measures which have been written into the Bill, reduce the opportunities for malpractices such as intimidation and coercion of the electorate. In fact, the Elias Commission was of the opinion that a system of compulsory voting would be the most important single measure that could lead to the elimination of corrupt practices. Another reason, Sir, was on account of the inaccuracies in the registers, which, for various reasons, are thought to be as high as 20 per cent inaccurate. With compulsory voting the electoral registers can be corrected once and for all. It is for these several important reasons that provision has been made for compulsory voting. It will be noticed that in the event of persons failing to vote, mild sanctions are imposed. I should mention that Members of the Select Committee had informal discussions on the sanctions proposed and the effect on the public. It was generally agreed that as this would be the first time that many members of the public will be visiting the polls, it was not intended that the legal sanction should be harsh. It was necessary, however, to provide an inducement to all voters, old and new, to discharge their duty on polling day. It was agreed to recommend as a Government policy to confine State organised social benefits to citizens of Singapore and their families whose names, if their ages are 21 and above, should appear on the electoral roll. Such benefits are free medical treatment, unemployment and other relief, free primary education, S.I.T. accommodation, etc. The issue of passports and employment in the Civil Service are also points of Government policy. On the subject of transport to the polling stations, the amendment at subclause (2) of clause 22 confines the use of motor vehicles to the owner and members of his family. A definition of "member of his family" is given at subclause (3). A new provision to regulate the display of posters and banners has been added at clause 24. By this amendment we hope to eliminate the indiscriminate plastering of posters and banners and the disfigurement of the City and the countryside whenever there is an election or a by-election. The regulations will be published in due course. As regards election activities, the amendment to the new Section 73C on page 14 specifically prohibits primary or secondary school students as well as known secret society members from participating in election activities. The reason for this provision is, I think, clear enough. Sir, I have now covered the main amendments. As notified in my motion, however, I have one amendment to make on recommittal of the Bill. I will speak on this amendment at that time. Sir, I beg to move.

Before we proceed further on this matter, perhaps I had better draw the attention of hon. Members to Standing Order 55 (3). If hon. Members will look at page 23 of the Standing Orders, perhaps they will follow me a little more closely. Paragraph (3) reads: "Upon a motion to adopt the report of a Select Committee on a Bill, any Member may propose an amendment to add, at the end of the motion or the original motion may include at the end thereof, the words "subject to the recommittal of the Bill [either wholly or in respect only of some particular part or parts of the Bill or of some proposed new clause or new schedule to a Committee of the whole Assembly", and upon that motion being seconded the Bill shall stand so recommitted without question put. The Assembly shall thereupon either forthwith or upon a day to be named by the Member in charge of the Bill, resolve itself into a Committee to consider the business so recommitted." The position then in this case is that when once the motion is seconded, then, to use the words in the Standing Order, upon that motion being seconded the Bill shall stand so recommitted without question put." Therefore, if an hon. Member wishes to discuss or vote against any specific clauses in the Bill itself, then this is his opportunity to amend the motion under the provisions of Standing Order 55 (3) so that the Bill can be recommitted not only in respect of a new clause to be proposed but also in respect of those specific clauses. I trust I have made myself clear, and if hon. Members wish for time to consider that aspect of this motion, perhaps we could take the suspension now.

Is it to be seconded, Sir?

I am not asking for a seconder yet. I would like to know whether hon. Members would like time to consider that Standing Order. Perhaps Members of the Opposition could indicate to me whether they would like time.

Sir, it would be very wise to adjourn now as the time is about 12 o'clock. It would also give us time for consideration.

This is just to give hon. Members an opportunity to discuss in Committee of the whole Assembly certain specific clauses. If hon. Members do not wish to take advantage of Standing Order 55(3) , then I will call for a seconder and that means, of course, that the matter then goes straight into Committee of the whole Assembly only in connection with the new clause. I might also mention, of course, that if hon. Members wish to discuss generally the contents of the Bill, the opportunity will present itself at the Third Reading. May I have a seconder?

I second it.

Committee, what day?

Now, Sir.

I do not know whether hon. Members would prefer to take the suspension now.

We can suspend now, Sir.

I will then suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12 noon until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Order for Committee stage read. Bill considered in Committee.

2.31 p.m.

There is a note to clause 1, in page 5, line 5, to leave out "1958" and insert "1959". That will be done. New clause (after clause 11)- 'Amendment of Subsection (3) of section 22 section 22. of the principal Ordinance is hereby section amended by deleting the word 22. "two" appearing in the fourth line thereof and substituting therefor the word "three".'.-[The Chief Minister]. Brought up, and read the First time. The Chief Minister (Tun Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." As the law stands at present, Sir, the Local Authority must hold an election to fill a casual vacancy within two months of that vacancy occurring. This is a very short period and allows only the minimum amount of time in which to follow the legal procedures as well as to enable political parties to prepare and campaign for an election or by-election. For these reasons, an extension is thought to be necessary, in particular in view of the forthcoming General Elections and the possibility that there may be some vacancies to fill in the City Council as a result of City Councillors wishing to participate in the General Elections. It is felt that a three-month period is necessary to enable the by-election that may be necessary to be held after the General Elections. Without this amendment, it may happen that the by-election may have to be held almost at the same time as the General Elections.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill. Bill reported, with an Amendment.

Third Reading. What day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I second it. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, this is about the most illuminating example of the futility of this Government's legislation, of which we have had quite a few examples in the last few days. When this Bill was first introduced in this Chamber, we were all led to believe that at some time or other there were going to be elections to the Local Government and that the District Council elections were going to be held. We were told in 1957 that they would be held at the beginning of 1958. After the disaster they encountered in the City Council elections, the Labour Front tarried and dallied. In the middle of 1958, we were told that there might be elections at the end of 1958. Now in 1959 all pretence has been dropped, and it is openly acknowledged that there will be no elections to the District Council during the life of this Government. So why are we debating this bit of shadow legislation? What is the purpose of it? Sir, it is a good thing that the Legislative Assembly elections are not so much at the disposal of this Government as the Local Government elections were, otherwise it may well be that 1959 would not see the General Elections. However, we were informed that some of the principles which we debated in Select Committee might be embodied in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Amendment) Ordinance. Now, we have had the Bill for a few days and when that Bill comes up for Second Reading and goes into Committee, we shall inform the Government of our views. If it were possible, I would like to inform the Government of our views before it comes up for Second Reading. After all, we are all publicly committed to free elections - whatever each Member may privately desire. And since we are all committed to trying to frame rules to ensure free and decent and clean elections, it should not be difficult so to devise things that gangsters are nicely put out of the way. And if it hurts the Member for Serangoon, who is a schoolmaster, to have schoolboys put out of the way; I have seen his own students working not for his Party but for some other Party, and if the Chief Minister thinks that compulsory voting might yet save the sinking S.P.A., ex-Labour Front, ex-Progressive, ex-Liberal-Socialist - all the political riff-raff and flotsam and jetsam, then we will-

Order. Firstly, I think the expression "riff-raff, flotsam and jetsam" with reference to Members of the Assembly - I take it there was reference to Members of the Assembly - is completely unparliamentary, and all these personalities seem to me to be quite irrelevant. And if the hon. Member will continue with the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill which must be confined to the contents of the Bill and nothing more, then perhaps we can get on.

Indeed, Sir, I am very keen to get on with the Bill because I think it serves no purpose whatsoever. Firstly this Bill is going to be another piece of futile legislation, and all I was hoping to drive home was to remind Members on the opposite side that they can think of all the schemes they like in the world, but the secret of a long political life is a clean, healthy, good political life. There is no substitute for it.

Order. I have asked the hon. Member to withdraw certain words.

Sir, I was not referring to Members of the Assembly when I said "flotsam and jetsam". I was referring to the political Parties that have plagued this country for the last few years.

Including yours!

Order. I do not think the hon. Member should debate what my opinion is. My opinion was that he did refer to a government consisting of Members of different political Parties; and those expressions, to me, had some reference to Members of this Assembly, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw those expressions.

In so far as they referred to Members of this Assembly, Sir, I withdraw. But let the Government at least have the courage, if they want to try their luck at compulsory voting, to say, "I want to try this. This is my last gamble, the last throw of the dice. I believe the P.A.P. got in because lots of people who supported the Labour Front did not vote." Sir, I said quite frankly to the Chief Minister in Select Committee what we had already stated publicly, and what my Chairman has stated publicly on behalf of my Party. We are not afraid of compulsory voting. If the Government want another last throw of the dice, short of the dice being loaded, short of ballot papers being stuffed beforehand into the ballot boxes - and that is not possible - nothing will save them. If they believe that compulsory voting is the answer to a democratic government, then I say, so be it. But as far as this Bill is concerned, we are all wasting time debating a piece of shadow legislation which they have not the slightest intention of using. Now, they have not even the opportunity to use it before they go out of office. The whole solemnity of the legislative process is being abused by people pushing through measures which they know full well are just so many extra words on the Statute Book. 2.42 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this afternoon, we are adopting this Report of the Select Committee. I am glad after all that elections are due, because we had this promise of elections in 1956, 1957 and 1958, when the minority government was working. Today the situation is much worse. Certain Members elected on certain Party tickets have resigned from their Parties, and therefore they no longer represent their electorate; they only represent themselves. Sir, the Liberal-Socialist Party elected members have no objection whatsoever to whatever Bills the Government pass, because after the life of this Government, the people will be able to judge who is faithful to his word.

Order. I thought I made it quite clear that we are now on the Third Reading of this Bill, and the debate on the Third Reading can only be confined to the contents of the Bill. That is all.

Sir, with due respect to the Chair, I am trying to confine as best I can, but as a person elected from my electorate, I am sure I can express my political opinion. But if I am prevented, Sir, by your ruling, I have nothing more to say. After all, this is an Assembly where we can express our political opinions.

Order. If the hon. Member is not satisfied with my ruling, he has his remedy - he can move a motion. But I must try and apply the Standing Orders as best I can. The Standing Orders are the Standing Orders of this Assembly. We are now on the Third Reading of a Bill. Now if the hon. Member had comments of the nature he wishes to pass, he had the opportunity when I indicated what the procedure was-to recommit certain clauses of this Bill, which perhaps would have given him the opportunity to pass the remarks he wished to pass when these specific clauses were discussed in Committee. But he never availed himself of that advantage, and now we are debating the contents of the Bill, and the contents only.

Sir, I have always respected the Chair during the last three or four years. The Speaker has guarded the rights of the Assemblymen, and the Assemblymen have their own rights too. Thank you for the remarks, Sir. After these few remarks, what I want to ask is this. Do you call this legislation or rules and regulations a guided democracy, or dictatorship? But what I say is this. The voters will judge the persons whom they are going to vote. 2.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I for one would like to comment on compulsory voting. Personally I think compulsory voting is rather undemocratic. On the other hand, compulsory voting would give the masses a chance to give expression to their demands. I say this because I want to quote one incident which happened during the by-election in Tanjong Pagar in 1956. One was the way the members or supporters of the People's Action Party behaved themselves during that time. Their methods remind me of violence and gangsterism. I am referring to an incident which occurred after the by-election result was known, that is, about midnight. A few hundred supporters of the People's Action Party were marching in regimental order along Kreta Ayer Road. They then cut into Keong Siak Road and Sago Lane, where the death houses were. This band of people, while marching along the road, were shouting "Oompa Oompa, Merdeka!" I do not mind this expression at all. This group of unruly ruffians or hooligans then arrived at the Branch Office of the Liberal-Socialist Party. In front of the Branch Office was a coffee stall, and across the road there was a banner put up by the Liberal-Socialist. Party candidate, Mr Chong Wee Ling. When this group of people came to the front of this Branch Office, they behaved in a violent manner. This reminded me of the Hock Lee Bus riots. They climbed on to one another's shoulders and pulled down the banner, and tore it into strips which they then tied together. They then marched along the road like a funeral procession. At the same time, they tore down the posters of Mr Chong Wee Ling from the coffee stall, which were pasted by the sympathisers of our Party. The stall was then smashed by these same hooligans. Sir, compulsory voting is to allow expression by the people of Singapore. Do we want a party in power to adopt such violent and gangster methods or not? I for one would advocate that the people who make use of these hooligans should be punished.

On a point of information, Sir.

If the hon. Member will give way.

He had his chance to speak.

The hon. Member has not given way.

Not the people of Tanjong Pagar?

Order.

We have given many chances to the People's Action Party. One can now see the force of the P.A.P. to show how lamblike they are and honestly trusting the Communists. They are men who would use, without compunction, the strong-arm and violent methods of gangsters to get into power. Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the House to another fact, if compulsory voting is going to be adopted. In my area alone there are over 1,000 voters. They are staying in huts and attap houses in the electoral division of Tiong Bahru. The Statistics Department go by the boundary in compiling the electoral registers. The even numbers in the area and the odd numbers in the other area along the main road will be divided, so much so that the people living in my kampong have had their names compiled in the electoral register of Delta Division. If the polling station for the same voter is in the Delta area, how do you expect these people, most of whom are old, to go from Tiong Bahru to Delta Road area to cast their votes, a distance of about one mile? I have pointed this out to the Commissioner of Elections and he replied to me that he was unable to transfer these people from the electoral register of Delta area to the electoral register of Tiong Bahru. Sir, I would also like to say something about the compilation of the records. I should say that about 30 to 40 per cent on the register are inaccurate. When I took part in the election at Tanjong Pagar, I found that 90 cards, with the voters' names and addresses printed on them, were distributed to one of the houses there. In actual fact, there were only 40 people living in this house. Why cannot the Government take steps to rectify this mistake? Why cannot the Government see to it that the people who do not live in these houses should be debarred from casting their votes? Coming back now to the question of voters in my area - it is rather strange that Government expect those people living in my area, that is, in Tiong Bahru, to cast their votes in the Delta constituency to elect a candidate to represent their interests in a different constituency, that is, electing a representative in Delta to represent the people who live in Tiong Bahru. This is most ridiculous. But I cannot blame the Department of Statistics, Sir, because I found out that they compiled the registers by the numbers of the houses. Take, for instance, people living alongside a long road. The houses on one side will have even numbers and the opposite side will have odd numbers. The even numbers will fall into one electoral register, and the odd numbers will fall into another electoral register. For instance, the Tiong Bahru register will include all houses with even numbers irrespective of the fact that some of the even numbers of houses are situated in another area, say Delta area. In other words, the Department take the road as the dividing line. I hope the Government will take steps to put the voters back in their respective constituency. That is, the voters who live in Tiong Bahru, but whose names appear in the register of voters in the Delta constituency, should be transferred back to the Tiong Bahru register. I am sure that other areas have the same problem as my area has. I took the trouble of looking into the question of voters in a different constituency and I found that the figures came to over 1,000 people - over 1,000 voters are involved. I would urge the Government to see that this mistake be rectified. I for one would support compulsory voting. As I said, it would give the people the opportunity to express their feelings, and to decide whether they want a Party which adopts the methods of gangsterism or a Party which adopts a democratic method to run Singapore. 2.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to talk on compulsory voting. The Member for Tanjong Pagar has spoken very strongly indeed on this Bill. He said that this Bill should never have come to this Assembly-we have wasted the time of the Assembly. I do not think so. I have been a member of the Select Committee, and I would like to read out the names of other members of the Select Committee. They are: the Hon. Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat, the Hon. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Lim Cher Kheng, Mr Lim Choon Mong, Mr E. P. Shanks, and the Hon. Dr Lim Yew Hock-

Tun, Tun.

Well, Sir, I wonder why the protest was not registered at that stage.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

If the Member will give way.

No, Sir.

The Member has not given way.

I do not know why, if this Bill is not good, it should have come to this Assembly; and why we should have had so many meetings of the Select Committee. In this Report the first meeting was-

22nd August.

dated 22nd August, 1958.

- the elections in December?

Order.

- at which the Member for Tanjong Pagar, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, was present. Sir, I was really impressed by his enthusiasm at that time. He talked in a very business-like manner. He said that we must clean up all these things; we must prevent the thugs from running the elections; we must prevent those who are non-citizens from participating in the elections, and we must sit down and seriously think what methods we must adopt to make our elections clean. Very commendable, Sir, I would like to commend him further, Sir, because, after the discussion in the first Select Committee meeting, and at his own request, we were called to an All-Party Committee meeting at the Chief Minister's Office. We put up proposals and counter-proposals. Every detail was discussed, right down to posters, compulsory voting, use of students, this and that. He was most enthusiastic. I think he should be given a medal for showing such public spiritedness. But after hearing him today saying: "Look, this is all useless. Take the Bill away. We are wasting our time", I just cannot reconcile the action he showed previously with his present action. What is all this about? Why is the change? Why should we have the change? Who should have the change? Should the change be initiated by the Government, or by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar? I suppose if the change were initiated from the P.A.P., then everything should be all right. The people of Singapore should be very happy. But if anybody else should initiate it, then it would be a waste of time for this Assembly. No, Sir. Talking about people changing political Parties, talking about all these-

Order. I think the hon. Member has gone very, very far from the Bill. Now he seems to be straying a little further. Let us come back to the Bill.

I was just commenting on a few points which the Member for Tanjong Pagar had said during the Third Reading and which had interested me, and I thought we should also let him have our opinion on the same subject! I was saying that talking about all these changes, it should not be just the wish of one Party to change but the wish of everybody concerned. Now I come back to the question of compulsory voting. I think it is a very good measure, because the Party which wins will know that it has the support of the majority of the people and not of a small section of the people. Compulsory voting, Sir, will rule out to a large extent the use of thugs, as alleged by Members here. It will tone down the use of schoolchildren in the electioneering campaign. I have always been referred to as a school teacher. I think it is, after all, a very good thing to be a school teacher and to be able to look after the interests of school children and not just to make use of them. Today, school children stay at their work to study their lessons, and not influenced by the rebel talks of those people, need not go to principals or teachers to ask that they be promoted, or plead that they be found an extra school to go to. I have always been of the opinion that the people who really have the welfare of the children at heart should refrain from using them. They should ask them to think of their studies first, so that when they grow up they may better be able to serve Singapore, instead of their having ideas put in their heads, being sent on a wild-goose chase, neglecting their lessons and failing in their examinations. How many of them have failed miserably? If you look at the list of failures, I am sure you will find that those who are most active in shouting slogans and marching down Kreta Ayer Street will be amongst them. Now, after they have failed, they ask the Government or public-spirited people to help them. I would say we have helped them. But those who make use of them have no solution for them. I think the idea of getting these children away from all electioneering is a good one. 3.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, back in the year 1956 the Branch Secretaries of the Labour Front were meeting regularly and were considering the work of the 1955 elections and the work that would be necessary for elections which were foreseen as possible in 1957, and they produced the proposals which finally took fruit just over 2½ years later in this Bill. Substantially this Bill embodies the proposals then put forward through my friend, Gerald de Cruz, by the Branch Secretaries of the Labour Front - for compulsory voting, holidays, control of transport, the use of transport by candidates. The findings of the Elias Commission, which are also related to this Bill, were substantially the findings of that group of Labour Front workers at that time. The Elias Commission did it more thoroughly and more judicially, but the matters discussed and the conclusions arrived at were the same. Sir, it makes me happy to think that the principles embodied in this Bill are ones which find the general assent of this Assembly, however they may regard details of timing. There is one basic principle in politics, Mr Speaker, which I think this Bill protects and which is best put in the words of Confucius. I can quote them in the English version: "When a man's mind is ruled by passion, his conduct will be incorrect." Now, it is already obvious, Mr Speaker, that in this Assembly you are most scrupulously watching to see that our minds do not become moved by passion and our conduct does not err into indecorum. You have been pulling up speakers very frequently for verging on the bounds of indecorous words from which they might go on no doubt into undesirable actions. Now, as the elections become closer, so politicians will allow themselves to be guided by their feelings; and more than that I am afraid. From past experience, I consider it a certainty that politicians will seek to get the people of Singapore guided by their feelings. They will try to work them up, to make them feel, "Away with this, and away with that!" The still small voice of reason will be less and less heard, except where reason can be used as a machine to produce emotional results. It is, to some extent, a necessary part of political life that politicians should try to stir men's hearts and rouse their feelings, because a great many people undoubtedly are not profoundly moved by political affairs. They go forward in their daily lives not interested in the complicated courses which may make them in fact happy or unhappy. It is not for most people a matter of intellectual interest to study the trade figures of Singapore. They frequently appear not to realise that on the figures of trade and on a sensible interpretation of them depends their own expectation of future employment, prosperity, of adequate hospital services and education services and all the other things that they get, which are in the end a share of the profits of Singapore's trade. Consequently, if we are to interest people in policies, we have to try to bring those policies down into their daily lives and put them into words which will stir their minds and move them. It can be done in a good way. It can be done in a bad way, it is the part of the honest politician to present it truthfully, only illustrating it so as to make it understandable. If you come with long academic words and profound scientific explanations to an audience of people who cannot more than barely read and write, with a vocabulary of perhaps 1,000 or 1,500 words, you cannot expect they will listen to you with attention. This is the problem of the school master - and it refers to my own profession - teaching in school where you have to teach difficult subjects in simple words. The same thing applies to politics. Consequently, the honest and good politician will study his subject and see in what way it can be presented so that it can be understood by people who have not a great deal of time to spare, and who have already done a heavy day's work and are sacrificing their own leisure time to come and listen to him talking. He will try to make his explanations of political affairs interesting and significant to them. But because things have to be often put in simple political terms, there is a great temptation for the dishonest politician to misrepresent the facts or even to tell lies. It is this which provides a great danger to Singapore, and has provided it in the past, and will provide it in the future, as it does in any country where people go out and try to win for themselves popular support. It applies not only to politicians, but it also applies to all attempts to secure popular support, whether in your trying to sell a soft drink or a patent medicine or a newspaper or any other thing where your success depends on bringing in hundreds and thousands of people to say, "That is very good. I am for that." The temptation to dishonesty is always there, and very often people yield more or less to that temptation. It would not be hard to bring into this Assembly - in fact I have one here - election addresses sent out to the voters of Singapore in which blatant lies were told and things were misrepresented. The truth was shirked and intentionally dishonest statements were made. In the Select Committee which sat on this Bill, there was one point which I noticed. There was the question of the interpretation of a Malay word. Whether it meant that the minds of the public were disturbed or whether it meant that the minds of the public were - I forgot what the other interpretation was. Anyhow, it was discussed in the Select Committee and the witness said he did not mean that people's minds were disturbed in any bad way. But, nevertheless, they were disturbed by the two or three months of intensive shouting and the rudeness and so on which goes on between politicians before elections start. The witness in the Select Committee suggested that there should be two or three days before the actual polling day during which political activity must stop, so that the voters would have a chance to cool down and consider soberly what had been said, what the facts really were and then cast their votes in sober judgment and not in the excitement of a mind inflamed with electoral oratory. Well, that has not been provided, but at least it has been provided that on polling day itself the mind of the elector shall be left free, and there shall not be attempts to control or intimidate or persuade or influence him as he prepares himself to go to the polls. As he goes there, the parades of all kinds and descriptions of men - some of rather menacing aspect - whom we have seen standing outside polling stations in the past, will I hope not be seen again. If they start to hang around 200 yards from the polling station - that is the distance fixed in the Ordinance - then I hope the police will stand a few hundred yards away as well and will say, "Will you please move along the street, which is for people to pass along, and not for people to loiter in?" I remember in the Kallang by-election there was an informal agreement between the Parties not to put these watchers or supervisors outside the polling stations to watch the people coming to the polls. But it had little effect. In fact, the day ended with very large accumulations of people wearing all sorts of little funny hats lining up outside. I myself observed elderly and quiet looking people coming, as it were, with the intention of voting and then looking rather dismayed. I saw two elderly Chinese ladies, for example. They came along, talking, with their bits of paper in their hands, and then they suddenly looked up from their talk. They saw the accumulated crowd and then they looked at each other and had a short conference or consultation. Then they turned round and went away. At least two people did not cast their votes that day, because they saw a crowd of people there. They said, "Well, we are quiet people; we do not want to walk through this battery of staring eyes, all trying to wonder which way we are going to vote." Sir, I very much welcome the provisions in this law that on polling day the political Parties should keep quiet and stay at home and let the voters go to the polling stations, with their minds made up not under the influence of passion - whether anger or fear or any other passion. Let the voters go to the polls with their minds free to think and judge wisely. That is a great step forward, I think, among the things which are worth achieving. I also personally welcome the introduction of compulsory polling or voting, whichever word you prefer. I suppose the point has been thoroughly studied, but the effect, of course, is that in a compulsory poll, a voter has to turn up and go through the motions of voting; and if he likes to write some rude remarks on his paper or draw pictures of somebody, or do any other action, it should not be possible to find out what he has done since he has voted secretly, because this compulsory polling is, I feel, a further safeguard for the peace of mind of the voters. If all must vote, then it is harder to say of any individual whether he has voted this way or he has voted that way, because he is just one small drop in a very large ocean. The smaller the po1i, the easier will a voter feel it for an unsuccessful candidate afterwards to say, "I believe you voted for the other man, and now I am going to pay you out for it." That is a danger which will certainly be feared by voters sometimes, and it is most important that they should not feel that. Under these proposals, the crowd will be greater, the number of votes will be greater, and the chance of identifying the feelings of any particular voter will therefore be less. For that reason alone, compulsory voting or polling is a very desirable thing. It is desirable on other grounds as well, Mr Speaker. We have seen a number of elections in Singapore. My mind goes back to 1955. Approximately 156,000 voted then, if I remember rightly. Officially that was about 53 per cent of the poll. If the registers were 20 per cent inaccurate, as they usually are, then it was more like 66 per cent of the possible poll. Anyhow, it was a fair vote, though not a very heavy one. Now in that poll, Mr Speaker, there were 25 Members elected to this Assembly. Of those 25, the great majority were elected by a minority vote. They may not like to have it said of them but, nevertheless, it is certainly true. I remember the indignation with which the former Chief Minister, Mr D. S. Marshall, received my analysis of the election results, when I quite innocently remarked that the Labour Front won five of its ten seats on a minority poll, including the Cairnhill Division where the Labour Front polled 3,500 votes and the Opposition Parties - the Progressives and the Democrats - polled 3,630 votes; so that what was a fairly nice majority over the next candidate was, in fact, a minority vote for the Socialist side and a majority vote for the capitalist side. That was completely shown in the Cairnhill by-election thereafter, when the capitalist vote undoubtedly carried the day. That case, I think, applied to about 14 or 15 of those elected to this Assembly and if there had been a different method of voting they would not have been here. They are here because there was a single vote and the man had got, say, 1,100 votes and his two opponents got 1,000 votes each. He has definitely only got about a third of the total votes cast, but as he has got the largest single number of votes he becomes an Assemblyman and says very proudly, "I speak for the people of Singapore!" What he speaks for is a few thousand people who voted for him, and in his own constituency the majority of the people would have voted against him if they could. Unfortunately, they could not agree whom to vote for, and he is now sitting in the Assembly. These are the inevitable results of our electoral system which is modelled on the electoral system of Great Britain; and the justification for it - if it is a justification - is not so much that it gives effect to the wishes of the people, as that, it does secure that a government comes into power which has a useful majority. On the whole, the tendency is to give a small minority of voters the decisive word which throws the majority in the Assembly. If I might illustrate that, Mr Speaker, by referring to one case in this little textbook. In Great Britain in 1931, the Conservative Party polled 12,730,000 votes and got 460 seats in the House of Commons. The Liberal and Labour Parties polled over 9,500,00 votes and got 250 seats in the House of Commons. The Conservative Party got 120 more seats than their votes would have justified. In other cases, the additional seats achieved have been still higher sometimes. It may go to any Party. It does not matter much to which Party it goes. The tendency possibly will be in the future for the Labour Party in Britain to get advantage of that system of voting for single members where you have to make a choice, and if your choice is not one of the majority, your voice is not heard at all. So, Mr Speaker, as we bring in compulsory voting, we shall I think do something to ensure - not necessarily that every man or woman in the Assembly has the unanimous support of the people in the constituency where he or she stands - because it is most unlikely that he or she will - and I shall expect myself that any future Assembly will contain a great many Members who do not represent the majority of the voters in their constituencies but who represent a minority, but the largest minority that has managed to agree together... It is interesting to look back to 1955, if I may look back to it. Had the Liberal-Socialist Party been formed, say, in 1954 and fought the elections and had the Member for Telok Ayer at that time been a member of the Party and not an Independent, then the Liberal-Socialist Party would have had the seats to form the Government if they had been able to get the support of the U.M.N.O.-M,C.A. Alliance. They would have had a clear majority and they would not even have needed, I think, Members nominated to fill up their Benches. The nominated Members could have sat on the other side if they had wanted to. They would have certainly not needed a nominated Minister like myself. The Member for Serangoon, as the leader of the Liberal-Socialists, might well have been the Chief Minister of Singapore for the last four years had there been a united Right or Liberal-Socialist Party at that time. Although, in fact, the votes as cast showed a slight majority - a few thousand votes-for what you might call the Left Parties, nevertheless, the Right votes were so distributed that had there been unity between the Democrats and the Progressives at that time, they would have been able to form the Government, although they would not have represented more than 50 per cent of the votes actually cast. This rather lengthy excursion into an analysis of electoral results, Mr Speaker, is only to reinforce my point that compulsory voting will give the 1959-1964 Assembly a better chance of knowing what the people of Singapore want. What the people of Singapore want is not necessarily the whole programme of any Party. Certainly when we say "the people of Singapore", it is a loose expression which usually means "my supporters", but not any Party in Singapore is going to command all the support of all the voters. But one thing is certain - that a very large number of the voters will disapprove of whatever Party comes into power at the next elections. How vigorous that disapproval may be it is hard to say, but it is very much to be hoped that as the struggle for votes develops, only fair and proper means will be used and feelings of hatred and emotional excitement will not be encouraged. There should be no need for a competent party which knows its party work, has proper policies, and has taken the trouble to get to see the people, to play on emotions in any unreasonable and undesirable way. It should be able to get their votes by clean, honest and truthful politics. It is to be hoped that we shall be able to get that, because if we do conduct our party politics over the next two or three months on a basis of vicious attacks on each other and irresponsible statements or lies to the voters, we can then expect that the next Government - whatever Government it may be - will come into power against a wave of bitterness and an opposition which has committed itself to all sorts of unjustifiable positions of attack, and then the affairs of Singapore will not be ruled by wisdom and forethought. They will be ruled by emotion and, in the words of Confucius: "A mind ruled by passion or emotion is a mind which will not be correct in its actions." So compulsory voting will give to the incoming Government, I hope, a weight of public opinion which might otherwise be lacking. They will see that although they are forming the Government, nevertheless, a large percentage of the people did not vote for them. They came to the polis but they did not pass their votes for Mr X or Mr Y of Party X or of Party Y. They cast for another party and that in itself should exercise a moderating restraint on those who might otherwise seek to carry their personal political excitements into extremes. In political affairs, the people who make the decisions are seldom those who suffer for the decisions. The politician makes a mistake but it is the poor people who pay for it. He puts the blame on somebody else and says, "Well, it was not my fault. It was the other chap who did the thing wrongly," and he attacks the other Party. But if a factory has gone out of production and men have lost their jobs; if trade has fallen off and there is less milk for the children to drink so that their bones are not so strong, it is the fault of the politician. He put himself into a position of responsibility. He made a mistake in decision. He got into a muddle; he got into an unnecessary fight - whatever it is - and he does not pay the price. No, it is the poor people at the bottom who pay the price - the 370,000 or so people in Singapore who live on less than $1 a day. They are the ones who suffer first - and they will be the ones who will suffer first if the political Parties of Singapore misconduct themselves in the next general elections or in the District Council elections. The Member for Tiong Bahru made one point on which I would like to express my profound agreement with him, and that is on the difficulties which are presented for the electorate and indeed for political Parties by the registers which are still far from satisfactory. It is a matter in which I personally have been interested since 1955, I think it was. I received a letter from a man with the correct postal address. He lived somewhere in the area between Braddell Road and Serangoon Garden Estate and I had to say "somewhere in that area", because there is no other recognisable way of describing it. On the map, it is called "Ang Moh Kio" but Ang Moh Kio runs for about seven or eight miles and you cannot identify the words "Ang Moh Kio". And this man wrote to me a very reasonable letter asking for something or other - I have forgotten what it is now - and I wrote to him a very reasonable reply. Within about a fortnight, my letter came back to me in my Ministry marked "Not delivered - Address not known", or whatever the wording was. I then got on to the Post Office and asked, "Can you try and find this man, please? He has written me a letter. I want to send him a letter in reply,"; and in the end they had to put two postal inspectors on and they spent two days. Finally, they found the man who had a proper house with a proper Rural Board number on it. Everything was correct; it was the correct postal address, but it had never been heard of by anybody in Singapore, because that is the way the local authorities had dealt with their legal duty of fixing street names and house numbers. That was an early example to me of the very serious neglect of the rural areas which had taken place in the past. I do not necessarily blame the old Rural Board - they worked within their terms of what was possible - but there has been very great neglect in the past of rural and often urban areas as well. It is still, I am afraid, true today that as I go through the electoral register of the rural areas and try to see where the people are living and what they are doing, it is almost impossible to say, "Ah, this man is living at such a number, and I shall find him at such a place on the road." You will find No. 47, let us say, at the 5th mile; you will find No. 47 at the 7th mile; they are both proper numbers and they are both on the same road; they both have the same numbers and they are two miles apart. You will also find No. 47 very likely not on the road at all - it is a mile and a half away, at the end of a track, a path, over a river and a bridge, and there is No. 47 as well - still with the same address. It does not necessarily mean getting off the main road; the fact is, if you go along some of the roads like Yio Chu Kang Road, you will find the house numbering is almost incredible in its confusion. It may jump from, say, No. 30, to No. 100 or No. 1000 to No. 30 and back to No. 143, and back to No. 30 again! There is just no system at all. Those defects have been accumulated over a long time and I was interested primarily because they caused difficulties for the postal authorities, and because I held that any man in a civilized country has a right to have his letters delivered to his door. It is a very important point for the production of the electoral registers. It is not now possible, but I hope it will be done, to provide a renumbering and road-naming exercise for the whole of Singapore. I hope the work will go on and be done so that in a year's time anyhow it will be possible to produce correct registers, and every man, woman or child living in Singapore will have a proper address; and every political party will be able to look into the registers and reasonably know that such an address means such a place and not somewhere five miles off. It is, however, a local government responsibility, although it is one with which the Government is also concerned, at least my Ministry is concerned, because my Ministry is concerned with the delivery of letters or telegrams, and that kind of thing. Mr Speaker, I have spoken at rather great length, I am afraid, but I do want to make clear to the House my strong support for the principles embodied in this Bill. 3.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the democratic system of government of any country has the right in conferring rights on its citizens to expect a corresponding duty from its citizens. I am proud to say, Sir, that this Government has given to some 300,000 aliens resident in Singapore the right to vote for the first time. It is, therefore, not too much for the Government to ask these citizens to show whether they want these rights or not. If they want these rights, they should vote. If they do not vote, then their rights will be taken away from them. Sir, this Government has been accused of doing many wrong things, but no one can accuse this Government of having done wrong in giving these 300,000 people the right to vote for the first time. For over a hundred years, Sir, however long resident you might have been in Singapore, you have had no right to have a say in the Government. But now these rights have been conferred by this Government. Sir, the P.A.P. have boasted that they had an overwhelming success in the City Council elections, forgetting that at that election there was a suicidal alliance between the Labour Front and the P.A.P. - suicide for the Labour Front! We were given Divisions where the Right-wing was strong; we were taken away from Divisions where the Left-wing was strong. The P.A.P. won and the Labour Front lost! Sir, this time things may be different. This time we have 300,000 new voters. No one can forecast how they are going to vote. Sir, we must support compulsory voting. I, on my side, feel certain that the Government will provide booths for the people, bringing the voting stations to the people, and not asking people to go to the voting stations. 3.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems the Member for Tanjong Pagar's tactics recently have been to declare that all measures that the Government has introduced since last month are futile - that they are just written words with no meaning - and that the Government cannot carry out the essence of the law. Sir, when he said that this Bill would just remain "certain words", I was wondering whether it is the P.A.P.'s intention to try to break what is contained in this Bill by manoeuvring in such a way that they will escape the written words of the law and yet in essence still do what they like. Sir, compulsory voting is important for certain reasons. After the achievement of the status under the Rendel Constitution, there was a clamour by hundreds of thousands of people, who have made Singapore their home, to acquire citizenship rights so that they could belong to this place. That clamour meant, Sir, that they wanted the rights of citizenship, the right to belong to Singapore, the right to participate in the shaping of their destiny, the right to participate in the running of government at all levels - local and legislative levels. Sir, since they clamored for these rights, they must exercise the most fundamental right of all these rights, and that is the right to participate in electing representatives of their own choice - compulsory voting will ensure that the people of Singapore get the government they really want. In this way, they cannot afterwards complain that, as far as the total voting strength is concerned, they have got a government which does not have an overall majority. But there is, Sir, a much deeper significance in this compulsory voting, and that is this. The democratic system on the British pattern has in England evolved over a period of centuries into what it is today. We can see that it is by evolution, because even up to now the United Kingdom has no written Constitution. It is a Constitution which has been evolved through practice. Sir, this system is being handed over to most Asian countries in the form of written Constitutions, which they adopt on their attaining independence from a colonial status. But let us examine the history of most of the Asian nations. We find, Sir, in the history of many Asian nations that before the imposition of colonial rule during the last century or the century before, they had a pattern of one-man rule and that the British democratic system did not obtain in many of these Asian countries. Therefore, it is an experiment on the British democratic pattern that we are playing with in Asia today. In Western countries, fears have been expressed recently at the coming into power of military governments in some of the Asian countries. I do not deny, Sir, that some of the military governments that have taken over the charge of affairs in these countries have been more beneficial than the previous elected governments. But the point is that the workings of the democratic system are being questioned in these countries today, because if the democratic system had functioned well, then it would not have been necessary for the military governments to take over. Originally, Sir, the democratic system, and in fact in law it is still so today, is a system where an individual stands for election in a defined area and is returned as an individual. The party system does not exist in law. But it is unfortunate, Sir, that in the British pattern, after evolution, it came about that cliques began to be formed. These cliques were officially recognized as political Parties, and therefore, what you can get today is either dictatorship by one man, or dictatorship by a military commander, or dictatorship by a military government, or even dictatorship by a Party, which can then ignore the democratic system if it has got sufficient strength. The arrogant manner in which the Member for Tanjong Pagar has expressed his belief that whatever we do, they will win the elections and that everything that we do is futile, Sir, gives me a little bit of fear - "Is Singapore going to be handed over to persons who are not democratically inclined?" I have this fear because I recently read a book by one of the great personalities of today, a Prime Minister (I will not mention his name), and he said, "A small elite using the masses as a battering ram can control a country", or words to that effect. Sir, if you can get hold of determined persons, a clique of, say, four or five persons, and if they can follow the technique properly, they can fool thousands of people and use them to their advantage to set up a government by a clique; legally they would be recognised as a political Party, but in effect they could ignore the process of the democratic system. I was asked why I could not make up my mind on certain Bills; why I had to speak for two hours. That is exactly the difference in the way of thinking, Sir. I follow the democratic procedure-, where I found that the fears expressed by the Opposition were well founded, I gave way, I made alterations, so long as these alterations did not affect what I aimed at. But, Sir, there are people who will say, "Just because I am introducing this, all opposition should be ignored; I am in the right, and you are in the wrong." That sort of person. Sir, is a person to be feared. That is why compulsory voting is very necessary in Singapore. There are persons who limit the controlling power in a political Party to a cadre of 500 or so - which means that they would then cause - not even all these 500 but only a handful - the hierarchy of the Party - to set up a dictatorship. Let the people of Singapore go to the polls and decide whether they want such a government. If they decide to have such a government, they are welcome to it, and they cannot blame anybody for what follows then. 3.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a Member of the Select Committee on this Bill, I feel more than pleased and happy to support this Bill. Sir, before I go further into the debate on the merits or demerits of this Bill, I wish to extend my congratulations to a few Members of this House. My first congratulation is to the Member for Ulu Bedok who showed much courage and made personal sacrifices, despite the strong opposition from the Party U.M.N.O. Without him, I am afraid this Bill cannot carry on so smoothly. My second congratulation I wish to extend to the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Sir, I am honoured to be associated with him so closely on this Bill in the Select Committee. He was very understanding and co-operative - not only as what the hon. Member for Serangoon has said, highly enthusiastic. Many of us in the Select Committee were surprised that the Member for Tanjong Pagar was so understanding and cooperative in the discussion, even on certain aspects of vital importance to his Party policy. For example, on the question of the limitation of age of those who can take part in election activity, I for one strongly advocate that we must set an age limit to those who can participate in elections. In view of the past election experiences, we must bar anyone below the age of 21 from actively engaging in any election campaign. We are more than happy to have the support of the Member for Tanjong Pagar when he said, "Let us not bother with the time or the age limit. Let us agree to bar all the registered students from taking part in the election." I am sure this vital point shows how keen and generous the Member for Tanjong Pagar is on this aspect of the election. It is the first time that I discover that the Member for Tanjong Pagar really has the interest of the people of Singapore at heart. It is the first time that I discover that the Member for Tanjong Pagar has a genuine nationalist spirit, and has the national interest at heart, and that he is not merely working for the interest of his Party. It is the first time that I discover that the Member for Tanjong Pagar is really prepared to make sacrifices and to bury party differences and work for the best interest of the people of Singapore in order to let this Bill be passed, as it appears today. Sir, we have learnt just now from the Chief Minister that he is going to bring up new clauses as amendments to the Bill, and the implementation of one of them will restrict, as I have already mentioned, registered students from taking part in future elections. I am sure this will avoid the incidents just now mentioned by the Member for Tiong Bahru when students or hooligans marched in regimental fashion along the roads to support a political campaign. A very important clause also is the prohibition of canvassing on election day, and also the limitation to the putting up of banners and posters and even the use of transportation. We have learnt a great deal from past elections, and many of us have experienced how much corruption has been going on because the candidates can supply transport and put up numerous posters. Some candidates also paid a certain amount of money to seek to protect the banners they put up. In other words, as mentioned in the Elias Commission Report, the candidates engaged gangsters not only to paste the posters but also to protect the banners. All these things do influence the elections. I am sure, Sir, you still remember that I am an ordinary Member who moved a motion in this House last year that compulsory voting should be introduced. It was only due to many unexpected political repercussions that I had to drop the motion. I beg your indulgence, Sir, but first let me congratulate myself! I congratulate myself because today I see my dream come true. Sir, the reason why I advocate compulsory voting is because I believe that one who believes in democracy must accept the fact that popular voting is of vital importance to the democratic process, because it is only through this vehicle that the true will of the people can be implemented through the authority of the Government. But in Singapore, Sir, because of the colonial nature of the Government, and because of the commercial port status, the majority of the people always think that politics is not important and some have even come to think that it is filthy. They therefore refuse to have anything to do with politics. This has naturally created a most unfortunate and undesirable situation of political apathy. This has created a vacuum for the manoeuvrings of ambitious and selfish politicians and unscrupulous gangsters. Let us trace back to the last City Council elections in 1957. We notice that the number of qualified voters who failed to go to the poll was very high. If I am not mistaken, the average voting strength on polling day in the 1957 City Council elections was just only slightly over 30 per cent. Only 30 per cent of the voters turned out on polling day. I would like to bring to the notice of this House that even among this small figure, the majority of them were illiterates or students or hooligans. They went to the poll either because they had received money or had been intimidated or because they had been influenced by fantastic and irresponsible political promises and political propaganda. Sir, every responsible person in Singapore as confronted with this question. Did all the voters who turned out and voted for the present City Councillors really represent the wishes of the people? These two points are of vital importance. Firstly, must Singapore fall into the hands of the young extremists and the young gangsters? Secondly, if it is not the wishes of the people (and it should be so) by what methods can we encourage the people to go to the poll in order to redress the grave situation that is facing us today? It is only the youngsters who are keen on taking part in election either because they have been lured by irresponsible and fantastic political promises and propaganda, or because they have been lured by corruption, or they have been intimidated by gangsters. Therefore, I firmly believe that only by introducing compulsory voting can we solve this problem. I have taken a little trouble to study the history of compulsory voting. Sir, compulsory voting was first introduced in the early 19th century. In Switzerland it is not called compulsory voting but obligatory voting. But later on it proved very popular and successful even in Belgium, and other countries soon followed suit, and up to date there are nearly 30 countries in the world which adopt compulsory voting. The first reason why I am in favour of compulsory voting is that I believe that, by introducing compulsory voting, it would be possible to rectify the error of not having a truly representative form of government which might arise from optional voting. We have just listened to the speech by the Hon. Minister for Communications and Works when he touched on the analysis of the last general elections. He said that if the Liberal-Socialist Party had succeeded in getting together during the time of the elections, maybe the hon. Member for Serangoon would have become the Chief Minister for the past three and a half years. This is exactly the point on which I am going to touch. If a candidate is elected by only a small section of the eligible voters, he will represent only those who voted for him. Therefore, any legislation that is passed would not represent the wishes of the nation as a whole. As the Hon. Mr Francis Thomas has said, anybody can shout: "Ah, I represent the people of Singapore!" But can he really claim to represent the people of Singapore? Sir, I come to my second point why I believe in compulsory voting. It will bring to the polls many voters who are in favour of a stable government. Sir, you cannot deny that the political scene of today is not as hopeful as we think. In last year's debate on the Budget I said that 1959 would be unstable from the political point of view and a more difficult time would lie ahead, and we people-

Order. Moment of interruption. Further consideration, what day?

Tomorrow, Sir.

Tomorrow it will be.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[The Chief Minister]. Adjourned accordingly at Four o'clock p.m.