Hansard, 1959-02-11

I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor dated the 6th February, 1959, informing me that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 62 (2) of the Singapore Colony Orders in Council, 1955 and 1956, His Excellency had that day assented to the following Bills : -

"to amend the Adoption of Children Ordinance (Chapter 36 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Attorney-General (Mr E. P. Shanks); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday, 3rd March, 1959, and to be printed.

"to amend the Immigration Ordinance (Chapter 102 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour and Welfare (Tun Lim Yew Hock); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday, 3rd March, 1959, and to be printed.

"to amend the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Chapter 137 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Acting Financial Secretary (Mr Oon Khye Kiang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday, 3rd March, 1959, and to be printed.

"to amend the Minor Offences Ordinance (Chapter 117 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Chief Secretary (Mr E. B. David); read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday, 3rd March, 1959, and to be printed.

"to amend the Midwives Ordinance (Chapter 192 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr M. P. D. Nair) (on behalf of the Minister for Health, Mr A. J. Braga); read the First Elections time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday, 3rd March, 1959, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.06 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill relates to the assessment of damages awardable where death is caused by some wrongful act or negligence. Section 12 of the Civil Law Ordinance provides for damages to be proportional to the loss resulting from the death so that at present if the person killed has been sufficiently provident to provide for his widow and children by insuring his life, the amount payable under that insurance is deductible from the amount the Court assesses as being the worth of the deceased. Such damage is not a punitive penalty of negligence but the result is the curious position that it is cheaper to kill the provident than the improvident; or, putting it in another way, the wise precaution of the provident man in insuring himself for the benefit of his widow or children may be of no real benefit to them; they may not benefit from the premiums he has already paid. That this was inequitable was recognized in the Federation some three years ago, and in England as long as fifty years ago. It is, both I and the Bar Committee think, time that Singapore gave recognition to the providence of insurance in this respect. The other amendment proposed by clause 2 (b) of this Bill provides for dependants to be able to recover funeral expenses which they themselves incurred where they are parties to the action for their recovery. At present, such expenses are only recoverable where the action is brought on behalf of the estate. This is a further amendment that has already been made law elsewhere and is, I think, a desirable change to make in our law. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 10.10 a.m.

Sir, we welcome this Bill but I am amazed to hear from the Hon. the Attorney-General that this legislation has been in existence for three years in the Federation and for fifty years in the United Kingdom. May I ask why this Government has been sleeping over this during the last 3½ years?

It is not the Government that has been sleeping, Sir, but I am quite sure that the hon. Member would not wish any government to rush wildly into alterations merely because they have been made elsewhere. These things do need careful consideration.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Shanks]. Bill considered in Committee. 10.11 a.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2- Question proposed, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, I have only one comment to make on the reply given by the Hon. the Attorney-General. Does any Government -

Order. We are now on clause 2 and if the hon. Member has any comment to make on clause 2, he can make it.

Yes, I would like to make this comment. Clause 2 (b) reads: "damages may be awarded in respect of funeral expenses of the deceased person if such expenses have been incurred by the parties for whose benefit the action is brought.". What I want to say is this. These benefits have been delayed by the Government for 3½ years.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.14 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In line with the proposals to change the franchise to provide for Singapore citizenship, the purpose of this amending Bill is to seek a change in the qualifications of voters of the Southern Islands Local Council which it is proposed will now be Singapore citizenship together with residence in an electoral division of the Southern Islands since the 1st day of February in each year. Under existing law, a resident must reside in an electoral division for five years before he is eligible to become a voter. A ketua, on the other hand, is still required under the amended subsection 5 (c) to reside in the electoral division in which he seeks election for five years before he is eligible to be a candidate for election to the Local Council as a ketua as it is considered that candidates standing for these elections should be persons who should have knowledge of and who can speak with authority on the local affairs concerning their respective areas. Sir, if this amendment is passed, it will also enable the Legislative Assembly electoral registers to be used for the purpose of elections to the Southern Islands Local Council and thus avoid the necessity of having to prepare separate registers for this purpose. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 10.17 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation and consent to proceed with this Bill. I therefore move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As pointed out in the Explanatory Statement, this Bill arises out of the constitutional changes in the Federation of Malaya. The office of the Chief Secretary, Federation of Malaya, no longer exists and the properties formerly vested in him have been vested in the Federal Lands Commissioner by the Federal Lands Commissioner Ordinance, 1957. So too the rights, powers and liabilities formerly vested in or imposed on the Chief Secretary by the Chief Secretary (Incorporation) Ordinance, 1949, of the Federation of Malaya have been vested in and imposed on the Federal Lands Commissioner. This Bill is complementary to the Federal Lands Commissioner Ordinance, 1957, and is designed to incorporate the Federal Lands Commissioner of the Federation of Malaya in Singapore and to provide for the transfer to that corporation of all the properties formerly vested in the Chief Secretary, Federation of Malaya. A number of minor amendments to the Bill of which I have given notice, Sir, will be moved by me at the Committee stage. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Dato Abdul Hamid]. Bill considered in Committee. 10.20 a.m. Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 16, after "order", to insert a comma.

It is not necessary for a motion, Mr Minister. It is a Note. The alteration will be made. Perhaps the Minister could continue with the other amendments.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, lines 17 and 18, to leave out "movable or immovable property" and insert "property, movable or immovable,". Sub-clause (3) has been redrafted on the lines of sub-clause (2) for the purpose of consistency. Amendment agreed to.

There is a further Note: In page 3, line 18, after "and", to insert a comma. That will be done.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 20, after "any", to insert "conveyance,". This is to remedy an omission, Sir. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: In page 3, line 22, after "title", to insert ", estate".- [Dato Abdul Hamid]

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 22, after "interest", to insert "and on the like tenure'. This amendment is to remedy the omission of words contained in sub-clause (2). Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 23, after "Corporation", to insert "immediately". The word "immediately" which appears in sub-clause (2) has been omitted from sub-clause (3). Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9- Amendment made: In page 3, line 33, to leave out "Federal Lands Commissioner" and insert "Corporation".- [Dato Abdul Hamid].

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 34, to leave out "him" and insert "the Corporation". This is a consequential amendment. Sir. Amendment agreed to.

There is a Note: Marginal note: to leave out "Federal Lands officer" and insert "The Corporation". That will be done. Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 10 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.27 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very simple Bill and, as it says in the Explanatory Statement, a member of a local authority is, by the amendment, disqualified from continuing to be a member of the local authority if he stands as a candidate for election to the Legislative Assembly. On the one hand, local authority Councillors cannot continue to be members of that local authority once they are elected to the Legislative Assembly, which is the law at present, and local authority Councillors who seek election to the Legislative Assembly and are nominated are also disallowed from continuing to be members of that local authority. In effect, therefore, Sir, local authority Councillors must make up their minds one way or another on nomination day for the Legislative Assembly, whether they wish to continue as members of the local authority or to seek election to the Legislative Assembly. They cannot keep their feet in the local authority in reserve in case they are unsuccessful in the elections to the Legislative Assembly. However, Sir, there is nothing to prevent an unsuccessful candidate from standing for re-election to the local authority at the time of a by-election to that local authority. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 10.30 a.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the purpose of this Bill is simple. It has been briefly stated in the Explanatory Statement appended to the Bill which has been in the hands of hon. Members. The Bill seeks to make what might be described as a technical amendment to the Singapore Traction Ordinance. Part XIII of the Municipal Ordinance contains provisions relating to public service vehicles. These provisions do not, however, apply to the public service vehicles of the Singapore Traction Company. The operations of these S.T.C. vehicles are regulated by provisions contained in quite a separate Ordinance - the Singapore Traction Ordinance (Chapter 111), and section 52, subsection (2) of the Singapore Traction Ordinance specifically provides as follows: "The provisions of Part XIII of the Municipal Ordinance relating to hackneyed carriages and carts shall not apply to cars as defined by this Ordinance." Sir, the House will know that Part XIII of the Municipal Ordinance has been repealed, and has been replaced by Part XII of the Local Government Ordinance, 1957. This Part XII subsequently re-enacts the provisions relating to public service vehicles previously contained in the Municipal Ordinance. The wording of section 52, subsection (2) of the Singapore Traction Ordinance has therefore become obsolete, and in order to remove any doubts which might arise, it is now proposed to amend the subsection by substituting an up-to-date wording. All that the amending Bill seeks to do is to substitute for the words "Part XIII of the Municipal Ordinance" the words "Part XII of the Local Government Ordinance, 1957". Sir, there is one other section in the Local Government Ordinance, 1957, which might be construed as being in conflict with the provisions of the Singapore Traction Ordinance. It is section 131. Section 131 of the Local Government Ordinance, Sir, empowers the local authority to levy taxes on vehicles kept or habitually used within the area of the local authority. Section 132 of the Local Government Ordinance, however, provides that this power cannot be exercised in respect of whatever vehicles are licensed or registered or exempt from licensing or registration under the provisions of the Road Traffic Ordinance. It will be noted that exemptions must be under the provisions of the Road Traffic Ordinance. Now, Sir, the vehicles of the Singapore Traction Company are exempt from the licensing and registration under the provisions of the Road Traffic Ordinance; but such exemptions do not arise under the provisions of that Ordinance. It arises rather by virtue of the special exemption contained in section 52, subsection (1) of the Singapore Traction Ordinance. It is possible, therefore, for an argument to be advanced that since the exemption of S.T.C. vehicles is not under the provisions of the Road Traffic Ordinance, a strict interpretation of section 131 of the Local Government Ordinance would empower a local authority to levy taxes on such vehicles. In order to remove any doubts on this clause, Sir, it is proposed that the amendment to section 52, subsection (2) of the Singapore Traction Ordinance, should also expressly provide for the exemption of Singapore Traction vehicles from the provisions of section 131 of the Local Government Ordinance. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 10.34 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although the Minister for Communications and Works reminded us that this amendment is merely a technical amendment, I wish to ask the Minister why he did not take the opportunity to amend the many privileges conferred on the Singapore Traction Company during the life of the previous government. I am sure the Minister will agree with me that the public - the masses in Singapore - always have such a feeling that the Singapore Traction Company is something like a government enterprise, or a semi-government enterprise, because it has so many privileges when compared to other private bus companies. So, Sir -

Order. I am afraid the hon. Member is straying much too far away from the Bill. It is merely a Bill to amend section 52. The principle whether or not the Singapore Traction Company should continue, I think, does not arise.

Sir, I was just making a point about the privileges enjoyed by the Singapore Traction Company. I would say to the Government that it is time to move this amendment. I wish the Minister would move an amendment to cut as much as he could the privileges enjoyed by the Singapore Traction Company. 10.36 a.m.

Sir, I do not want to take up too much of the House's time in discussing the policy on the Singapore Traction Company, but I wish to stress, as you have stressed, Sir, that the questions raised by the Hon. Member for Changi are completely irrelevant. But there may be an opportunity later on to do so when the new Government discusses the policy of transport in Singapore.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 10.39 a.m. Mr Nair (on behalf of the Minister for Health, Mr A. J. Braga): Sir, under Standing Order No. 19, I propose that the Bill be read a Second time on 3rd March, 1959. The Minister for Health has unexpectedly taken ill, Sir, and the proposition is made to enable him to have an opportunity of making the Second Reading.

All the Minister need do is to name another day. Further consideration, what day?

3rd of March, 1959, Sir.

10.40 a.m. The Chief Minister (Tun Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I move, under Standing Order 9, That item No. 7 on the Order Paper be taken after item No. 10. This is necessary, Sir, in view of certain amendments that will be moved at the Committee stage.

I beg to second.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That item No. 7 on the Order Paper be taken after item No. 10.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.41 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Entertainments Duty Ordinance was first enacted in 1950 and came into force in October of that year. It is proposed to amend certain sections of the Ordinance in the light of eight years' experience. It has been found that the definition of "proprietor" in section 2 of the Ordinance has proved inadequate for the purpose of charging principals in the Courts in respect of the breach of the law, as it is often difficult to ascertain who the manager of an entertainment is. Under the Public Entertainments Ordinance, it is incumbent on any person who organises a public entertainment to obtain a police licence, and it is proposed that such licensee should also be held responsible in respect of any offence against the Entertainments Duty Ordinance, and any rules made thereunder. The proprietor is so defined as to include the licensee of a public entertainment. The second major amendment relates to section 4 of the Ordinance. It will be recalled that at the meeting held on the 18th December, 1951, the former Legislative Council passed a resolution under section 4 (1) of the Ordinance levying half-duty in respect of live entertainment. It is proposed to incorporate this provision in the proposed amendment in clause 3. In section 2 of the Ordinance, entertainment is defined as including "any exhibition, performance, amusement, games or sport, to which persons are admitted on payment". Since the enactment of the above resolution, the various Singapore amusement parks, known as the "Worlds", have paid full duty in respect of admission charges. Whilst an amusement park is certainly an entertainment as defined in section 2 of the Ordinance, there is some doubt whether it might not be held to be included among those forms of entertainment which, by virtue of the proviso to the resolution referring to live entertainment, are charged duty at half-rate. It was certainly not the intention that the amusement parks should pay only half-duty, and the opportunity is therefore taken to clarify the position. The position of the open-air cinemas has been under examination. At the moment, there are 22 such cinemas operating in the rural areas and three in the city. They cater mainly for persons in the lower income group, such as farmers, fishermen, manual workers and students. The popular prices are 50 cents, 30 cents and 20 cents, on which duty leviable is respectively 15 cents, 10 cents and 5 cents. The operator is usually left with a nett of 15 cents to 35 cents to meet his overhead expenditure, which may come to $3,000 or $3,500 per month. The open-air cinemas do not receive income from advertisements as do the other big cinemas. They are subject to the vagaries of the weather. On the other hand, they are meeting the demand for entertainment which will not be supplied by the ordinary cinema operator. In that sense they are providing a social amenity to the community. They are in most cases working under difficult conditions and often suffer losses. It is therefore thought that there is a case for relief in this instance, and the Government has therefore decided to grant relief to the extent of remitting half-duty in respect of these open-air cinemas. I propose, Sir, to move an amendment to section 4 of the Ordinance in Committee. A notice to this effect has been given. A dance, as such, is not liable to entertainment duty, but it is however necessary to ensure that, if the proprietor of a restaurant or ballroom charges a fee for admission, and thereafter stages a floor show or several floor shows lasting for more than half an hour in the aggregate, duty should be charged upon the admission fee. The proposed amendment in clause 4 relating to section 10 of the Ordinance is designed to this end. At present, not all officers of the Customs Department have authority to inspect places connected with entertainments where tickets are surreptitiously sold in advance for entertainments to be held later. Senior officers of Customs are permitted to inspect only "places of entertainment" or "places ordinarily used as places of entertainment". All other places even though they are connected with entertainments are immune from inspection. In addition, the Entertainments Duty Ordinance requires such officers to inspect places of entertainment while the entertainment is in progress, thus making it difficult to detect offences which are usually committed shortly before the performance. As it is imperative to associate the junior Customs officers in these inspections, the proposed amendment in clause 5 is designed to enable an officer of Customs to enter and inspect at all reasonable times any place of entertainment, any place ordinarily used as a place of entertainment, as well as any other place he reasonably suspects to be connected with an entertainment. Similarly it is proposed in clause 7, which amends section 15 of the Ordinance, to extend the powers given to a senior Customs officer to an "officer of Customs" in respect of seizure of documents. The inspection of places of entertainment necessitates almost simultaneous checks at the admission gates (usually two or more) the box office as well as the manager's office from where documents relating to the entertainment can be obtained. Revenue officers of the Customs Department should therefore be given powers to seize such documents. Clause 10 amends section 22 of the Ordinance by extending the authority given to a "senior officer of Customs" to an "officer of Customs" in respect of search. Section 14 (2) of the Ordinance makes it mandatory for an arrested person to be taken to a police station. As this subsection now stands, taking such person to a customs station would constitute an unlawful act. The proposed amendment in clause 6 will make section 14 (2) of the Ordinance fall in line with section 31 (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, where an arrested person may be taken either to a police station or to a customs station, and with section 87 (2) of the Customs Ordinance which also makes alternative provision for the custody of arrested persons in the hands of a proper officer of Customs. Clause 8 introduces two new sections - 17A and 17B. Section 17A provides for the compounding of offences so as to save the time of the Courts from having to deal with purely technical and minor offences. Section 17B enables senior officers of Customs to conduct prosecutions under the Entertainments Duty Ordinance. Clause 9 introduces a new section 19A making attempts and abetments of offences punishable with the same punishment as offences. This new section will bring the Ordinance in line with section 111 of the Customs Ordinance and section 33 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Oon Khye Kiang]. Bill considered in Committee. 10.50 a.m. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 14, after "to", to insert "any open air cinema or". Sir, the object of this amendment is to concede half-duty to the open air cinema for the reasons as given in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 4 to 10 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

10.54 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 $735,672 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. 8 of 1959. Sir, the Schedule consists of a list of six applications for supplementary provision amounting to $735,672. The reasons for these supplementary votes are given in detail in the Sessional Paper. There are two items which involve a substantial sum of money. One of them refers to a revision of salaries of the midwives. The Singapore Midwives' Union originally claimed in early 1956 that these midwives should be on the same salary scale as that of qualified nurses; but this claim could not be accepted by Government and had to be submitted to arbitration in March 1957, in accordance with the Arbitration Agreement executed between the Official and Staff Side of the Civil Service Joint Council. In November 1957 the Tribunal made an award that midwives should be given a substantial increase to their salaries, the exact amount of which was to be negotiated between the Government and the Union and to be effective from 1st February, 1957. As no agreement could be reached after six months' negotiation, the Tribunal was reconvened and fixed the salary on the timescale of $168-8A-200/bar/220-10A-270 in December, 1958. This salary scale was actually Government's last offer to the Union. The Government and the Union had conscientiously sought to reach a settlement of this dispute during negotiation. It was not possible to agree to pay the midwives at a rate higher than that designed for them and similar grades in the general revision of Civil Service salaries. Any substantial departure would disrupt the overall salary structure of the public service. The new salary scale gives a very substantial increase from 10 per cent to 27 per cent over the midwives' existing salaries. It compares very favourably with that paid by the City Council and to other grades of Government servant, and compares more than favourably with the salaries which prospective midwives could command from commercial or industrial employers. The additional annually recurrent costs, assuming that all the posts are filled, of paying at the new rate, would be $92,000. There is, again, the additional cost of payment of arrears and Central Provident Fund contributions at the new rate retrospectively from 1st February, 1957. Altogether, $202,000 will be required. The other big item is the revote of $499,867 to meet the cost to be borne by Government in connection with the Constitution Exposition at Kallang. Under the authority given by the Assembly, a warrant has been issued to cover the expenditure which has beefs incurred. Sir, I beg to move.

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

10.59 a.m.

The summary is at page 5. Head 4- Question proposed, "That the sum of $20,000 for Head 4 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, may we enquire just what area this railing will enclose? I ask this because I think Members are aware that at the river end of this building there is hardly space to manoeuvre a vehicle between the P.W.D. garage and the storeroom which contains the air-conditioning plant of this building. If we are to take the middle line between the outward ends of the two buildings, it is very unlikely that any vehicles can pass at all. I am just interested in the geometrical configurations that will be involved in the railing of this Building.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a Member of the Assembly, at least, I would like to know what portion would be enclosed, and how it would be enclosed. It would have been much better if a sketch plan could have been laid before this House so that we could understand the position.

Perhaps the Financial Secretary will inform the House that the railings are meant to follow the present road dividers.

Sir, if I understand the significance of that remark from the Chair, Mr Speaker, I take it that there will be no railings at the river-side of this Building. I believe that the object of delimiting the precincts of this House is to invest the sacred grounds, of which the railings will form the boundary, with some kind of legal sanctity. If, in fact, there is going to be an open gap at one end, then the whole purpose of the railing will be defeated.

Sir, I can only say something from memory. If I remember correctly, the fencing will come on to the road divider, on the Victoria Memorial Hall and the Civil District Court sides and then go on the same side of the wall of the Assembly building on the other side. We do not expect there will be any difficulty with traffic arrangements. I believe the hon. Member is a Member of the House Committee, and he will have got a copy of the proceedings of the Committee's deliberations. That is all I can tell from memory, Sir, I hope it is right, and the hon. Member may be able to verify from the Minutes which he has received.

Sir, we have natural railings round the Assembly in the form of big buildings surrounding us. I do not know why this $20,000 should be spent. If it is necessary to get a vote of $20,000, the Government should at least have put up a sketch plan showing what they want to do.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Assembly has appointed a House Committee, and the House Committee has gone into this question and has made recommendations. I am sure the hon. Member does not suggest that the Members of the House Committee appointed by this Assembly have not done their job properly. Moreover, Sir, I went into the C.P.A. Room just now and found that the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar is a Member of the House Committee.

Sir, we know there is a House Committee. Has the House Committee's Report been submitted to the Members of this Assembly? If it has not, how are we to know what is being done?

Sir, I would like to speak on this question again. The question of security by fencing the Assembly was discussed in the House Committee, and we felt that there should be railings fixed. It is done in many countries. We have had so many difficulties in the past, because nobody understood the precincts of the Assembly, and the House Committee Members thought it was a very good suggestion. The vote is not the actual cost of putting up the railings. It has been proposed that the old railings which surrounded the Girl Guides' Home will be used and repainted. So this $20,000 is not the cost of putting up the new railings. It is the old railings which are to be erected there and painted. I am sure that if railings are erected outside the Assembly House, the Assembly will look better and dignified.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar may be informed that there is a road divider on the river side as well.

Sir, there is only one more point. The Government is spending a lot of money, and there is another $20,000 more. But will the Government promise to circulate to Members the Minutes of the House Committee and also to give us a sketch plan?

Sir, may I clarify that it is not entirely a Government measure? It is a measure recommended by the House Committee of this Assembly.

Sir, I have been pressing all the time, and there is no satisfactory reply forthcoming. What I want is a sketch plan. Can the Financial Secretary, who is bringing up this vote of $20,000 before us, give a sketch plan to the Members of this House?

Sir, I will arrange for a sketch plan to be submitted to Members of this Assembly. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Telok Ayer, this proposal has been very closely examined by the Treasury, and the Treasury is satisfied that this $20,000 is the minimum that can be spent on this project.

As a Member of the House Committee, I will certainly inform the next meeting of the desire of the hon. Member, and I will recommend that a copy of the sketch plan be circulated to all Members of this Assembly.

Sir, I think it was stated that the railings were coming from the Girl Guides' Association. I am not quite certain of that. Do we have to get permission from the Girl Guides' Association to remove their railings?

Sir, the railings were made by the Public Works Department. We thought probably the railings there would be of help. After all, the Girl Guides' Association is a small institution, and we thought there is no need for it to have strong railings.

I do not know, Sir, whether the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Nair) knows the Girl Guides well. I do not. But the other day I heard some very unpleasant incident which happened to a dancer - a very attractive young lady - who was not properly enclosed!

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $20,000 for Head 4 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 11- The sum of $3,300 for Head 11 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 20- The sum of $900 for Head 20 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 49- The sum of $202,000 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 57- Question proposed, "That the sum of $15,000 for Head 57 stand part of the Schedule."

Sir, I am in favour of increasing the general revenue of the Colony by selling new stamps at the appropriate time. But I would like to enquire from the Minister concerned what the motif in these stamps will be, not from a purely philatelic interest in the matter, but purely from the point of view of the politician who has been associated with the constitutional discussions. We do not want the constitutional progress, which is a limited one, presented in such a way that it is the end of the political road along which we wish to travel. It should rather try to convey to the minds of the people of this island that this is a stepping stone to further and greater political progress. Therefore, the motif in the series of 10, 12, 20, 25, 30 and 50 cents stamps should bear a relation to: (1) the limited constitutional progress we have acquired; (2) the ambition and desire of the people to be free; and (3) if the Government is able to think of it, the ways and means by which such ambition and desire can ultimately be fulfilled.

Sir, the motif is not flesh but a stone lion.

Sir, I am not interested in making a repartee to that. The Chief Minister is a particularly unhappy man at this moment because his counterpart in the Federation has resigned and he is still holding on. I think he is feeling a sense of guilt. But I would like to ask the Minister who has been responsible, if not the present incumbent of the post, then his predecessor who has been so quietly ousted while the people of Singapore are revelling at the Singapore Constitution Exposition in order that they may not notice that he has been relegated to the Back benches of the Government to which he did not belong - to explain what the motif is. The point I want to make is that the purpose of the new Constitution should be explained to the people, in these new stamps.

I should like, Sir, to speak as one who has a great interest in artistic and cultural matters. The stone lion which is featured on the new stamps is appropriately called "Singa". He derives through Indonesia, probably from a Hindu origin. But he also has what is to my eye markedly Chinese characteristics. In other words, he has the qualities of all the major Asian cultures which are met with in Singapore. He is also a very charming personality. He has one paw upraised in goodwill, as though he is going to shake hands with you, and a smile on his face; and he looks a most happy and charming animal. I am sure he will be a credit to Singapore, as representing a happy fusion of different Asian cultures all in this one territory.

There are a series of six sets of stamps, Sir. As I see from the note accompanying the vote, there will be 10, 12, 20, 25, 30 and 50 cents stamps. Surely we are not going to be entertained with stone lions on all the six stamps?

I take responsibility for this lion, Sir, since he was engendered in the days when I occupied the Ministry. To the best of my recollection, he appears on all the stamps with the same background but with a change of colour. The background is what we call the civic centre of Singapore. It is subject to finalisation by the expert draftsmen who produce stamps. The general principle is that you see the civic centre of Singapore - the Assembly House, the Courts of Justice, the City Council, and, I expect, a little bit of the Victoria Memorial Hall as well.

Sir, the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar suggested that there should be a stepping stone now. What better stepping stone can there be than the stone image of the Singapore lion?

It is interesting indeed that from the stamps debate we have now been led to quite an important political issue, and that is whether the Lennox-Boyd Constitution is a stepping stone or should it be advertised now, especially as the exhibition is going on? The P.A.P. are very hearty supporters of the Singapore Constitution Exposition in which they are taking part, and they have extended an invitation to even all the Mayors in the Federation to come to Singapore to enjoy the Singapore Constitution Exposition. That shows how much support the P.A.P. have given to the Lennox-Boyd Constitution. At least to me this constitution is not a stepping stone but a stumbling block to building the unity of Malaya, Singapore and the Borneo territory.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $15,000 for Head 57 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 14- The sum of $499,867 for Head 14 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sum of $735,672 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 $735,672 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. 8 of 1959.

11.20 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Governor's consent to proceed with the motion. I beg to move, That this Assembly pursuant to the provisions of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Entertainments Duty Ordinance (Chapter 161) resolves that there shall be imposed upon every payment set out in the First Column of the Schedule hereto for admission to any entertainment, including admission to an amusement park, entertainments duty at the rate set out opposite thereto in the Second Column of the said Schedule. THE SCHEDULE First Column Second Column Where the payment for admission Entertainments inclusive of Entertainments Duty Duty does not exceed 10 cents None exceeds 10 cents but does not exceed 20 cents 05 cents exceeds 20 cents but does not exceed 30 cents 10 cents exceeds 30 cents but does not exceed 50 cents 15 cents exceeds 50 cents but does not exceed $1 25 cents exceeds $1 but does not exceed $1.50 40 cents and thereafter an additional 20 cents of entertainments duty for every increase of 50 cents or part thereof in the payment for admission inclusive of Entertainments Duty. Sir, hon. Members will recollect that in moving a proposed amendment to section 4 of the Entertainments Duty Ordinance early this morning, I referred to a resolution passed by the former Legislative Council in 1951 under section 4 (1) levying half-duty in respect of live entertainment. As this provision has now been incorporated in the substantive law, it will be necessary to move an amended resolution to refer to only the other types of entertainment on which the full existing rates of duty are payable. The opportunity is also taken to clarify the position of the liability of the "Worlds" to full duty. There is no change at all to the existing rates. This resolution will come into operation on the same date as the Ordinance. Sir, I beg to move.

I rise to second the motion. Question proposed.

Sir, there are two points arising from this motion on which I seek clarification. First, how much revenue is expected to result from this amendment; and second, what other forms of entertainment or amusement are intended to be covered by this new Schedule besides amusement parks? The purpose of exempting entertainment duty on cheap live entertainment is well understood. I can understand the Government wishing to go behind that raison d'etre and trying to bring the amusement parks within the province of the Entertainments Duty Ordinance. But I am not able to understand what other forms of amusement or entertainment that could conceivably be cheap and could be under a dollar, and yet be worthy of putting a tax on.

Sir, one point I would like to raise is this. The Government, because of unnecessary heavy expenditure, has indirectly taxed the public in one way or the other to raise revenue. Instead of lightening the burden of the poor masses, one excuse or another is given to raise taxes. The burden on the poor taxpayers is increasing. It is not right that if the amount of money to be raised is very big the poor should be made to pay more. Sir, they will say that this will be collected from the admission fees. But if the taxation is lower, will not the poor masses pay less for their entertainment?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the time for general election approaches, politicians have a tendency to forget or understand what is being introduced in this House. They try to make political capital out of every move that the Government makes. On the Second Reading of the Bill, it was pointed out that the purpose of amending the Entertainments Duty Ordinance is just to tighten up the Ordinance to see that the loopholes are properly blocked. There is no change whatsoever in the rate of entertainment duty that is to be levied under this motion, as has been levied for many years. But there is just one significant change. In the case of open-air cinemas, the entertainment tax is now reduced to half; that is to say, the operators of open-air cinemas need not have to pay the same rates of tax as first-class cinemas and other covered cinemas. In the case of amusement parks, they have already been paying entertainment duty, and the amendment is to ensure that they have to pay the full entertainment duty and not half.

Can I speak on that, Sir?

The hon. Member has spoken.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly pursuant to the provisions of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Entertainments Duty Ordinance (Chapter 161) resolves that there shall be imposed upon every payment set out in the First Column of the Schedule hereto for admission to any entertainment, including admission to an amusement park, entertainment duty at the rate set out opposite thereto in the Second Column of the said Schedule. THE SCHEDULE First Column Second Column Where the payment for admission Entertainments inclusive of Entertainments Duty Duty does not exceed 10 cents None exceeds 10 cents but does not exceed 20 cents 05 cents exceeds 20 cents but does not exceed 30 cents 10 cents exceeds 30 cents but does not exceed 50 cents 15 cents exceeds 50 cents but does not exceed $1 25 cents exceeds $1 but does not exceed $1.50 40 cents and thereafter an additional 20 cents of entertainments duty for every increase of 50 cents or part thereof in the payment for admission inclusive of Entertainments Duty.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.26 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Governor's consent to proceed with this Bill. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill follows closely the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959, which was debated and passed by this House at its last sitting. Except for one or two new clauses to which I shall refer later, most of the clauses in this Bill are identical with those of the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Ordinance, and I need not refer to them at any length beyond stating that this Bill implements the same recommendations of the Elias Commission with the object of eliminating malpractices during elections. It provides for the preparation of combined registers, and introduces similar provisions for compulsory voting and the imposition of sanctions against electors who fail to record their votes. Like the other Ordinance, this Bill also makes a number of amendments of an administrative character, such as removing requirements for the publication in newspapers of various election notices, extension of time for preparing the claims list from four to ten days, and also provision for regulating the display of posters and banners by candidates in respect of an election. One new clause which is not included in the Local Government Ordinance is clause 3. Section 5 of the Singapore Colony (Electoral Provisions) Order in Council, 1958, lays down the qualifications for membership of the first Assembly under the new Constitution. Subsection (1) (a) of that section states that the candidate for election must be a citizen of Singapore who- "is of or above such age and possesses such residence qualifications as may be prescribed by or under the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance." Clause 3 of this Bill now makes provision for the age and residence qualifications. The qualifying age is put at 21 years or upwards on the day of nomination. No residence qualification will be required for persons born in Malaya, but for those born outside Malaya, a Singapore residence qualification of eight out of ten years is required. Residence in Singapore on the day of nomination for election is made a further stipulation. I next refer to clause 7, which provides that persons who have been deprived of their Singapore citizenship shall not vote at elections. This removes any doubt arising from the fact that under the existing provisions of the parent Ordinance persons registered as citizens during the initial registration period were entitled to have their names included in the Legislative Assembly electoral rolls for the forthcoming election by virtue of such registration. Clause 7 has also been drafted so as to provide that before the Legislative electoral registers are certified, the Registration Officer shall from time to time expunge from the registers the names of persons deprived of their citizenship, notwithstanding that the claims and objections period has expired. Clause 11 similarly provides that before certification of revised registers, the Registration Officer shall from time to time on being informed by the Registrar of Citizens similarly expunge names of persons deprived of their citizenship during the period when revision of the registers takes place. Another clause, Sir, which I would like to mention is clause 15. Clause 15 (b) follows a similar amendment made to the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959. Section 37 (2) of that Ordinance goes further than the corresponding Section 37 (2) of the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance in that the words - I quote: "or who, by reason of circumstances existing on the day of the election is not, by virtue of the provisions of section 5 or 6 of this Ordinance, entitled to have his name entered or retained in any register of electors,"- are not included in section 37 (2) of the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. It is therefore proposed by clause 15 to amend section 37 of the parent Ordinance in order to bring this provision into line with the similar provision in the Local Government Elections Ordinance. Clause 17, Sir, provides for compulsory voting and the provisions in that clause are similar to those already approved in the Local Government Elections Ordinance with the exception of one additional provision, that is subsection (3) of the new section 41A. The easiest, quickest and cheapest way in which to prepare a list of those who did not vote at an election, as required in subsection (2), is to use the marked copies of the registers used at the polling stations. But as the Ordinance stands at present, these marked copies have to be sealed by the Presiding Officer immediately after the poll - section 46 (1) of the Ordinance refers - and they have to be counter-sealed by the Returning Officer immediately after the declaration of the results of the election in accordance with the requirement of section 47 subsection (9) of the Ordinance. The purpose of the amendment in the new subsection (3) of section 41A is to enable the Returning Officer to have access to the marked copies of the registers by breaking the seals affixed by the Presiding Officer to the package containing these marked copies, for the purpose of inspecting them with a view to the preparation of the lists of those who did not vote, as provided for in subsection (2) of section 41A. The reason why marked copies of the registers are sealed up with the other documents used at the poll is solely for the purpose of enabling a scrutiny to be made as a result of an election petition. The secrecy of the ballot will not be violated in any way if these marked copies of the registers are not sealed up. They give no indication of how any individual has in fact voted. Sir, the amendments I have just explained show the important aspects of this Bill in so far as they differ from the provisions of the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959. At the Committee stage of the Bill I shall be moving several amendments of which I have given notice. Some of these amendments are mainly of a drafting nature or made for clarification purposes. I will explain the reasons for the other amendments, Sir, when they are moved in Committee. I would only like to conclude, Sir, by saying that the primary object of this Bill is to ensure clean elections, but the House and the public must realise that enacting legislation of this kind will not necessarily by itself solve this problem. Whether the law is obeyed or not depends basically on the respect in which that law is held by the public, and in particular by that section of the public which is especially affected by these provisions. If it becomes necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this law, the police will of course be completely impartial. But I hope that in discharging this difficult task, they will receive full assistance and co-operation from all political parties and from members of the public. Action by the police and subsequently by the courts can only be remedial and cannot in itself prevent the disease. Whether the forthcoming elections to the new Assembly will be free of malpractices will depend primarily on the respect in which this law is held by all concerned. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

I have on my table notes of certain amendments which are to be moved, I understand, in Committee stage, and of which no notice has been given. Perhaps, this is the proper time for me to suspend this Assembly to consider whether or not I should give my consent to these amendments being moved, because in giving my consent, I will of course have to take into consideration the interests of the minority in the Assembly. I myself have not had the time to look at these suggested amendments and I am sure hon. Members would like some time to look at them, if the amendments are to be moved today in Committee. Perhaps the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar may wish to comment.

If I may, Mr Speaker, Sir, I had indicated, when the Bill was tabled for First Reading, that I would get in touch with the Government so that any amendments which we may propose would be by consent. Partly because of the urgent duties of the Chief Minister and partly because of the Chinese New Year holidays, which caused two dies non - Monday and Tuesday - I was not able to give notice of these amendments which I had agreed with the Chief Minister on Saturday afternoon at 12.45 p.m. I had not been able to see him earlier because he was away. Sir, I have since this morning been in consultation with the Attorney-General as to the legal accuracy of these amendments and, apart from one or two further provisos which he proposes to make to my amendments, he agrees with me that they would not dislocate the main Ordinance. If you feel, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the other Members of this House who are not included in the main political parties should also have an opportunity to express their opinion, may I suggest that at the Committee stage they will have full opportunity to express their views. Alternatively, I would suggest that the Committee stage be taken tomorrow or, if the Government so wills it, on the 3rd of March.

Hon. Members, of course, know the Standing Order. It says: "Notice shall not be dispensed with in the case of a motion or in respect of any other proceeding for which notice is required except with the consent of the Speaker and the general assent of Members present." I think there has been no firm expression whether or not the Government wishes to take the Committee stage today or tomorrow, unless the Chief Secretary has something in view?

Sir, as far as Government is concerned, these amendments are broadly acceptable, but we have not had the opportunity of looking at them in detail and it would be convenient, from the Government's point of view, if the Committee stage of the Bill were taken this afternoon.

In that case, I suspend this Assembly. I will take this Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 11.41 a.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Resumption of debate on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it looks quite unusual for an Independent Member to rush forward to speak first on such an important Bill. Later on, after you have followed my speech, Sir, you may be able to know why I have to speak at this early stage of the debate on this important Bill. Sir, the mover of this Bill (the Hon. the Chief Secretary) touched on the point of malpractices during elections. Sir, I would like to say something more on this subject on which I dwelt at great length in my speech at the last sitting when debating the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill in order to clear away the political apathy of this country. I prefer not to take up too much of the time of the House but I would like to emphasise two points on this question of malpractices during elections. Generally, the people of Singapore think that only those politicians who are prepared to accept money or any material reward are guilty of malpractices, but I think it is better to let the public know that the question of malpractices is not only confined to those corrupt politicians who receive money or material reward like the acceptance of a few bottles of brandy or free transport during elections, but also to those politicians guilty of moral corruption and power corruption. I am sure that this is not properly understood by the masses because they have already been led to believe that only the Right-wing politicians are corrupt and that any politician professing himself to be a Left-winger is incorruptible. They are led to believe that such a person does not like cash gifts or a present of a few bottles of brandy and that therefore he is incorruptible. Sir, it is high time for the people of Singapore to open their eyes as to why they are to be compelled to vote. The public should know that the Left-wingers are also guilty of certain corrupt practices. They may have many secrets but those close to them know that this is no longer a secret - the misappropriation of union funds. How are such unions run? How are the accounts of such unions audited? I will not hesitate to lay the blame on the Minister for Labour and Welfare whose duty it is to check every union's accounts and to see that the hard-earned money of the poor worker is not put to a wrongful purpose. The unscrupulous and opportunist politician says to the workers, "Oh, I will provide everything for you - even the moon," and yet he is considered an incorruptible Left-winger. The people are led to believe that all Socialists and all Leftists in this country are incorruptible. Sir, it is high time for the people to open their eyes that the malpractices in elections extend to moral corruption and power corruption. If on the one hand we agree that the Right-wing party always gets the support of wealthy persons and that it will therefore be able to provide free drinks, free transportation and even indulging in gangsterism, on the other hand, the Left-wing party organises picnic parties where for a contribution of 50 cents a person can spend a few days in a beautiful bungalow with nice scenery and receive political indoctrination. Who are the sponsors of such goings - on and where does the money come from? Many a time I have emphasised this point. We believe that the democratic system should survive in this country. Unfair political activities should be avoided. We are not inexperienced to know that lies and hatred have been implanted in the minds of the innocent masses. There are politicians who look after their party interests and also their personal glorification by saying, "Oh, I am the champion of the poor. I am the champion of the workers." Such politicians stir up emotional feeling among the poor workers. And then hatred is implanted in their minds. The rich and the poor are clearly divided in Singapore today, and while these politicians know too well that Singapore is a commercial port and that if it has to survive it has to rely on the entrepot trade, yet they prefer to destroy the economy of Singapore because they do not want to lose the popularity that they enjoy as leaders of political parties. This is another form of moral corruption. They cheat and lie to the masses by trying to create in their minds a distinction between the rich and the poor. The people are told, "The rich always exploit the poor cold-bloodedly, and therefore we must unite all the poor against the rich." Sir, there are many theoreticians and learned scholars in such political parties and they know the actual number of poor people in Singapore and because of this fact they realise that the easiest way of getting votes to put them into power is to cheat and lie to these poor people. Sir, this is the most disgusting of all political sins. This morning we touched on the subject of the Constitution. The Member for Tanjong Pagar said he would not be satisfied unless the Government gave a full explanation of why the new stamps were printed with pictures showing the new Constitution as a stepping-stone to merger. Sir, I remember saying that the present Constitution is a stumbling, block to building the unity of our people. Everyone of us has to admit that the Lennox-Boyd Constitution has divided Singapore and the Federation into two distinct parts, and yet we talk of the unification of Malaya and Singapore. What about the Bornean territories and Sarawak? These politicians are only telling lies! They do not tell the people that they only want to seek the quickest way to step into power, and therefore they quickly make us believe that something is better than nothing and that they do not want to be the Prime Minister or the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Sir, the activities of all these political adventurers and opportunists and those engaged in malpractices during elections should be restricted, because they tell lies and they refuse to tell the truth to the people. We are now happy that the Singapore People's Alliance - although it is called the Rojak Party, yet it is very tasteful - has introduced this Bill in time for the new Constitution. Sir, the Bill contains many detailed clauses on how elections are to be carried out. I just wonder how many of us here sincerely believe that every clause in the Bill will be carried out truly and honestly. I said in the last debate on the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill that compulsory voting is the only hope to Singapore's stability. With this Bill at least political Parties have certain assurances against malpractices. We will not continue with such malpractices on a big scale. The political apathy of the middle-aged and the middle class will then be stirred at what happened during the last elections, for example, the last City Council elections. Sir, I want to take this golden opportunity to appeal to all the journalists in Singapore to weigh well the importance of the coming elections. They should bear in mind that their personal political inclinations and beliefs should be put aside, and they should make an honest, frank, just, and straightforward report, because this is going to play a very, very important part in the coming elections. From time to time, we hear of complaints in this Assembly - they are not new - that certain reporters have twisted the facts: when we say this, they twist it to that; when we say black, they change it to white. We cannot deny that all the reporters or the editors have a right to express what they believe. But they must also bear in mind that they are responsible to the people, and that fact is of vital importance to the country. Their reports are going to have a tremendous influence over the people. They might take a biased stand instead of an unbiased stand. They might have a personal admiration for a certain hero in this Assembly: and therefore when this hero speaks, they give a large space in their papers to his speeches, irrespective of whether their hero's views are right or wrong, and they even add favourable comments to the views. And if they should dislike a certain Party and if that Party speaks on an important issue, for example, the issues on which the Minister for Commerce and Industry speaks from time to time, they do not give him enough space for the information of the public. They simply ignore him. That is the first point - that the reporters should play their part fairly, carefully and with responsibility. Coming to the second point, I wish to appeal to the workers to think, not only twice but three times, whether it is time for them to spend a quiet hour, after the last general election fervour, to think of our economic position today, and whether the co-operation between capital and labour can be maintained. But all they have done so far is to continue to believe in the irresponsible and selfish politicians who cheat them and lie to them - "You, the labourers, must unite and fight the capitalists!" I would like to divide the labour force into two categories - the first is in close touch with our political advancement, like the Army Civil service workers; and the other, the industrial workers. The first category of workers think that they are going to oppose compulsory voting, because compulsory voting is against democracy; compulsory voting is only for the benefit of the rich, compulsory voting is supported by colonial stooges. And this Bill then becomes a waste paper. Why? It is because these workers have already been poisoned in their minds to believe in a famous slogan, "Drive the white men into the sea!" (the white men, of course, are the British). If so, what happens to the rice-bowl of the over 40,000 Army Civil service personnel? Who is going to provide for them? All these workers really think that the politicians who lead them with shouts of "Merdeka! Jatoh Orang Puteh!" are sincere nationalists and sincere trade union leaders. And also because the people who are going to lead them condemn compulsory voting, they themselves boycott compulsory voting. Compulsory voting then is turned into a class-hatred issue - "Orang Kaya Punya! "; compulsory voting is only for the benefit of the Chinese. Sir, this is one of the controversial issues which have to be cleared. And if in future elections there are still many more politicians shouting skyhigh, "Drive the white men into the sea! Down with capital! ", I do not know what will become of Singapore! Next, come the other category of industrial workers. I learn they are called industrial productive workers, but that term is not of much importance, because our industry is still in the embryo stage. Sir, this type of workers believe that the strike weapon is the best weapon to demand an increase of wages. They do not believe in increasing the industrial output or to increase the enterprise returns, which ultimately will give chances of an increase in their salaries. Why, Sir? Again, because they believe in the irresponsible and selfish politicians who strongly condemn capital and who present to them a one-sided story that Singapore must be ruled by the working class; Singapore must be ruled by the farmers! They want to follow China. The China pattern is on the land reform - they promise the farmers, "You vote for me, and I will give you plenty of land free!"; that, of course, means nothing. Sir, the third point is this: I especially would like to appeal to the students. In this Bill there is provision forbidding any registered student to participate in any election campaign. But I still feel that certain political parties have to use students because they are the nucleus of the people. The nucleus of those political Parties is from the students, and so the Parties have to make use of them, to exploit them. This can be judged from the activities of the branches of these political Parties in Singapore. And we discover how the students are working in the branches - running night classes and making home visits. Sir, all these facts add up to create an unpleasant and unstable political situation in Singapore. The man-in-the street always comes to the conclusion that the P.A.P. is sure to come into power. That is the first fact. But then, Sir, he is afraid of the second fact that follows - "Oh! hari akan datang banya susah!" [the future is going to be a bleak one] - they have no hope in the future. They know it is going to be bleaker and bleaker. Even the P.A.P. has admitted that the day will come within the next few years when the people of Singapore will have to tighten Their belts and to expect economic hardships. Why then should the P.A.P. come into power and we suffer economic hardships? Why should the standard of living of the people be lowered, if the P.A.P. should come into power? That is the question before us. Therefore, I wish all the journalists, workers, and students in this country - we call them youths, the youth section is the pillar of society - will play a very, very important part in the coming elections, and carefully consider why we must have this Bill, what causes the circumstances which bring about this Bill, and what is the benefit of this Bill. They must not be misled, as they have been misled time and again, into believing that Singapore should be ruled by the workers and the farmers, that Singapore should drive away the white men and the capitalists, and we can then achieve political independence! How many times have I reminded hon. Members in this House that we have to rely on the whole of Asia, the international repercussions in Asia and not only on our own people. Our future is in somebody's hands. We must frankly admit it! It is not a shame to admit facts, but it is a shame to tell a lie! Sir, in conclusion, since I may not make any more speeches in this Assembly, this is my last chance to issue my final invitation to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. Sir, from time to time, I have issued a challenge - I want to tell the truth, I want to preach love - to fight the P.A.P., with their preaching of hatred and telling of lies. This is the time for me to extend my humble invitation to the hon. Member to name any ward he wants me to contest. While believing in love, hope, and truth, I throw accusations at the P.A.P. for their preaching of hatred and telling of lies. Therefore, Sir, I crave your indulgence to issue my challenge. 2.59 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the debate on the Local Government Elections Bill last month in this House, I recorded my opposition to compulsory voting. I see in this Bill that compulsory voting is again to be debated here, and it is therefore fair for me to record my opposition here also. Last month I quoted figures and facts to show that the people of Singapore were not far behind in going to the polls as compared to the U.K. elections. If, for argument's sake, we admit that there is a lack of enthusiasm, that a section of the public is really indifferent towards the question of going to the polls, let us find out if such is the reason, and why such an attitude is shown by the people of Singapore. Sir, one of the reasons why a large percentage of the voters in Singapore do not take the election seriously is that Singapore is not an independent country. Those who are elected to this Assembly do not have the power to make important decisions or fight for the interest of this country. At present this Assembly has no control over foreign affairs and defence. The Governor and the Secretary of State for the Colonies can over-ride any decision that this Assembly may make. The new Constitution of Singapore is hailed as bringing self-government to Singapore. This is a big deception being preached to the people of Singapore. Sir, the Legislative Assembly, under the new Constitution, will not have any more important power than the present Assembly has over foreign affairs, defence and internal security, and those who will be elected will be powerless to do anything. The present power of the Governor will be shared between the United Kingdom Commissioner and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, both of whom will be nominated by the Secretary of State for Colonies, and both of whom will be responsible to him and not to this Assembly and not to the people of Singapore. I say that if we get real self-government, a greater percentage of the people of Singapore will take a serious interest in the election, and it will be quite unnecessary to force anybody to vote to keep, the machinery of democracy working smoothly. So long as we have a phoney brand of self-government, it is my opinion that a large percentage of voters will not be seriously interested in the outcome of the election. If we get self-government, the provision for compulsory voting will be quite unnecessary. The fact that it is found necessary to compel people to go to the polls, even under the new Constitution, is proof that the present Government is aware that the people of Singapore have no enthusiasm for the new Constitution, because, other than providing for large sums of money to be given to the expatriate officers as donations, and guaranteeing that the local senior officers who succeed them shall enjoy the same rates of salary and privileges as their predecessors, it does not bring about any substantial change in the existing state of affairs. For the reasons which I have outlined, I am opposed to the provision in this Bill for compulsory voting which I regard as quite unnecessary and undesirable at this stage.

3.02 p.m.

Sir, may I move a business motion?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, under Standing Order No. 7 (11), That the proceedings on the last item on the Order Paper set down for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7.

I second it.

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

3.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That at its rising today this Assembly do stand adjourned to 3rd March, 1959.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising today this Assembly do stand adjourned to 3rd March, 1959.

Debate resumed. 3.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are today debating the rules which will govern the election contest sometime in March, April or May this year, and we are all pledged to try and frame a set of reasonable and decent rules akin to what are popularly termed the Queensberry's rules of boxing. Those of us who have been watching the growing tendency of contestants in the ring to use not only their hands but also their feet, and to put knuckle-dusters underneath the boxing gloves and emulate their Siamese counterparts in the art of pugilism, are anxious to see that the next contest does not produce, too literally, a physical contest! I was intrigued to see the Chief Secretary in his explanatory statement at the end of this Bill make this note: "It is estimated that implementation of the provisions of this Bill will involve expenditure of the order of $100,000." If in fact the provisions of this Bill could be faithfully implemented, both in the letter and spirit, then I say Singapore has never spent a more useful $100,000. But I am sanguine enough to believe that perhaps the greater expenditure of men, money, materials and effort given to the referee of this contest can ensure that the rules are observed, that the main provisions of this Bill which we now seek to pass will be honoured, or, if not honoured, at least enforced. Sir, those who spend their time trying to prophesy the outcome of a contest - be it a horse race or a boxing match - usually do not bother about the final performances of a race horse or a boxer before he goes into the ring. One looks at the long history behind the contestant, to know (1) his stamina, (2) the fighting qualities he has, and (3) the wallop that he packs. On that basis of careful calculation, one could fairly predict, if it is a horse race, which would be the first three of any Derby or Grand National. I hate to disappoint Members in this Assembly, but I would like to remind them that, in fact, this contest has been going on for the last four years, and it is not on the final playing of the gramophone records and musical chairs which are being enacted in this Assembly, and outside, that the outcome will be decided. For four years the people have watched political parties gyrate and perform and politicians do acrobatic gymnastics, and I would say that the bulk of the masses have already made up their minds whose side they are on, and, if I may put it in a more positive way, whom they believe will be on their side. It is as simple as that.

Misled!

Sir, different people have different reactions when faced with catastrophe. Some are led to extravagant emotional outbursts in the hope that even if they are not big guys, by making noises, particularly at big parties, they might attract some attention. There are those who believe that the position is well lost, and therefore, since this Constitution is not worth having any way, what is the point of it? "Let us forget about winning the election." But to those who are left with the problem of not only winning the election, but carrying on the business of this community, I would like to state the intentions of my Party in unmistakable, terms. In a contest there is always a referee - unless it happens to be a total war, and an election contest is not a total war. It is war within limited confines, according to certain rules of etiquette and certain rules of conduct which the referee is there to enforce. He is a referee with a police force, a civil service and an apparatus of state which is sufficient enough, in my opinion, to be able to administer the majority of these rules fairly and efficiently. Sir, in the Kallang by-election we had a foretaste of what happened when political leaders started to resort to unconstitutional and indecent methods of electioneering. Two members of my Party were stabbed. A Labour Front car was detained at the Beach Road Police Station for two months. The occupants of that car, which was registered in the name of the Labour Front, were never found. The car contained bicycle chains and iron rods. We expect the Government, which will carry on after this Assembly is dissolved in March, to maintain law and order regardless of political parties and to see that the rules are observed because this is not like Kallang where no government changed as a result of the election. We envisage a whole host of difficulties which will face the next Government, whoever wins, and it would be a pity if the next Government were to spend its first six months of office ferreting out gangsters and ferreting out police officers who, either because of indolence or otherwise, allow these gangsters to operate; because with the result of this election, there comes a change in the Government. If the referee does not wish to do his duty, then the next Government will. Sir, may I take the House briefly through the main provisions? When we were debating the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill, I did not consider it either appropriate or desirable that we should argue purely academic or hypothetical provisions which would never be brought into operation until a new Assembly had been elected. But I do consider it important that every provision in this Bill should be carefully scrutinised, because we shall be contesting within these rules. Sir, I would like to tell the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister that I am obliged to them for the willingness with which they have been meeting the difficulties which I have pointed out to them and which will arise from the operation of these provisions. I would like to inform you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the amendments which I have indicated to the Clerk this morning I would be moving, will not have to be moved after all, because the Government has decided to postpone the Committee stage to the 3rd of March, rather than adjourn till tomorrow and also carry on in that case with the debate on my motion regarding Malayanisation (it is not so urgent, and we can keep it till next month). I also asked the Chief Minister whether that would be our last sitting. He was unable to give me that assurance, but I think we can safely predict that the sitting cannot go beyond the month of March. But between now and the sitting on the 3rd March, the several amendments which I had intended to move at the Committee stage would be formally tabled with the requisite two days' notice. Sir, I would just like to inform Members who do not belong to political parties what these amendments are in order that there will be no mystery about them. The first amendment concerns the parking of motor-cars outside a polling station, and the Government has indicated its willingness to accept a clause to provide that no motor-cars shall be stopped or parked within a hundred yards of a polling station. Those of us who have watched the motorcades on polling day will know that this provision will relieve the unnecessary congestion and the frictions that will arise with motor-cars competing for pre-eminence of position to a polling station. The second provision, which is also by way of filing up the gaps, is an amendment to ensure that no election office as distinct from a desk or a table on the roadside - is allowed to be opened within 200 yards of any polling station on polling day. This is a common practice of politicians who believe that the presence of their posters and their supporters will help the voter to make up his mind. It is their practice to choose an election office which is near a school, in the hope that the school will be chosen as a polling station; and so on polling day, particularly with the no-canvassing rule, they will be in a place of vantage from which perhaps, if not by the roadside, at least from the legal eyes, the precincts of the drawing room, they might be able to flutter their posters at the recalcitrant voter. The third amendment is to ensure that the use of cars by those who own them should not be abused in its interpretation to become a means whereby it is possible to supply motor-cars to those who are not members of the family. Certain amendments will be moved to limit the meaning of the word "family" appearing in clause 23 of the amending Bill. The final amendment is one which provides specifically that polling day shall be a public holiday, it is only fair to say that the Government assured me that they would give me an undertaking, if necessary publicly, that polling day would be a public holiday and declared to be so by the Governor under the Public Holidays Ordinance. But my Party has thought it appropriate that rather than work on the basis of undertakings, since we are legislating on minutia provisions, it might be as well if we included such an important provision which is tied up with compulsory voting and no-canvassing on polling day - namely, that there should be a public holiday in order to enable everybody to go and vote. Now, Sir, first on compulsory voting. I have only this to say to the Government - that I do not think they have as yet analysed whom they are compelling to vote. They have attributed their defeats since 1955 to a lack of interest on the part of large numbers of people, whom they believe to be their supporters. Sir, I have always been told that the art of self-deception, if practised skilfully enough, keeps one happy. But when the deception is finally discovered, one is apt to be thoroughly discomfitted. I would like to remind this Government, particularly the Chief Minister who is no novice in these matters, that when the Progressive Party in 1954 and 1955 agreed to automatic registration of voters for the then Legislative Council which they dominated - as the new S.P.A. Government dominates this one - they thought they were paving their way to success. But they did not know whom they were automatically registering, and to their great discomfiture they discovered that the large masses who were apathetic in previous elections and who had not taken the trouble to register themselves, in fact were against the Progressive Party. Because when they were given the facility of throwing their vote for or against a particular political party without the bother of first claiming the right to vote, they cast it decisively against the Progressive Party. Sir, in the next election there will be some 200,000 people who have been registered as Singapore citizens. Many of them will be voting for the first time. It is a long and complicated story how this came about. The predecessor to. the present Chief Minister believed that he was embracing these people to his bosom in order that they would vote for him. I will say this. These people who have been given citizenship are not fools. They are no different from all the others who reside in Singapore. We can be rest assured that they, having taken the trouble to register for citizenship, will exercise their right to vote and we can be confident that what has happened in the last four years has not missed them. We do not seek panaceas by compulsory voting. But if this Government believes that this is the way to cure its headache, then I say by all means. But if it so happens that, by the much larger poll that will be created as a result of this provision, the majority of the successful party is thereby increased, I can only say they have not been forewarned. Sir, there is a provision with which I am not altogether satisfied, and that is contained in clause 25 of this Bill. We broadly know what its intention is. It says here that the principal Ordinance will be amended by adding another section. The content of this section is this: "Regulations for 72A.-

Sir, I have very little to say on this Bill as discussions have taken place on similar lines when the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill Was debated. Some of my friends on this side of the House have spoken on the subject. Sir, I will go into the details of the Bill when the amendments are put forward either by the Government or by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, but I would like to stress this. As the most senior Member in this Legislature, I think a public holiday is very essential to enable the people to vote. In the past, shops were open and sales were going on and many people did not vote. In the coming elections, it will be compulsory for every citizen of Singapore to vote. However, it will help if polling day is declared a public holiday. Sir, the Liberal-Socialist Party have already announced in the Press that they are in favour of compulsory voting. I have very little to say on this. The people of Singapore will judge the candidates contesting the coming elections on the past records of their Parties-what they have done, whether they have changed their Party labels and whether they have improved the economy of the country. Sir, I have been watching the voters since the post-war period and I think that they are quite shrewd today. They will not be misled by all that is said, but they will go through the records of the candidates and of the Parties standing for election and I am sure that they are not going to vote for those who failed to carry out the task entrusted to them. Sir, as far as supervision is concerned, I am sure the officials will see to it that the elections are carried out without fear or favour. However, if anyone in the Government service is found not doing his duty, of course, he will be responsible to the future Government. One thing is sure: the present Ministers will not be there because of their past performances. I have seen, Sir, how clever some of the voters are. They sit in the cars provided by one Party and they vote for another Party because they know for whom they vote. Fortunately, today our voting population consists mostly of youngsters and they are quite clever people. Sir, some people talk of the Right, and others talk of the Left. Personally, I think Singapore's economy depends on entrepot trade. This can only be fed by capital and labour working hand in hand in the interests of Singapore. No ideology of the Left or the Right will achieve this as far as Singapore is concerned. Singapore as a city has to stand alone and has to formulate its own policy for the sake of the people, and therefore it is rather unnecessary to talk of Leftists or capitalists. Sir, the present members of the S.P.A. who are ex-Labour Fronters, have been co-operating with the P.A.P. for 3½ years. Now all of a sudden, they say that the P.A.P. is bad. Why have they been cooperating? How is it that the P.A.P. have suddenly become bad during the last two to six months? Why are they now separated? They have been married and divorced many times during the last 3½ years and the Government Benchers are still holding on fast to their seats. Can the public swallow all this? They are now too clever! Sir, as I said, I have very little to say and I will speak on the clauses when the amendments are moved. 3.39 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as usual, I find that one's kindness of heart and one's willingness to accommodate even one's political opponent can be twisted round to mean quite a different thing. The Member for Tanjong Pagar, Sir, was a Member of the Select Committee on the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill, and it was pointed out to him that what happened to that Bill, in so far as the implementation of the recommendations of the Elias Commission was concerned, would be introduced into this Bill under discussion. He knew of it and did take part in some of the discussions. All in all, he did, in fact, help with several amendments which were accepted in Select Committee and which turned the original Bill into a totally different Bill. At that time, he did not think it was necessary that the definition of "family" should not include grand-parents, grandchildren, brothers or sisters, and that motor cars should not be allowed to park or to go right up to the gate of the polling booth. He also did not think it was necessary to move the two amendments which he is now proposing. He thought everything was satisfactory and, on that unanimous note, we introduced amendments to the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill when it was in Select Committee. But when the adoption of the Report was debated last month, he thought it was not necessary even to waste his time on it other than to ridicule the Government and say that it was just a piece of legislation which meant nothing. It would appear that it means something now, as he desires to propose certain amendments because the thought has been changed for him. I am sure that it must have been changed for him, and not by him, so much so that he was unable to table the amendments in good time, although this Bill was tabled for First Reading on 21st January. Maybe the driving force was not in good operation until it was too late; and yet the Government, being kind and charitable even to its political opponent, said, "Never mind, my dear opponent, we will give you the general assent." The hon. Member then found that he was unable to get the consent or the general assent of this House and yet we still said, "Never mind, my good opponent, we will defer the Committee stage to the 3rd of March." When I was asked whether there would be another sitting in March, I said, "I cannot say. There may be one last sitting in March if we have some more legislative business." But then he spoke in such a way as to deride us. He wants a sitting on 3rd March, and I do not know how many more sittings there will be in March! I do not know whether there is going to be a sitting in April. But he says, "Surely they will not dare to go beyond March!" Sir, I have been hauled up by you many a time and I still call it impertinence!

Order.

I beg to withdraw the word, Sir.

Order. That is not enough. I do not think the Chief Minister ought to use the same word which was over-ruled at another sitting quite so deliberately as all that. I think he should also apologise to the House.

I apologise, Sir, but sometimes one gets roused! I think it is easier to deal with people who do not turn and twist, and twist and turn! I cannot stand that. Here is a man who stands up today and says, "We are going to win! ", and it was the poor Members on this side of the House who cleansed his Party and helped him to become strong and brave enough to talk in those terms today. Such is politics! Talking of clean politics - psst! Then he said, "This Government, particularly the elected Ministers, will not see to it that there is fair play. Oh, now they cannot be trusted. They will do this and they will do that! They will do a lot of things!" Sir, I may be accused of having done many things, but there is one thing that I have not been accused of and that is political dishonesty. I do what I think is right and I do not care what my political opponents, my friends, or even my family say. What is right is right, and no People's Action Party, or P.A.P. leader, or P.A.P. members can make me say what is right is wrong, or what is wrong is right! Posters, banners, regulations! Sir, all these were discussed in the Select Committee on the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill. The hon. Member had, in fact, quite bright ideas. He suggested that there should be an equal number of posters to be pasted in certain areas, and in certain places in every electoral division, and that the Supervisor of Elections should try to do all he could to implement what had been decided in that Select Committee. Of course, as usual, as we are very accommodating, we will still keep on accommodating. In fact, we sometimes accommodate snakes, and keep them warm too! We will let hon. Members of the Opposition see the regulations so that they too will be satisfied that the election that is to come is clean, healthy and good. They need not worry about that. Sir, compulsory voting is a very, very old subject. It was brought up by representatives of various organizations and by individuals in Singapore, who sent in petitions to me and said that the Government should introduce compulsory voting. We were not satisfied, and in fact I said at the sitting last month, when we were debating the adoption of the Report of the Select Committee on the Local Govermnent Elections (Amendment) Bill, that I was not satisfied that the introduction of compulsory voting would be to the benefit of my Party. But as good democrats we will always listen to the wishes and representations of the people of Singapore! That has nothing to do with the Party, and because the people want it, we introduced it. Of course, the hon. Member cannot understand - he would like to twist it. I am sorry - he would like to make it appear that it was the Government who want to introduce it, that it is the Government benchers who are anxious to keep their seats warm. Sir, if the people do not want me to remain here, I think I will go to church and offer my prayers and say, "Thank God! I have no more hairs to drop! My hair does not go grey! And I do not go to my grave sooner, and leave my family not looked after!" But because I felt it was necessary in the service of my country and of my fellow-men, I have to carry on and to bear it; not that I want to remain here, nor do I keep on praying that I will be here. But surely I can say this: it is good psychology for any political party to say at this particular time, "We are bound to win!" I would like to say to the hon. Members of the political parties that the S.P.A. is bound to win, and we will meet them there! Talking of the new citizens, Sir, it was this Government's desire to give citizenship rights to those people who have been resident in Singapore for eight years or more. We fought for it, we got it, and we gave it to them. But we do not do, as some PAP, politicians have done, and that is to go round and say, "I give you citizenship now, and you vote for me. If you do not vote for me, you jaga! I will take off your citizenship tomorrow!" We do not do that, Sir. We never do that at all! If you do not put up my picture in a coffee shop, maybe some inspectors might go round and do something. That is logic. Talking of such things is not clean, not healthy, and not good. Mr Lim Cher Kheng rose -

Point of information?

On a point of information, Sir.

Information? I am sorry, Sir, because if I give way to one, I will have to give way to another!

The Chief Minister is not giving way.

Because of the interruption of the Member of the Opposition, I have forgotten what I wanted to say now.

I think the Honourable the Chief Minister was in the coffee shops!

Oh, yes, I was talking about coffee shops - and the hon. Member for Changi has been frequenting coffee shops! I am sure what he wanted to say was that he did see large photographs of the honourable - I do not think I would like to follow my predecessor who calls someone, "My God the Mayor". Sir, the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar then talked about the by-elections in Kallang. He insinuated that the Labour Front had been indulging in illegal activities.

A Labour Front car had been involved!

A Labour Front car had been involved and he insinuated that because it was a Labour Front car the Chief Minister had instructed the Police not to do anything about it. Sir, as I said earlier, I can be accused of many, many things-

You do not know how-

Order!

I have never been accused of being dishonest. Even if it were my own brother or my own father who was there, I would not raise a hand if the Police had got evidence. He described incidents that happened to his supporters, but there had been many, many incidents which happened to all supporters. We do not plead, nor do we cry. We take what comes.

Like regular gangsters!

Then it is suggested that perhaps I could follow the footsteps of the Tunku and resign, and all that. But is it necessary? The Government has to carry on under the Constitution until the next government comes in-not that I would like to warm my seat at all. If it is suggested that I resign my seat, the wonderful People's Action Party then do not have a man as Chief Minister who is wise to the ways of subversionists and P.A.P. tactics. Perhaps they would be given free rein to keep on operating. Sir, I cannot al-low the interests of Singapore to be jeopardised. I remain until I am not wanted. Sir, from the tone of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar's speech, it would appear that his is the only political party that is keen on clean elections; his is the only political party that has never indulged in malpractices. And yet, strange to say, Sir, the Report of the Elias Commission clearly indicated what the P.A.P. did during the Tanjong Pagar by-election. 3.54 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad the P.A.P. has said a mouthful! They want clean elections. We all want clean elections. In fact, the 1948 elections that we knew were not as dirty as the elections in 1955 and in 1957, when the P.A.P. stepped in. I like the suggestion made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar - that we must keep this country sane and clean, and see that everybody fights according to the rules. This is indeed very commendable, Sir. During the by-elections in 1957 and in the City Council elections, I happened to be around Elgin Bridge observing election campaigns, and I just want to point out a few things. At those elections, we found that posters were pasted indiscriminately. We found posters of Ong Eng Guan over the bridge, under the bridge, right in front of it, and behind it! In fact, Elgin Bridge being pasted all over looked as if it was made of paper! Then I also had occasion to observe students milling around with a zig-zag sign over their heads; and crowding around polling stations telling voters what to do, or telling them what not to do! All these, Sir, are of whose making? I would say the Member for Tanjong Pagar has found that all these were not good; all these things done by his Party were quite a sight, and he is now asking this Assembly to do away with them. I agree with him, heart and soul, on this! But I would like to see him observe all these rules. I have a feeling, Sir, that all these rules are made to be observed by all other Parties. And I have a feeling too, Sir, that these rules may not be observed by some Parties. Perhaps at the Committee stage, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, as the present head of the P.A.P., might give us an assurance that he will keep to the rules. However, I have a feeling that students will still be used; posters will still be pasted - though probably not in the way that the Member for Tanjong Pagar wants: "You stick your own posters." Other people might probably be used to put up the Opposition candidate's posters to give him a bit of trouble. But, Sir, if we all want to see the next elections clean, I would say that it is not a matter of rules that will make them clean. It is the determination of all political leaders to see the elections clean. If one Party does not start it, then I am sure other Parties will do the same. On the second point, Sir, I have been told times without number that the P.A.P. are ever so confident of winning the next elections. "Everybody will fail, but the P.A.P. cannot fail!" I wonder if this is just a way of hiding all the defects within. I am certain, Sir, that the people of Singapore already have a foretaste of what is to come. I agree with the Member for Changi who echoes what the people say: that if the P.A.P. win, the future will be gloomy. In fact, everybody says, "If the P.A.P. come in, there will be no future at all!" And if people are of this opinion, I do not see how they can ever vote them in! The third point is this: we are not go, ing to be ruled just by students. We are going to have sane people - people who have a lot of experience - going to the polls to cast their votes. I am sure the people will counteract their heartaches. I am certain that the people who can think will exceed those who cannot. I am also certain that those who are afraid of the P.A.P. have been educated. They will know that their votes are secret, and that they will go to the polls without the fear that their attap huts will be burnt down if the P.A.P. candidate is not returned in the Bukit Timah division! Certainly, Sir, all these things tell us that the wind is now blowing in the right direction and not in the direction the P.A.P. want, indeed if they look into the picnics and the adult classes, and also the number of students who failed and who are helping them, the parents will not be happy, and they will tell their children not to go and help them further. Perhaps the students themselves will change their minds. I have heard stories of education classes being conducted by the P.A.P. Have they been doing good work? I have heard many parents were furious because of the many "marriages" to which they have had to give consent before their time. In one area it is so bad that all these "educational" centres have now been classified by the rural folks as "matrimonial agencies"! I am afraid things have not been going right all the time. I am certain the people of Singapore are today fed up to the teeth, and they want to prevent what is going on now, come to them, should the Member for Tanjong Pagar occupy the chair of the Chief Minister. Sir, we have had a lot of surprises, and my greatest surprise today was when the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who is always anti-white and anti-British, told us that he would like to see a good referee! And whom has he chosen as a good referee? Not the Chief Minister, or any other Ministers who have been elected, but the Chief Secretary! I thought he wanted to say good-bye to him a long time ago! I thought he wanted to get him out of the country a long time ago! But today he has revealed, to me his inner desire of wanting the Chief Secretary, an official appointed by Her Majesty's Government, to remain here to be his referee! I must congratulate him, Sir! 4.03 p.m.

Sir, to save the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar the necessity of replying, I would remind the hon. Member for Serangoon that in a general election of this kind, it is only the officials who can act as the referees in running the election. I endorse what the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has already said, namely, that this Government is prepared to put off the Committee stage of this Bill to the 3rd March in order to accommodate him and his amendments. There is one aspect of compulsory voting of which I would like to remind the House, since it was not mentioned either by the hon. Member for Farrer Park or the hon. Member for Changi, or even by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, and that is that the recommendation for compulsory voting was one of the basic recommendations in the Elias Commission Report, in order to assist in doing away with the element of intimidation among persons who were not recording their votes. Lastly, Sir, I certainly give an assurance to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar that we will do everything that lies in our power to enforce these rules, and we will certainly not let expense stand in the way. He compared this contest to a boxing match with a referee. But I would remind him that boxers going into the ring, or football teams going on to the ground, all do so with the determination to abide by the rules; and they accept those rules before they go on. I would like to reiterate what I said in moving the Second Reading, that by enacting this legislation, we shall not be passing the whole responsibility to the Police Force to ensure clean elections. They will do what they can, and everything they can, to see that these rules are observed. If there is a breach of the law committed, they will take the appropriate action, but even then it is only with the support of the public, and in particular, the witnesses to any particular breach which may have occurred that they can carry the action through. But I hope that all Parties will enter the election with the determination to abide by these rules. In my view, the main responsibility must be shared and shouldered by the Parties, the candidates and the public in ensuring that these provisions are effective.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Committee Tuesday, 3rd March, 1959.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[The Chief Minister]. Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Four o'clock p.m. to Tuesday, 3rd March, 1959.