Hansard, 1959-03-03

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (3) (i) of section 47 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, obtained from the Speaker permission to be or to remain absent from meetings of the Assembly: Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi) - from 23rd February to 23rd March, 1959.

I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor dated the 18th 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:-

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare if he can give an assurance that all donations, whether in cash or in kind, sent to the Social Welfare Department, the Council of Social Services and various collection centres, in connection with the recent Kampong Tiong Bahru Fire, will be equitably distributed in full to all victims of the fire, and to state what steps will be taken to achieve this end.

The answer is yes, Sir, I will be making a Ministerial Statement.

asked the Chief Secretary whether a Malayan Officer who had been promoted to the post of Director of Special Branch as a result of Malayanisation has asked to retire on terms under the Retirement from the Public Service (Compensation) Ordinance, 1956, and on what grounds is the request made; and whether he will make a statement in the matter.

Sir, the officer in question, who holds his appointment by the approval of the Secretary of State, made representations to the Secretary of State in 1957 under Section 18 of Ordinance No. 43 of 1956. The Secretary of State, after considering those representations, expressed himself satisfied that he had reasonable grounds for anxiety regarding the future of his career in the public service. The officer thereupon became an entitled officer and the provisions of the Ordinance applied to him accordingly. In November 1958, he gave five months' notice of his intention to retire under Section 3 of the Ordinance. His retirement will therefore be effective next month. The compensation to which he will be entitled under the Ordinance will not be based on the emoluments of his present rank of Senior Assistant Commissioner, but on the emoluments of his previous rank of Superintendent, since he will not have completed two years in the higher rank as provided in the Fourth Schedule to the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council.

asked the Financial Secretary whether investigations regarding an account in the First National City Bank of New York in Singapore in which a very large sum of money was alleged to be under the control of a Minister were commenced by the Income Tax Department but subsequently stopped, and whether he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have examined the matter referred to and am satisfied that the liability to tax of this account was properly examined and that there is no truth in the allegation that investigations were stopped.

Will the Financial Secretary tell us whether the Minister in question personally saw the Comptroller of Income Tax, who is now away on leave, and as a result of that interview investigations were dropped?

That is not correct, Sir.

Will the Financial Secretary then tell us, since there is a substantive motion coming up for debate later on in the course of this sitting, exactly under what circumstances investigations were stopped?

Sir, I mentioned that in my previous statement and have nothing further to add.

asked the Minister for Education to state-

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answers are as follows. The amount of money spent by the Government on vernacular schools in respect of school buildings:- From $ 1954 to 1956 Nil 1957 230,199 1958 243,487 The amount of money spent by the Government on vernacular schools in respect of grants-in-aid: $ 1954 3,749,346 1955 6,365,803 1956 8,370,702 1957 13,194,219 1958 16,899,021 The number of Chinese schools given money by the Government in respect of school buildings: From $ 1954 to 1956 Nil 1957 29 schools amounting to 211,520 1958 13 schools amounting to 243,487 The number of Chinese schools given money by the Government in respect of grant-in-aid: $ 1954 203 schools amounting to 3,518,944 1955 217 schools amounting to 6,128,813 1956 235 schools amounting to 8,123,638 1957 233 schools amounting to 12,939,601 1958 233 schools amounting to 16,630,087

asked the Minister Communications and Works, in view of the different conditions under which licences to operate passenger transport services are granted to the Singapore Traction Company Limited under the Singapore Traction Ordinance and to other passenger-transport companies under the Omnibus Services Licensing Authority Ordinance, 1956, whether he will introduce amending legislation to apply uniform conditions of licensing.

Sir, amending legislation of the nature to which the hon. Member refers in his question could be enacted only within the framework of decisions taken in the wider and much more complex issues of unification. The House will recall the information given to it by my predecessor on these wider issues. Nevertheless, since I took over the appointment as Minister for Communications and Works, I have been studying the whole question of the public transport system and the need for satisfying the public demand, and I shall certainly look into the question whether or not it is feasible to introduce amending legislation.

10.10 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the December sitting of this Assembly I made a statement on the English Secondary Schools Entrance Examination leakage and the Government Chinese Senior Middle III Examination leakage and promised to make a fuller statement on the Chinese Examination leakage, the investigation of which was not completed at that time. A thorough investigation of the administrative arrangements for the setting of papers and the printing has revealed the following facts:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members will be happy to know that as a result of a series of negotiations, a joint Chambers of Commerce Trade Mission from Singapore has been invited by the Chamber of Commerce of Indonesia with the concurrence of the Ministry of Foreign Trade to visit Indonesia. The Mission will leave on 8th March and the visit will last one week. The Mission will comprise about 15 members, headed by Mr K. M. Abdul Razak, Chairman of the Indian Chamber of Commerce. I am attaching two of my senior officials as observers to this Mission. The Mission will have the opportunity to discuss fully and frankly all matters of mutual interest to Indonesian and Singapore merchants with the object of establishing closer trade ties. The Mission will be able to make valuable personal contacts with the leaders and members of the main commercial associations in Indonesia and also hold discussions with various Ministers and officials. It is hoped that the Mission will be able to foster closer mutual understanding of trading problems affecting the two territories and that this will lead to further consultations on trade matters to the benefit of both territories. It is possible that the Mission's visit might pave the way to the establishment at a later date of a resident Singapore trade representative at Djakarta.

10.15 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as stated in my reply to the Member for Tiong Bahru, I wish to make a statement now on the disastrous fire which occurred on Friday, 13th February, and devastated a large section of Kampong Tiong Bahru, rendering some 5,000 persons homeless and causing considerable loss and damage to property. Happily only one person died although there were 58 casualties, nine of whom were admitted to hospital. Hon. Members will have this tragic event still fresh in their minds and I need not go over the harrowing details of this tragedy which has called forth the sympathy, not only of the whole of Singapore, but also from our brothers in the Federation and Brunei and sympathisers from the United Kingdom. In this account, I intend to confine myself purely to the sober statistical details of this fire, the largest Singapore has experienced, and to an account of the measures which Government has taken or intends to provide. In accordance with the scheme for undertaking emergency measures whenever a fire or other calamity occurs, apart from measures taken to fight the fire and provide immediate medical care and attention to the victims, the Government set up a relief centre under the control of the Social Welfare Department at the Kim Seng Road School. The Social Welfare Department staff and voluntary workers manned the relief centre day and night. Donations of food and clothing and goods immediately poured in from the ever generous public and from voluntary associations in Singapore. From these donations the Singapore Council of Social Services have to date distributed $154,140 in cash to the fire victims through the Social Welfare Department while that Department itself has paid out $26,060. The Singapore Council of Social Services has spent a further $10,000 on feeding, the Social Welfare Department another $2,000 on equipment, the Public Works Department have spent $12,500 on works carried out, while health services and milk were provided by the Ministry of Health. While these measures provided immediate relief to the victims, it was necessary to consider the no less urgent problem of their future accommodation. On the morning following the fire, a team from the Estates Department of the Singapore Improvement Trust, by liaison with the Social Welfare Department, obtained basic information in connection with rehousing requirements. Including late registrations and additions made subsequently, it was necessary to consider rehousing 115 single persons and 920 families amounting to approximately 4,500 persons in all. On Monday, 16th February, Government directed the Singapore Improvement Trust to provide temporary accommodation for the fire victim families at Kallang Airport Estate and to prepare schemes for the immediate redevelopment of the area devastated by the fire. On the following day, Sir, I announced the Government's decision that the victims of the Kampong Tiong Bahru fire would be accommodated free of charge for three months and that a large number of low-cost flats would be built to rehouse all the victims. The move of all persons living within the school premises and the majority of those who have found accommodation outside the school was completed on Thursday, 26th February. During the 13 days, from the time the Trust was first directed to take part in the operation, 779 units of accommodation were allocated and occupied by approximately 900 families and single person groups. The total move involved more than 4,000 persons. Lettings of 779 units in normal times would take some two months. The organization and effort contributed by the staff who condensed the volume of work into a few days has been possible only because of continued working by the staff on the site until late hours each day. Now I must come to the Government's intentions in regard to the redevelopment of the fire site itself. It is considered that only a planned redevelopment of the site with permanent housing should be carried out and that haphazard rebuilding with attap or timber barrack buildings should be strongly resisted and prevented. Government has now accordingly gazetted for acquisition the full area of the fire site itself together with additional lands around it for satisfactory redevelopment. The proposals are that the fire site should be developed by the erection of 240 two-room single-storey units and 500 two-room units in multi-storey blocks. The single-storey units will be constructed to a simple but durable structure by the use of wood wool slabs and concrete hollow blocks. Individual water supply and electricity would be laid on to each unit. The overall cost of these two-room units, including a proportion of site work, would be $2,500. Such two-room units could be let complete to larger families or be split to individual rooms for allocation to small families. The redevelopment of the higher portions of the site, having good load bearing capacity would be with seven-storey buildings containing units of almost identical plan to the single storey structures but having balcony access. Such units could again be let out complete or as two individual rooms. It is estimated that the cost of 500 units of the two-room units in the multi-storey blocks will be approximately $5,000 each or $2,500 per single room. Sanction will be sought at the next sitting of this Assembly for the provision of additional monies amounting to approximately $3.3 million for this development. In the meantime, the Singapore Improvement Trust is being authorised to proceed immediately with site works in anticipation of Legislative Assembly approval. It is considered that, after the carrying out of the necessary site works, the first phase of the scheme resulting in the completion of the 240 single-storey units would take three months, while the remaining phases of the scheme would result in further accommodation being available by the completion of a possible 200 units in the multi-storey buildings at six to eight weeks intervals thereafter. I should like to end this statement by voicing the thanks of this Government and, I am sure, the victims of this fire will wish me to do so on their behalf, to all persons who worked long and devoted hours to alleviate the plight of the afflicted victims, and to the very willing co-operation and assistance rendered by all bodies and organizations, both public and private, from the City Council and the Singapore Improvement Trust to the Council of Social Services and other relief organizations. Last but not least, I must not forget the very generous public of Singapore and our friends in the Federation, Brunei and the United Kingdom whose donations and contributions and more than this, the thought behind these donations and contributions, have warmed our hearts and brought solace to the unfortunate victims.

"to repeal the Rubber Regulation Ordinance (Chapter 182 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 18th March, 1959, and to be printed.

"to amend the Rubber Estates (Surcharge on Assessment) Ordinance (Chapter 169 of the Revised Edition)". presented by the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing (Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 18th March, 1959, and to be printed.

"for making Final Provision for the Public Service for the year 1957", presented by the Acting Financial Secretary (Mr Oon Khye Kiang); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 18th March, 1959, and to be printed.

"to amend the Estate Duty Ordinance (Chapter 162 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Acting Financial Secretary (Mr Oon Khye Kiang); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 18th March, 1959, and to be printed.

"to incorporate the Financial Secretary and to provide for the vesting in such corporation of properties now vested in the Chief Secretary", presented by the Attorney-General (Mr E. P. Shanks); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 18th March, 1959, and to be printed.

"to make provision for the enforcement in Singapore of judgments and awards given in foreign countries which afford reciprocal treatment to judgments given in Singapore, for facilitating the enforcement in foreign countries of judgments given in Singapore and for matters connected therewith", presented by the Attorney-General (Mr E. P. Shanks); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 18th March, 1959, and to be printed.

"to amend the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955 (No. 26 of 1955)", presented by the Chief Secretary (Mr E. B. David); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 18th March, 1959, and to be printed.

"to amend the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 207 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 18th March, 1959, and to be printed.

"to amend the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance, 1957 (No. 35 of 1957)", presented by the Chief Secretary (Mr E. B. David); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 18th March, 1959, and to be printed.

"to make miscellaneous amendments to the laws of the Colony", presented by the Attorney-General (Mr E. P. Shanks); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 18th March, 1959, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.28 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main value of the amendment proposed lies in clauses 2 and 3 the result of which will be that married couples will be enabled to adopt and give a proper status to an illegitimate child of one or the other. There are cases where the mother of an illegitimate child marries the natural father of that child and it is desirable that some proper means should be provided for the child to be adopted jointly by the husband and wife without the undesirable fiction at present resorted to whereby the mother has formally to give up her parental rights before an adoption order can be made. Clause 3 of the Bill will allow for adoption in this very small class of case where the mother marries a man less than 21 years older than the child. Usually in such cases the man, married, is in fact the natural father. These two clauses will allow of these arrangements which I suggest are proper and desirable to be made. The fourth clause of this Bill makes a minor alteration to section 9 of the Ordinance, which provides for rules to be made. At present there are rules providing for adoption orders to be made not in open court but in Chambers. Strictly, interlocutory applications should be dealt with in open Court. This has not been the practice in the past and it is desirable that provision should be made for the existing practice of dealing with interlocutory orders in Chambers to be regularised and put completely beyond doubt. The final clause of the Bill adds a definition section which is now desirable so as to distinguish between fathers of legitimate children and the natural fathers of illegitimate children, and is consequential on the provision that will be made by clause 2. 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 Shanks]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.36 a.m. The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Tun Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, in the light of constitutional changes and of experience gained over the past few years in the administration of the Immigration Ordinance, 1953, it is imperative that certain amendments should be made in the law to meet changed conditions and to close the loopholes that have been discovered over a period. To this end there have been several consultations with the Federation Government at ministerial as well as official levels. Hon. Members are aware that since 1953 the policy on immigration has been Pan-Malayan, and I am happy to report that as a result of these consultations it will continue to be so. The Federation is an independent territory now and Singapore will soon have internal self-government, but despite the difference in status, the Federation Government has agreed to maintain a Pan-Malayan approach to this very important legislation. There will be no change in the freedom of movement between the two territories along the Causeway other than in the case of those citizens who are specifically prohibited by order of either Government. The provisions incorporated in this Bill are the result of consultations referred to by me. A new Bill incorporating these amendments was passed by the Federal Legislative Council about a fortnight ago. The Federation Government is now awaiting the passing of our Bill so that the new law can be brought into operation simultaneously. Reference to the Explanatory Statement to the Bill will disclose the reasons for the proposed amendments. Clause 4, the most important clause, seeks to amend the provisions of section 7 of the Immigration Ordinance in that the right of entry is now confined to citizens of Singapore and of the Federation, and I am sure hon. Members will welcome this move. Persons other than citizens of Singapore and of the Federation will have to apply for a permit or pass in order to enter Singapore from outside Malaya. I wish to stress that this will refer to those who will be seeking entry into Malaya after the coming into force of this amendment. This amendment will not affect persons already resident in Singapore on entry permits or passes. Sir, in regard to those categories of persons who at present are entitled to enter by virtue of section 7 (1) (b) of the Ordinance, namely, persons in the specific employment of the Government or of the City Council, consular representatives or members of the Diplomatic Corps, and members of Her Majesty's Forces serving in Singapore, they will be covered by an Immigration (Exemption) Order which it is proposed to make if this Bill is passed. This Exemption Order will be authorised under section 55 of the Ordinance as amended. Clause 27 of the Bill seeks such an amendment to section 55 so as to empower the Minister, when he makes an Order exempting any person or class of persons from the provisions of the Immigration Ordinance, to impose conditions on such exemption. It is intended that such an Order, when made, will make it obligatory on the part of persons qualified for exemption to apply for an entry permit or pass, if the specific reason for the exemption ceases to hold good. Such persons could then be treated as if they were applying for first entry into Singapore if they wish to remain here after their diplomatic or consular status ceases, or their service with the Armed Forces or the Government or the City Council is terminated, as the case may be. The Government feels that this amendment is vitally necessary in order that when the new Exemption Order is introduced, there will be a system of control, which will enable it, in consultation with the Federation Government if need be, to have the power to refuse or to allow such persons to remain in Malaya when the reasons for exemption have ceased to be valid in their cases. The present law gives no such power once they have entered Singapore under the entitlement conferred under section 7 (1) (b) of the Ordinance. It will therefore be in the interests of Singapore to have this control in order that permission to stay here either on an entry permit or pass would be regulated by considerations of contributions which such persons would make for the economic betterment or otherwise of Singapore or of Malaya as a whole. Sir, Singapore now has overwhelming problems of a fast expanding population and of a totally inadequate number of employment opportunities created from time to time to absorb the large numbers of young persons coming into the employment market every year. At the same time, the Government is only too conscious of the need to attract capital and technological know-how for industrial development, and to expand and improve the productivity of existing industries, while maintaining to the full the enviable position which we have gained through our entrepot trade. It is, therefore, necessary that there should be a balance struck somewhere between the need to curtail the entry of persons seeking employment in Singapore and the necessity to have recourse to steps to invite foreign capital or experts, whether it is in the scientific, technological or professional spheres, who could contribute to Singapore's economic, social or industrial development. With the introduction of this control, Sir, emphasis will be placed more and more on the economic benefit of Singapore. Positive steps will have to be taken to encourage people to invest in Singapore and to protect that investment with their presence here. As an important corollary to this better system of immigration control, it is proposed that the present Immigration (Prohibition of Entry) Order, which includes the category of persons under paragraph (b) of the Schedule to the Order enabling a contract employee to be granted an entry permit if he has a contract of employment guaranteeing a salary of $500 per month for two years, should be replaced. Accordingly a new order will be issued, deleting paragraph (b) of the Schedule, as well as another category in paragraph (c) which refers to skilled artisans being allowed entry for employment in the trade or occupation if there are not sufficient skilled artisans already resident in Malaya, and if such entry is in the economic interests of Singapore, and to cover these two categories of persons by the issue of Employment Passes. Such Employment Passes will be authorised under new Immigration regulations which it is also proposed to make. Such an Employment Pass may be issued by the Controller to any person other than a prohibited immigrant who satisfies the Controller that he wishes to enter Singapore in order to take up employment in Singapore under a contract for a minimum period of two years and up to a maximum of five years (with extensions to be granted at the discretion of the Controller) with a company or firm, such contract guaranteeing an emolument of $1,200 per month. It is further proposed that there should be a proviso that where the Controller is satisfied that no person resident in Singapore is available to undertake employment of the kind referred to in such contract and that it will be unreasonable to expect an employer to pay such a salary in the particular circumstances of the job or post, he may waive the requirements of this stipulation that the employee should be paid a salary of $1,200 per month. Mr Speaker, Sir, I must ask hon. Members to bear with me if I appear to dwell too long on this part of the proposed provision. There has been some considerable disquiet on the part of the commercial and trading community as to the Government's intentions, and I hope this statement will allay the fears that the Government is seeking to exclude contract employees altogether. Quite apart from the necessity to provide and preserve employment opportunities for local people, there is of course the recognized need to maintain confidence in the ability of Singapore to cope with the demands of what we hope will be an expanding economy. Contract employees will therefore be allowed entry and even welcomed if they are personnel of a high calibre of attainments that are not to be found amongst local qualified persons, and if they will bring special talents, whether it be in the business, industrial, scientific or technological fields. In the process of raising the figure from $500 a month to $1,200 a month, it is the Government's hope that indirect inducement will thus be offered to firms and companies to encourage or promote local persons to take the places of the junior executive grades whom they, up to the present, find it expedient to recruit from overseas. We believe that many firms of repute and standing in Singapore have already embarked on programmes of training local people to take over posts of responsibility even without any such inducement. Therefore, I wish to give an assurance to such firms and to others which recognize sympathetically the need of Singapore to preserve employment opportunities as far as possible to its citizens, that there is no present intention to influence them to Malayanise the senior executive posts. I need hardly stress that if this proposed immigration control is exercised over the coming years with the broad imaginative objectives which we have in mind, there will be much greater appreciation of the benefits of Singapore citizenship, and communities will become close-knit and integrated. The building up of a Malayan consciousness and loyalty will be greatly accelerated thereby. With the Federation, this Government agrees that at this juncture we will not be unduly restrictive over the issue of Employment Passes provided that employers can show that they are making genuine attempts to cooperate with the Government to see that as far as possible local people are being employed or being trained for higher posts, so that the need for overseas recruitment is reduced to the minimum. As the proposed orders to be made will not be retrospective but will come into force on the dates they are made, persons already resident on entry permits, whether they be contract employees or specialists or professional consultants under paragraph (a) of the Schedule to the Prohibition of Entry order, will not be affected. Sir, clause 3 of the Bill proposes an amendment to subsection (2) of section 6 of the Immigration Ordinance in order to prohibit the entry into Singapore from the Federation of any person other than a citizen of Singapore who has been prohibited entry by order made under section 9 of the Ordinance, or who has entered the Federation of Malaya on a pass issued under the provisions of any written law for the time being in force in the Federation, and endorsed as not valid for entry into Singapore. Hon. Members will appreciate that this amendment will enable the Government to have the right, which it is hoped will be rarely exercised, to exclude visitors to Singapore from the Federation, whether for security or other reasons, because their presence is objected to in Singapore, but not in the Federation. The Federation Bill has such a parallel provision to exclude visitors from Singapore to the Federation. Clause 7 of the Bill seeks to amend section 10 of the Immigration Ordinance to make the issue of an Entry Permit discretionary instead of mandatory. I have already explained that this will now prove absolutely necessary if immigration control in the interests of Singapore which we seek is to be implemented. Clause 8 similarly seeks to amend section 11 (2) of the Ordinance to make the issue of Re-entry Permits discretionary instead of mandatory. Clause 12 seeks to repeal and re-enact section 15 of the Ordinance to give power to the Controller to declare the presence of a person who has entered Singapore on a permit or certificate to be unlawful after his arrival, if it is proved subsequently that he obtained either document by misrepresentation or that he is a prohibited immigrant. The certificate in question is the Certificate of Citizenship status issued to someone outside Singapore who claims to be a citizen of Singapore by birth or otherwise. This power to cancel will be exercisable within two years of the person's arrival. Clause 13 proposes an amendment to section 16 of the Ordinance to make it quite clear that once a person's presence in Singapore is declared unlawful, it would be unlawful for him to remain here. Clause 23 seeks to amend section 48 of the Ordinance to make the master, owner, charterer or agent of a vessel or aircraft liable for expenses of removal from Malaya of persons illegally entering Singapore from such vessel or aircraft. Clause 24 reinforces this provision by seeking to amend section 49 by increasing the period of liability to return a person illegally entering to his port of embarkation from three months to one year from the date of entry. This latter provision is to ensure that the necessary lengthy enquiries that may be required in some cases do not result in the owner of the vessel or aircraft repudiating liability. Clause 25 introduces a new section to facilitate interrogation and investigation in cases where persons are liable to be removed from Singapore under any of the provisions of the Ordinance. Sir, I wish, in conclusion, to acknowledge with gratitude the part played by Tunku Abdul Rahman, Prime Minister of the Federation, in all this. I must also thank Dato Abdul Razak and Dr Ismail for the friendly understanding and close co-operation in many problems which we have had to discuss and solve over these matters. It is an example of close consultations which we hope will be achieved in many other fields where the two territories inevitably have to examine the plans in the light of interdependence of one on the other, and to give effect to the over-riding considerations of maintaining a Malayan outlook, so that to the greatest extent possible we will be marching in step with each other, and to our mutual benefit. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 10.51 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, every Singaporean will no doubt support the protection of the interests of Singapore citizens in getting employment in his own country. I have no objection to that. Sir, the Hon. the Chief Minister mentioned in his speech that he wants foreign capital. I think all Parties need it, and have already spoken about it. But how is foreign capital going to come? Unless you allow the managers or partners to run the business. They are not going to send capital here and hand it over to somebody and say, "Look here, you take this capital of $100,000, and run the business for us." That is not possible, because those who invest their capital in this country want to see their capital under their control and invested in lines of their own interests. This being the case, the managers and partners should be allowed to stay here to manage the affairs of their businesses. Of course, they will have to employ local men in the big businesses, especially the industrial side, and they must also train the local people in order to form the majority of the employees. Sir, I have one more question. Many firms have been established here for years. Their businesses are vast and they have branches in many parts of the world, with their managers or their partners running these businesses. The Singapore Government, whichever Party is in power - of course, the present Government will soon be out of office - must know that, in order to keep investments in this country and to attract investments into this country from outside, they must allow the partners or managers of these businesses, whoever they choose, to stay in this country. Of late, many people have approached me saying that they want to send their own partners here to manage their own well-established businesses. If these partners or managers are not allowed to stay here, the only thing that will result is that the businesses, and with the businesses the capital too, will move out. This difficulty, of course, after persuading the Immigration Department, is generally solved; sometimes it goes to a higher level, but it is solved. But I must at this stage draw special attention to this fact - that most businesses here have been established before these rules, or this Ordinance, came into force. Therefore, my first point is that these partners or managers - when I say managers and partners, I mean those who manage the businesses - must be allowed to stay in this country. My second point is that those who want to establish new businesses for the benefit of Singapore must also come within the same category. Sir, I welcome the Bill. 10.55 am.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill, as presented to us by the Hon. the Chief Minister, makes it quite clear that this is a measure which should receive the support of this House and of everyone in Singapore. Although we are politically separated from the Federation, we are physically and economically one, and it would be unthinkable to have two sets of immigration laws - one of the Federation, and the other of Singapore. This would give rise to difficulties in going from Singapore to the Federation and from the Federation to Singapore. On the point of raising the minimum salary of $500 to $1,200, there has been considerable disturbance in firms whose managements are outside Singapore. But on the whole, they realise that times have changed. When the minimum of $500 was fixed many years ago, wages and the cost of living then were very much lower, and it is only right that the minimum should be raised to $1,200 today, because anyone fit to be a manager, assistant manager or partner, should be worth over a thousand dollars, if he should be allowed to come to Singapore. He should have the experience, the knowledge and the know-how to justify that salary before he could be allowed to come and take away a job from one of our local men. One of the greatest difficulties and causes of dissatisfaction in business management, and even in the public services, has been the importation of very junior men. People who have just passed out from college or have received superficial training - young men of just over 20 years - come to Singapore and become assistant managers and are placed well over the head of those who have been working here for years and years; clerks who have worked 20 years or more and who are now in the position of chief clerks. Up to a few years ago, there was not much attempt to train the local senior staff to bring them to the stage where they could take over the manager's or the assistant manager's job. One can well see the dissatisfaction that is caused in an office where you have a junior man suddenly thrown over you and you have got to take his directions when you know that his directions are not correct as he does not know the local conditions, but you still have to serve him. That surely lowers the morale of the whole office. I think it is only right that posts which carry up to $1,200 in pay should be given to local men to encourage them to take over all these positions so that they can become managers in later years and take part in the running of our Government. 11.01 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one accepts this Bill as inevitable as one welcomes the fact that the Federation and Singapore continue in line on these measures. The emoluments - I think that is the word and I would like the Hon. the Chief Minister to confirm that it is the word "emoluments - $l,200" that was used - on the whole may .not be unreasonable in the circumstances which are likely to exist in the future. I may not have heard the Hon. the Chief Minister correctly, Sir, but there is the point that was made in the Federation, and stated by the Acting Prime Minister there. He gave an assurance that entry was allowed on an employment pass - that the holder, once he got in, could look forward to a continuing career in this country. I think that is quite an important point, because if it is necessary to bring someone in, they are brought in for a very good reason. To seek for a person, and when you find him, and all that you can say to him is, "You may come in for two years", may be damaging to the economy of the country, possibly not in the long term, but certainly in the short term. 11.02 am.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to the point raised by the last speaker, I stated in my speech on the Second Reading that, in regard to Employment Passes, these will be given and that extensions will be granted if the employers could produce a contract guaranteeing that such persons will continue in their employment. Perhaps the language used is not very clear, and thus it has caused some doubts in the mind of the hon. Member. In regard to the point raised by the Member for Telok Ayer, I would like to explain something which I am afraid has not been properly grasped. Under the present law, any person who could produce a contract guaranteeing his employment for two years on an all-in emolument of $500 cannot be denied permanent entry into Singapore. That definitely is wrong. And the amendment proposed is to see that persons who seek employment in Singapore should only be given Employment Passes and not permanent residence, and his stay in Singapore will therefore be tied to the length of his employment with his employer. The amount of $1,200 that has now been fixed is to ensure that only persons of senior status will be allowed Employment Passes. But I did say even in my speech just now that if the employers can make a satisfactory case to the Controller that it is not possible to find local men to do a particular job, which job does not require the payment of $1,200 a month, the Controller will give sympathetic consideration to the granting of an Employment Pass. The hon. Member for Telok Ayer then mentioned the encouragement of foreign capital, and that foreign capital will never be interested in coming in unless they are allowed to bring in their own people. Sir, under the proposal here, anyone whose entry is in the economic interest of Singapore will be granted permanent stay, and along with him will be his family, that is, his wife and children up to the age of 18 years. That is a great encouragement to them. In regard to the senior jobs as managers and accountants, they will be allowed Employment Passes if they can produce a contract showing that these people are being employed for a certain period at a certain figure. It is a bit more difficult, Sir, in regard to partners. Now, partners can be sleeping partners. They need not be interested in the management of the business. But just by reason of the fact that they are partners and that they should be allowed entry into Singapore is, I submit, not in the best interest of the economy of Singapore. If before a new venture is started they are partners, they will, of course, be allowed in, but not for already established business which desires to bring in their friends or their relatives, by just transferring some shares to someone outside Singapore, and then claiming that that person should have a right of entry by reason of the fact that he owns some shares in that business. I think in such cases it should not be made possible for such people to be allowed entry.

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.-[Tun Lim Yew Hock]. Bill considered in Committee. 11.09 a.m. Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5-

Sir, I think the Chief Minister will agree with me that the established Government-

Order. Is the hon. Member intending to move an amendment?

I wish to move an amendment. But before I move it, I want certain clarification from the Chief Minister.

Of course, the hon. Member knows that two clear days' notice of an amendment must be given. If no notice is given, then the hon. Member must seek the assent of the Assembly. Is the hon. Member seeking the assent of the Assembly?

Yes, Sir.

Will the hon. Member indicate what the amendment is?

May I have your permission to seek clarification from the Chief Minister? If I am satisfied, then I will not move an amendment.

Order. The procedure is a bit complicated but I think, if the hon. Member is not satisfied with any part of clause 5, he should first seek permission to move an amendment. After permission has been given, he can move his amendment. After that, if he is satisfied, he can ask for leave to withdraw his amendment. Perhaps if he will indicate the nature of his amendment, I can assist.

Sir, the nature of the amendment is this. In place of the words "any established government", I wish to substitute "any established friendly government".

Order. I take it the hon. Member is now seeking the assent of the Members of the Assembly?

Yes. Sir.

The question is that the honourable Member for Farrer Park be given leave to move an amendment. The amendment is, in page 3, line 24, after "established" to insert "friendly". Do hon. Members give their assent? Hon. Members: No.

Then the hon. Member cannot move his amendment. Question proposed, "That clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

Perhaps now the hon. Member would like to comment.

I think the Hon. Chief Minister will agree with me that Communist China is an established Government. If it is so, and if this amendment goes through, it would mean, if the principal Ordinance is amended according to the Bill, that a person who believes in or advocates the overthrow by force or violence of any established government in Malaya is therefore a prohibited person. So, if Communist China is an established Government, then the Americans or the Formosans who are trying to overthrow the Government of Communist China are prohibited persons. So, is it the intention of this Government to exclude Americans or Formosans from entering Singapore? If it is so, the Chief Minister should inform this House. Or is it the intention of this Government that those people who are already established here - the Americans and Formosans who are already here - will be repatriated? If it is so, the Chief Minister should inform this House.

Sir, the proposed amendment to bring in "established government" is to state categorically that Singapore does not wish to encourage any kind of politics which is foreign to Singapore. It does not play favourites with one side or the other. If anyone indulges in the overthrow of any established government by violence or, according to the words here, Sir, "by force or violence", such a one should not be allowed entry into Singapore.

I am sorry, Sir, but I do not understand what the Chief Minister says. I see he does not understand what I have said. If it is proved that any foreign government or a member of a foreign government goes against any established government, that person will not have any right of entry into Singapore. If it is also proved that Communist China is an established Government, then Formosa is against Communist China. Then Formosans should not be allowed entry into Singapore. America is against Communist China. Therefore the Americans should not be allowed entry into Singapore. You must delete "established government". You say: "Ah, we must not interfere with political intentions." If America went against Communist China, we must declare that Singapore should have nothing to do with them. But when you say: "When any government goes against an established government", then it is admitted that Formosa is against Communist China, and America is against Communist China because Communist China is an established Government, and you treat those persons as prohibited persons. There must be some proper explanation. Sir, either you delete the words "established government" or you admit that Communist China is not an established government.

Order. I do not think the Chairman is responsible for drafting the Ordinance.

I am sorry, Sir.

Perhaps the hon. Member will address the Chair.

Yes, Sir. Mr Chairman, I am sorry I do not understand this point. I want an explanation from the Chief Minister. If any foreign government goes against an established government, that government, or the citizens of that government, will not have a right of entry into Singapore. Perhaps the Chief Minister will make me understand. Then, if it is established that Communist China is an established government, then America is against Communist China, and Formosa is against Communist China, and naturally the Americans should not be allowed here and the Formosans should not be allowed here. Or, Mr Chairman, Government must admit that Communist China is not an established government, which this Government is not prepared to admit. Some vital amendment is necessary on this.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I too had great difficulty in understanding what the hon. Member was trying to say! But, anyway, I will try to reply to what he said. This is an Immigration Ordinance to regulate the entry of persons, but not of governments at all. Any person who, in the view of the Government, believes in or advocates the overthrow by force or violence of any established government shall not be allowed entry into Singapore. That is in plain language! If he wants to start overthrowing any established Government, then let him go and do it elsewhere!

Before I put the Question, will the Chief Minister direct his attention to page 3, line 31? Should not the word "between" read "within"? The words quoted are from the Ordinance itself, and in the Ordinance the word "within" occurs-unless I have misread the Ordinance!

Thank you, Sir.

The word "between" is a typographical error and in place thereof will be inserted the word "within".

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 6 to 31 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.26 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance came into operation on 1st March, 1951, and there has been no decrease in the illicit traffic of opium into Singapore. This calls for the necessity for the imposition of sterner measures to ensure the complete eradication of this evil. The proposed amendments have been framed with a view to closing certain loopholes in the law made apparent in the light of its practical working. They provide for more stringent action against opium smugglers, dealers and vendors, and also ship-owners and masters, when responsible ships' officers are shown to have been negligent in supervision, with the result that their vessels are used for drug trafficking. Clause 2 gives statutory definitions of "pipe" and "utensil", used in opium smoking. Clauses 3 and 4 are drafted to combat difficulties which have been encountered in the interpretation of the word "possession". Section 6 of the Ordinance is expanded by the addition of the word "Keeps". Section 9 (1) (b) is similarly expanded by adding the words "custody or control". Clause 5 amends section 10 of the Ordinance by substituting the words "is found in or escaping from any place" for the words "frequents any place", as it is found to be extremely difficult to prove frequency of visits to places where opium is consumed. It is expected that only a nominal penalty will be imposed in cases where the Court is satisfied that a person found in an opium den is there for an innocent purpose. Clause 6 amends section 11 of the Ordinance to empower the Minister to amend Part III of the First Schedule to the Ordinance, either to secure strict control of any dangerous drugs not hitherto listed in the Schedule, or to delete therefrom any drug which has been exempted from control. Clause 7, which amends section 12, makes it clear that the unauthorised possession of drugs listed in Part III of the Third Schedule to the Ordinance is an offence. Clause 8, which expands section 15, is designed to make persons found escaping from premises used for any of the purposes listed in section 13 of the Ordinance liable to punishment. Clause 9 empowers the Minister to authorise the temporary removal from a ship or an aircraft, for safe keeping, dangerous drugs in transit through Singapore. Such powers are particularly necessary in the case of air freight consignments. Magistrates, Justices of the Peace and senior officers of the Police are at present empowered to issue search warrants and to conduct searches. In former times senior officers of the Customs Department were appointed Justices of the Peace, but this practice has now been dropped, and clauses 10 and 11, which amend respectively sections 27 and 27A are designed to permit such officers of the Department to issue search warrants and to conduct searches, since the Department still plays a major part in suppressing the traffic in dangerous drugs, and frequently needs to operate under a search warrant at night. Clause 10, in addition, also enables these officers to board aircraft as well as ships in the course of their duties. Clause 12, which amends section 28, makes an attempt to dispose of case property as much an offence as the actual destruction of such property. Clause 13 is intended to prevent the removal of any conveyance which has been used for the transport of dangerous drugs. Clause 14 brings section 30 of the Ordinance into line with similar provisions relating to seizure and forfeiture contained in the Customs Ordinance. Opportunity has also been taken in clause 15 to clarify the meaning of section 35 (2) (b) of the Ordinance. Clause 16 strengthens the presumptions under section 37 (c) of the Ordinance. It follows a similar provision under the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance, and makes it possible to take proceedings against persons who erect obstructions against legal entry into premises for the administration of dangerous drugs. Paragraph (b) of this clause extends the presumption in section 37 (d) of the Ordinance to cases where a person has custody or control of anything containing a dangerous drug, and the opportunity has been taken in paragraph (d) to remove an ambiguity under section 37 (h) of the Ordinance. Clause 17 is designed to make the owners of premises exercise greater responsibility and to prevent the rise of their property for purposes involving the administration or smoking of dangerous drugs. It empowers the police to take action against owners and magistrates to order the demolition of obstructions erected to faciliate the administration of dangerous drugs or smoking or other consumption of such drugs. Clause 18 amends section 38 (1) of the Ordinance, to make owners and masters of vessels jointly liable for the negligence of any responsible officer, which results in the vessel being used for the smuggling of dangerous drugs. This clause is based upon the United Kingdom Customs and Excise Act, 1952. This Bill has the support of all the authorities concerned with the suppression of the traffic of narcotics, and of the Director of Medical Services. The situation with regard to narcotics smuggling into Malaya is grave, and it demands vigorous and early action. During 1958, there were no less than 23 discoveries of illicit opium on board ships calling at Singapore, but because of the weakness in the existing provisions of the Ordinance, it was not possible in one single instance to arrest those implicated. 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.

11.32 am. Clauses 1 to 13 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 34, to leave out "lamps,". The definition of "utensil" in clause 2 (b) includes reference to lamps. So it is not necessary to make such a reference in this clause. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, lines 5 and 6, to leave out "Court or to a Magistrate's Court" and insert "Judge or to a Magistrate". There is a reference to District Judge or Magistrate in lines 7 and 8. So for uniformity a similar reference should be made in the preceding lines 5 and 6. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, line 13, after "default", to insert "of appearance". This is to rectify a drafting error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 16-

Sir, I require your guidance in the matter. Since the two amendments in this clause are of a similar nature, can I take them together?

If the Hon. the Financial Secretary will just propose formally. He can take them one at a time.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 8, line 24, after "or", to insert "otherwise". This is to rectify a drafting error. Amendment agreed to. Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 6, after "or", to insert "otherwise". -[Mr Oon Khye Kiang]. Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 17-

I would like to direct the attention of the Hon. the Financial Secretary to page 9, line 18. There appears to be a typographical error. Should not "or" be "of"?

That is correct, Sir.

To deal with the typographical error, "or" will now read "of".

Sir, I beg to move, In page 11, line 12, after "being", to insert "on the premises". The amendment clarifies the position. Amendment agreed to. Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 18-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 11, lines 37 and 38, to leave out "or mate or engineer" and insert ", a mate or an engineer officer". This amendment is to make the phraseology of the term more precise. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 11, line 41, to leave out "passengers" and insert "a passenger certificate". This amendment is also to make the phraseology of the term more precise. Amendment agreed to. Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.39 a.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As hon. Members are aware, the Minor Offences Ordinance seeks to control a variety of misdemeanours and nuisances of a minor character. Experience has shown that the provisions of this Ordinance are inadequate to control certain of these offences and the present Bill is designed to remedy that position. Clause 2 of the amending Bill relates to Part II of the principal Ordinance which deals with rules and orders as to assemblies, processions, etc. It amends the definition of a "public place" to include any building or other place to which the public or a class of the public have for the time being access. The amendment is required because at the present time a meeting held in a building or in an enclosed space cannot be defined as a public meeting even though it may in fact be so by virtue of the fact that the public or a class of the public have access thereto. In consequence, the police at present have no authority to require a permit for a public meeting which is being held in a building or an enclosed space. The opportunity is also taken to bring the definition of a "place of public resort" into line with the definition now contained in the Public Entertainments Ordinance, which has replaced the Theatres Ordinance. Clause 3 of the Bill makes provision for the control of catapults and similar weapons to which at present no provision exists. Catapults are in common use by small boys, and while it is not intended to interfere with this pastime, provision must be made against the discharge of such weapons in circumstances which might bring injury to the public. Clause 4 of the Bill seeks to amend section 12 of the main Ordinance which deals with offences relating to animals. It is at present a common practice with the owners of animals to tether them on private land or Crown land without the permission of the owner of the land or the Crown. It is desired to put an end to this practice. The second subsection of this clause of the amending Bill is designed to ensure that herdsmen keep their animals under proper control when driving them on the highway. There have been many instances of accidents occurring on public highways as a result of animals being permitted to wander when supposedly under their herdsmen's charge. This new section places responsibility for the control of the animals firmly on the herdsmen. The first subsection of clause 5 of the Bill relates to the obstruction of public roads and footways. The existing section makes reference to "goods" but this word has no proper grammatical definition, whereas the word "article" can be clearly defined. The use of the word "goods" in the existing Ordinance has in the past resulted in ambiguity and, in consequence, cases of obstruction have been dismissed by the courts. The second subsection of this clause makes it an offence to cause obstruction on a public road by carts, wheelbarrows, bicycles, tricycles or other vehicles which can effectively cause obstruction. The existing Ordinance makes no provision for this offence, which has been shown in the past to occasion considerable nuisance to the general public. The third subsection of this clause makes it an offence to place any projection over or along a public road at a height of less than 8 feet. It has been found that owners of property abutting on the public highway have erected such projections which are not only a nuisance but may be dangerous to passers-by. Finally, clause 6 of the Bill is designed to increase the maximum fine for wilful trespass from the existing figure of $20 to a sum of $100, which is considered to be more in keeping with the present scale of fines for minor offences. 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 David]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.46 am.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Domiciliary midwifery is extensively practised in Singapore and, as you are aware,- Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose-

On a point of order?

Point of order, Sir. Mr Nair resumed his seat.

This Bill does not come within the province of our Minister for Communications and Works. Is it proper for him to move this Bill when, in fact, the Minister for Health was well enough to attend the banquet for the Duke?

Order. That is not a point of order. It is not within my province as to who moves Bills. Mr Nair.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Domiciliary midwifery is extensively practised in Singapore and, as all hon. Members are aware, our birth rate figures are rising and will continue to rise. It is therefore essential that midwives be experts in that field, both for the safeguarding of the lives of the mother and child and for maintaining their professional standards. The Midwives Board, constituted under the Midwives Ordinance, find it therefore necessary to redraft the rules which govern the registration, training and supervision of midwives. In order that this may be effected, the Midwives (Amendment) Bill makes a number of amendments to the Midwives Ordinance, Cap. 192, so as to give the Board powers to do so. An opportunity is taken to make the amendments so that reference to Christmas Island, the Cocos or Keeling Islands, is omitted and to correct the designations of the members of the Board so as to bring them up to date. Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 3 of the Midwives Ordinance to remove the word "Central" in the title of the Midwives Board, as the Midwives Ordinance will only apply to Singapore, and to amend the definition of "local supervising authority" to bring it in line with the reorganisation of local government in Singapore. Clause 5 of the Bill repeals and reenacts section 6 of the Ordinance in order to define more clearly the persons who are entitled to be registered under the Ordinance. Clause 6 of the Bill amends section 7, to correct the designations of the persons who are to constitute the Board. It also gives the Board power to act when any vacancy occurs in its membership and to appoint such committees as it thinks fit to execute the duties and responsibilities on behalf of the Board. Clause 7, which amends section 8, gives power to the Midwives Board to make such rules as may be required to be prescribed under the Ordinance. It also enables the Board to prescribe the fees to be paid by midwives and pupils. Clause 9 of the Bill amends section 13 of the Ordinance so as to enable the register of midwives to be ready for publication in the Gazette in January of each year. The opportunity is also taken to make amendments and correct minor errors in the Midwives Ordinance. Clause 4 deletes a provision of section 5 of the Midwives Ordinance, which should more correctly be included in section 6 of the Ordinance. Clauses 8 and 10 of the Bill make minor corrections to the Midwives 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 M. P. D. Nair]. Bill considered in Committee.

11.50 a.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2- Question proposed, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry that we do not have the Minister for Health present today. I had remarked that if he was fit enough to attend the banquet for the Duke, then he ought to be fit enough to move the Bill in the Assembly. However, since he is not here, could the Minister for Communications and Works tell us what is the purpose of clause 2? It says in the Explanatory Statement - if I could help him: "Clause 2 of the Bill amends section 2 of the Midwives Ordinance to remove the references to Christmas Island, the Cocos or Keeling Islands and to the Singapore Rural Board area." Could he explain why the Singapore Rural Board area is going to be removed?

Mr Nair?

Postpone it until the Minister is well!

Order.

The amendment is brought about as a result of the reorganisation of local government.

Surely the Minister did not expect to get away with that? What is this reorganisation of local government? How does this amendment bring into effect changes in the law to line up with the reorganisation of local government? If, in fact, he does not understand this Bill, may I suggest that the debate be postponed to a further day when the Minister responsible can be present to attend to this Bill?

Sir, the language of the existing section 2 is somewhat curious and refers to the Ordinance not coming into force in Christmas Island, or the Cocos or Keeling Islands or in any part of the Singapore Rural Board area without the Island of Singapore until such date or dates as the Governor by notification in the Gazette appoints. It is now desirable to remove the Christmas Island and the Cocos or Keeling Islands provision - I do not think the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar will misunderstand that - but this reference to any part of the Singapore Rural Board area has become unnecessary because, by clause 3, the local supervising authority is now being changed. At present the law has a somewhat complicated provision for providing that in the Rural Board area the officer performing the duties of the Chief Health Officer and in any other area the officer performing the duties of Health Officer in that area is by definition, the local supervising authority. Now we are changing that and simplifying it, so that the local supervising authority within the City remains the City Health Officer; but outside the City it is the Assistant Director of Medical Services (Health) - just one person. So we do not need any reference to parts of the Singapore Rural Board area. The phraseology of the new section 2 is perhaps a little unusual, but it seems that an attempt was made to make as few changes as possible in the Ordinance. The Christmas Island and Cocos or Keeling Islands references have been cut out and so has the reference to parts of the Singapore Rural Board area. It is now unnecessary to have any reference to parts of that area. It is unusual, but I think the hon. Member will find that, if he looks at this clause together with section 3 of the Ordinance as it will be when amended, it is in fact in order and reasonably satisfactory.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indebted to the Attorney-General for a very elaborate and complicated explanation. But I would like to make this point before we pass on to the other clauses. When a Bill is moved in this House, Members have the right to expect that the Minister who moves it knows what he is moving, otherwise we shall be making a mockery of the whole solemn process of legislation. Mr Speaker, Sir, you have been at pains to maintain the dignity and the solemnity of this House. Those of us who want to see this Chamber retain its dignity in the eyes of the people are also anxious to see that we are not made into rubber stamps. When a Minister comes forward to explain what he is doing, we expect, first, that he knows what he is explaining; secondly, that he is in a position to elaborate further on anything which he has failed to explain, and, lastly, that he will have the courtesy to study his brief before he comes into this Chamber. It is not his business-

Order. I think the hon. Member has gone far enough. Mr Nair. 12.00 noon.

Sir, I just want to make one comment. It is now clear that the hon. Member has raised his point intentionally and I do not believe for a moment that he did not understand it.

Did you?

It is true that I did not reply fully, but I thought that I would refer to it later when we come to clause 3 (b) where it is specifically stated that outside the City of Singapore, the Assistant Director of Medical Services (Health) will be responsible. Sir, I have come to the Assembly after reading very carefully through the Bill and I hope that I will be able to satisfy the Member on any question that he may raise. I hope that minor omissions of this nature will not be raised by the hon. Member who fully understands the meaning of this Bill.

May I complete my observations? When the Minister for Communications and Works-

Order. I think all this is completely irrelevant to the clause. I think the hon. Member has gone as far as he ought to, and I think the Minister has answered as far as he has been able to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought, before this matter was raised, that I understood this but I now feel that I do not. Could I have it clarified for me - that the effect of the new clause 2 is that the Governor will have to notify in the Gazette before the Ordinance operates in Pulau Tekong or in the Southern islands or in any of the outlying islands? Is that the effect of the new clause or not?

That is so, Sir. That is one effect of this change in clause 2.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7- Question proposed, "That clause 7 stand part of the Bill."

May I give an opportunity to the Minister to show how well he understands this Bill? Why is it necessary, according to the Explanatory Statement, "to give the Midwives Board more extensive power to make rules in order to enable it to carry out its duties and exercise its power under the Ordinance"?

Sir, the powers requested under this Bill are that the Midwives Board may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership, and, when it thinks it necessary, may appoint from among its members Committees to act on its behalf. The Midwives Board may also make any rules that may be required to be prescribed under the Ordinance. The Board may prescribe the fees to be paid by midwives and pupils. I think, Sir, in the best interest of the service and of the efficient working of the Board, it is desirable that the Board should have these adequate powers.

May I rephrase the question in a more simple way? There are certain existing powers given under the existing Ordinance. The note at the bottom of page 4 of the Bill says: "Clause 7 of the Bill amends section 8 of Midwives Ordinance to give the Midwives Board more extensive power to make rules in order to enable it to carry out its duties and exercise its power under the Ordinance." As a Member of this Legislature whose duty it is at least to understand what we are supposed to legislate, may I ask the Minister for Communications and Works why the former powers were inadequate and in what way they were found lacking so that this amendment is necessary? It is very simple.

Sir, I have not been able to look into the working of the Midwives Board, but I am advised that they want to have adequate power for the efficient working of the Board. I assure the hon. Member that I will look into this question and I will give the information to him in writing.

I must apologise for putting the Minister to such inconvenience. I would like to find out when he was so advised. Was it this morning before he was asked to read his speech in this Assembly, or was it some time before that? Was there sufficient time not only to digest but also to assimilate the matter that was placed before him?

Sir, I think I have answered the question clearly. I have made an honest admission that I have not looked into the particular question before. I never thought for a moment that the hon. Member would not be aware of these things, but if the hon. Member can accept my assurance that I will look into it, then this matter can be closed. But if he wants to question me as to whether I understand the problem seriously, I think that is a different matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is some little time since I personally had to consider section 8 of the Midwives Ordinance, but if my memory serves me right, some doubt has been cast on the powers of the Board to prescribe fees to be paid by persons who are not in fact midwives, and that I believe is the reason why an alteration is being made to paragraph (j) of section 8 of the Ordinance - by the addition of specific power to prescribe fees to be paid by pupils. Now, I must confess that I cannot at the moment remember the precise details of why all these other alterations have to be made, but I do know that there was close consultation with the Ministry of Health and with the Midwives Board before this Bill was put into its final form. I observe in the present Ordinance that there is not the general provision now sought to be given by the additions referred to on page 4 of this Bill as paragraphs (k) and (l), although there is in section 8 power to frame various rules and to do various acts - the two things are separated. There is power to do acts reasonably necessary for the carrying out of the provisions of the Ordinance, and then there is specific power to frame rules, but those powers are limited, and the addition of the new paragraphs (k) and (l) will undoubtedly make for more freedom. I believe the Midwives Board has, in the past, found that its powers have been too closely circumscribed, and it is for that reason that they are now seeking to have their powers widened. There is nothing unusual in the widening now proposed. It is something that is quite common in most of our Ordinances, but perhaps the position was slightly different in 1923 when the Midwives Ordinance was first enacted.

Can I take the Attorney-General through another legislative exercise? If his memory can still serve him well, can he just recite to us, in respect of paragraph (k) "prescribing anything which is required to be prescribed under this Ordinance", what are the things required to be prescribed under this Ordinance?

I have no doubt I can oblige the hon. Member but it will take a little time. I shall want to read through the Ordinance from the first section to the last, word by word.

Am I right, Mr Speaker, Sir, that had we the privilege of the presence of the Minister for Health, he might have been more adequately informed of the meaning, intent and purport of this Bill?

That is a matter for anticipation.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 8 to 10 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without Amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir, I second it. Question proposed.

I have sat patiently through many a sitting in House. I know that the Member Southern Islands earns a very hard living for $1,500, supporting-

Order. We are now on the Third Reading of the Bill and the Standing Orders are quite clear. The debate on the Third Reading must be confined to the contents of the Bill, not to who seconds the Third Reading.

Yes. I am much obliged to you, Mr Speaker, for reminding me of that. What I want to remind the House of is that, both the mover and the seconder of the Third Reading of this Bill, whose arduous duties bring them to this House to move and second it, have shown in the course of this debate that they do not understand its purport and intent. In fact, a group of civil servants are setting out what are undoubtedly good principles in the Bill-

Order. I must stop the hon. Member. I do not think all those remarks are related to the contents of the Bill. The Bill is just an amendment of the Midwives Ordinance and therefore, as he probably knows, he ought to confine his remarks to specific clauses in the Bill.

In summing up my point of view, may I say that had we been more adequately informed of its purport and intent, we might be in a better position to pass judgment on what we have already agreed to pass?

Of course, there is nothing to prevent the hon. Member from voting against the Third Reading. The Question is, "That the Bill be now read the Third time." As many as are of that opinion say 'Aye'. Some hon. Members: Aye.

To the contrary, say, "No".

No.

I think the "Ayes" have it? The "Ayes" have it.

Division, Sir.

The hon. Member is a bit too late. I have declared, "The Ayes have it." Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 12.14 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.

I second it. [Interruption]

Order. Question proposed.

I think this takes the cake! Mr Speaker, Sir, we have-

Order. I suppose the word "cake" is parliamentary?

It depends on what the ingredients are, Mr Speaker, but I believe there should at least have been some decency-

I think that word "decency" as opposed to "indecency" is unparliamentary. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to withdraw the word "decency" in that sense?

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me hasten to assure you that I did not have anything in my mind remotely connected with what Freud usually associates with that word. But the context in which I had intended to use that phrase was some legislative approbium, to come and tell this House why we should have spent our time, first, in looking at the Bill; second, in anticipating a hilarious debate as to how the sanity of the people of Singapore can be looked after; and, finally, without so much as, by your leave, to tell the House that we have just been wasting time! Sir, I was going to make what I had hoped would be some apt and happy observations on mental disorders and the treatment thereof, particularly in respect of those who, because they have to shoulder too onerous Ministerial duties beyond the line of duty, are therefore troubled in their sleep by what are normally called mental disorders, I would be obliged if the Minister for Communications and Works could tell us why, in the first place, the Bill was tabled, why it has suddenly been decided to withdraw it, and whether we can expect in the not too distant future the First Reading of another Bill of precisely the same character. I would like to add, since I see that the Attorney-General is extremely eager to help his unfortunate colleague, that whatever the duties of the leading Counsel for the Crown are, they do not include the lifesaving of a drowning elected colleague.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I can help the House on this, and I rise to do so not for the motives insinuated by the Member for Tanjong Pagar but because I think it may assist the House to know that publication of this Bill after it had been read the First time has resulted, as one always hopes it will in the expression of ideas and constructive criticism by members of the public. In this particular case, I believe constructive suggestions were made by members of the medical profession. Those suggestions go further than what was originally proposed in the Bill, and I can assure the House that a fresh, bigger and a better Bill is already in preparation. I confidently expect that this bigger and better Bill which has resulted from the assistance given by the medical practitioners who read this Bill on its publication will be introduced into the Assembly at some convenient date.

On a point of information, Sir. Mr Shanks resumed his seat.

May I ask the Attorney-General whether we can confidently expect a bigger, a better, and a fresher Minister to come and move the Second Reading of the new Bill?

Has the Attorney-General completed his speech?

I have, Sir.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar was a bit lucky. The Minister is entitled to a reply if he so desires.

Sir, I do not want to reply.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved. That the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.

This is an appropriate time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.21 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Order for Committee Stage read. Bill considered in Committee. 2.31 p.m. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 25, to leave out "(4)" and insert "(3) of section 13, subsection (3) of section 18 and subsection (5)". Sir, the purpose of this amendment is, firstly, to rectify a drafting error in that the figure "4" should appear as figure "5", and, secondly, to include a reference to new sections 13 (3) in clause 7 and 18 (3) in clause 11, both of which contain provision for the names of persons disqualified to be expunged from the register of electors. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 28, to leave out "(7)" and insert "(8)". This is a drafting amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 20, at end, to add- "(2) When a direction has been given by the Governor in Council under the preceding subsection compliance with the provisions of Ord. 23 Of 1957. this Ordinance relating to the register revision of the shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Ord. 23 the Local Government Elections of 1957. Ordinance, 1957, be deemed to be compliance with the provisions of that Ordinance and the register as so revised shall be deemed to be the combined register for the purposes of this Ordinance as well as of the Local Government Elections Ordinance. 1957.". Sir, if this amendment were not made, an obligation would rest on the Returning Officer to prepare what are called Lists (A) and (B) in respect of the register for the Assembly Elections and of the register for the Local Government Elections. List (A) consists of those persons who have died or for any other reason have to be struck off the register, and List (B) consists of those persons who have become qualified to come on to the register since the previous year's register was prepared. Now that it has been agreed that there shall be a common franchise, this enables a combined register to be prepared for both sets of elections, and if an order is made to provide for a combined register, then it is clearly a saving in time and work to provide that there need only be one set of amendments to the previous register when the registers are revised annually. This amendment, Sir, will also entail consequential amendments* in numbering the following subsections. *Amendments to be made consequential on the addition of a new subsection (2) to new section 15A: (1) In page 3, line 21, to leave out "(2)" and insert "(3)". (2) In page 3, line 24, to leave out "(3)" and insert "(4)". Amendment agreed to.

The consequential amendments will be made.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 29, at end, to add- Ord. 23 of "(5) No such combined register shall contain the 1957. name of any person who under the provisions of this Ordinance or of the Local Government Elections Ordinance, 1957, has for any reason become disqualified from having his name entered or retained in any register prepared under the provisions of either this Ordinance or of the Local Government Elections Ordinance. 1957.".". Sir, the object of having a combined register instead of two registers will be one register for all electoral purposes, and since there is separate provision or will be separate provision under the Assembly Elections Ordinance and under the Local Government Ordinance for electors who fail to record their votes to be struck off the register, it follows that if this sanction has to be applied under either of the Ordinances, then the name will be expunged from the combined register and it must therefore be rejected for both purposes. Amendment agreed to. Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 10 to 16 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 17-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 5, line 28, after "inspect", to insert "and retain". Sir, as I explained in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, it is proposed that the operation of this section, which provides for the Returning Officer to check which electors have failed to record their votes, should be implemented from the marked copies of the registers kept at the Polling Station. As the clause is at present drafted, it is not clear that the purpose is to enable these marked copies of the registers to be retained by the Returning Officer, so that if at any future date there is a dispute as to whether or not any particular elector recorded his vote, then the record will be available for scrutiny. That is the purpose of this amendment and of the following amendment+ which I shall shortly be moving. +The amendment is as follows:- In page 5, line 30, after "section", to insert "and of any inquiries connected therewith".

The two amendments are connected, and if the Chief Secretary has anything further to say on the second amendment, perhaps this is the appropriate time.

I have nothing further to say, Sir, on the second amendment which merely provides, as I stated just now, that the marked copies shall be available for any enquiries which may be connected with the question of whether or not any person has recorded his vote.

It has been moved as an amendment, In page 5, line 28, after "inspect", to insert "and retain". The Question is "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted". Members may, as indicated, range over both the amendments in the debate.

Sir, I should like to have an explanation. Those people who do not vote have their names in the copies of the register. It has happened in the past, and it may happen in the coming elections, that the names of many people who are dead and gone may still be found in the register. Now, there is a penalty imposed on those living people who do not come to vote, but how will the Returning Officer know that such a person has purposely not voted, or that he is dead, or has left this country?

Sir, the explanation which the hon. Member for Telok Ayer requests is to be found in clause 17 of the Bill which sets out the procedure after the conclusion of the elections. The marked copy of the register will be passed to the Returning Officer, who prepares a list of the registered electors who have failed to record their votes. That list is then passed on to the Registration Officer who expunges the names of all those persons from the electoral register. In the case of persons who are already deceased, their names will remain expunged. In the case of those who are still alive, if they wish to have their names restored to the register, they are required to apply to the Registration Officer in writing and to furnish an explanation as to why they failed to record their votes. If the explanation is acceptable to the Registration Officer, their names will be restored without penalty. If the reason for failing to record the vote is not regarded as satisfactory, then a penalty of $5 is imposed. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: In page 5, line 30, after "section", to insert "and of any inquiries connected therewith" .-[Mr David].

Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, line 17, after "dollars.". to add Such names shall be restored to the register at the next ensuing revision of the same.". Sir, the purpose of this amendment is a purely practical one. As I explained just now in reply to the hon. Member for Telok Ayer, it will be open to every person who has failed to record his vote to apply to the Registration Officer at any time by written application to have his name restored to the register. It would clearly be quite impracticable if, when a by-election was in progress, a large number of persons should apply at that time to the Registration Officer and have the right to have their names restored to the register. It would be quite impossible to make the necessary arrangements for the by-election. The purpose, therefore, of this amendment is to provide that these names shall be restored at the time when the election registers are next revised. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 18 to 22 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 8, line 35, to leave out from "family" to the end of line 37. The clause, as amended, will stop at line 35 on the word "family". The words to be left out are "or borrowing a motor vehicle from a member of his family to be employed for that purpose." Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is to be a prohibition on the use of motor cars as an inducement to get voters to the polls, then I feel it right and proper that the word "family" should be restricted, otherwise the provisions will be circumvented by people allegedly lending their motor cars to alleged members of a very big class of persons who are defined in sub-clause (3) as "family". Together with this amendment is the one* which I shall be moving shortly, in which "family" will be restricted to mean only a person's spouse, parents and children instead of, as at present, including grandparents, grandchildren, brothers and sisters. I do not think I need further say anything as to the purpose of the amendment. This is an agreed amendment. The intention was agreed. The draft has also been agreed between the Attorney-General and myself. *The amendment is as follows:- In page 8, lines 40 to 42, to leave out ", grandparents, children, grandchildren, brothers and sisters" and insert "and children".

The hon. Member has indicated that his first amendment and the second amendment are connected, and if the hon. Member has anything further to say on the second amendment he may do so now.

The only further point I would like to make is that whilst the original draft was based on the English Representation of the People's Act, I consider that in the context of the society that we have, the word "family" becomes so elastic and so omnibus a phrase that almost anybody is a member of someone's family. If we are to prevent the wholesale flouting of the laws regarding transport, then the word "family" must be restricted to the immediate family, which is really the purport of the whole amendment.

It has been moved as an amendment, in page 8, line 35, to leave out from "family" to the end of line 37. The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." As indicated, hon. Members may be permitted to range over the next amendment, in page 8, lines 40 to 42, to leave out ", grandparents, children, grandchildren, brothers and sisters" and insert "and children".

Mr Speaker, Sir, the wording of this particular subsection is taken from the wording adopted by this Assembly when it considered the Report of the amendment to the Local Government Elections Ordinance. That amendment was as a result of discussion in Select Committee on which the hon. Member was represented. It would seem, Sir, that after further consideration, the hon. Member now feels that the tightening up of this particular section is in the best interest of the elections, and in this I thoroughly agree with him, and the Government accepts the amendment. Amendment agreed to. Further amendment made: In page 8, lines 40 to 42, to leave out ", grandparents, children, grandchildren, brothers and sisters" and insert "and children". -[Mr Lee Kuan Yew].

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 8, line 42, at end, to add- "(4) Between the hours of 8.00 am and 8.00 p.m. on polling day no person shall park a motor vehicle within one hundred yards of any polling station. (5) Any person who contravenes the provisions of subsection (4) of this section shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars. (6) A police officer in uniform may, save as hereinafter provided, arrest without warrant any person in charge of or driving a motor vehicle, who has committed or is suspected of having committed an offence under this section. (7) The power of arrest under the preceding subsection shall not be exercised if either-

Sir, may I ask this question? It appears that if one parks within 99½ yards from a polling station, one creates an offence for which one can be arrested. Who is going to be responsible for carefully delineating this boundary of 100 yards?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the same persons who are responsible for measuring 30 yards from a fire hydrant, for a motorist who parks on a road which contains a fire hydrant. Sir, may I make one comment on what the mover of these amendments has said with regard to the drafting? One of my objections to the draft originally prepared was that it was putting an offence into this law by a cross-reference to another law. It is, I think, undesirable that we should seek to amend laws by references made in other pieces of legislation. When a piece of legislation is unsatisfactory or requires amplification or an amendment, that piece of legislation should ordinarily be itself amended. It is only confusing to do it by, as it were, a cross-reference.

Sir, I wish only to say one thing in connection with the amendment. It does impose a further duty on the police force. In connection with the remarks made by Sir Ewen Fergusson, I would wish to reiterate what I said in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, that the success or otherwise of these provisions which are being made will depend on the voluntary observance by the people concerned. We cannot expect the police force who have only limited numbers to cover all their duties and to cope with very substantial or numerous breaches of these different provisions which we are making under this Ordinance.

Regarding the point raised by Sir Ewen Fergusson, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not see any difficulty arising on that score. It is a common sight along any street to find a "No Parking" sign with a blue background, a white "P", and a red line across it meaning no parking, and an arrow indicating "Starting from this point". I can trust the police force to measure accurately and fairly. All that they really need do is to take two such posts and place them outside a polling station.

Sir, the Ordinance may be defective and it is the Government's duty to put it right. But in the meantime, there is no reason why we should not accept this amendment specially for the purposes of this election. As such, I support this amendment. Sir, the Hon. Chief Secretary says that it will be an additional duty on the police force. One should not forget that an election is held once in four years and this will be the most important election so far. Every precaution should be taken to see that no one abuses the loopholes that are left, and the purpose of this amendment is to plug those loopholes in the cases of motorists who possibly and intentionally try to obstruct roads and so on.

Mr Chairman, I am not saying that this amendment is no good. But what I want is a point of clarification. I do believe that there are car owners who do live within a radius of 100 miles - [Interruption] I am so sorry. It is 100 yards. If such owners do normally park their cars within 100 yards of a polling station, it may be just in front of their houses. Are we to prohibit, or are the police or some authority to see that they should take their cars away from the frontage of their houses? If this is so, then should it be covered in this amendment or not? And if it is not covered in this amendment, I think it is subject to abuse, because car owners can claim that they have the right in that they do pay road taxes to have their cars parked in front of their houses. I would like this to be clarified.

I was of the fond opinion that when I dealt with the Chief Minister, I dealt with a person who had the necessary credentials to speak on behalf of the S.P.A. I am sorry to learn today that he did not speak on behalf of at least one member of the S.P.A.! Sir, I am quite sure that the leader of the S.P.A., namely the Hon. the Chief Minister, is a man who is quite circumspect in these matters, and has considered the possibility of inconvenience to people who have motor cars and who happen to park them continually outside their houses, which may be within 100 yards of a polling station. All these things have been properly considered, on one occasion not only by the President of the S.P.A. - or is it the Chairman? - but also by another accredited leader who has just entered this House. I should imagine that if he finds the Chief Minister an unworthy member of his Party he should at least accept the Member for Serangoon a person worthy to represent him at these talks.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am afraid that the Member for Tanjong Pagar only consulted the Chief Minister and it is so unfortunate that I am not the Chief Minister! My question arose out of the question raised by Sir Ewen Fergusson and it struck me that such an important issue should also be clarified. I am rather surprised that a man like the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who has all the legal training behind him, is now anxious to know that we should speak with one voice with the Chief Minister. If I were the Chief Minister and the hon. Member had consulted me, I think I would not have brought up this point. A Member has the right to bring up any question in this Assembly on the spur of the moment. I am surprised that the Member for Tanjong Pagar himself is not aware of it.

It would appear, Sir, from what the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar said in reply to the hon. Member for Queenstown, that whenever he moves an amendment to any Government motion or any Government Bill, he would like to seek the assistance of the Chief Minister to help him to paddle it through. And when any questions, either embarrassing or not, are asked, it will have to be the Chief Minister who will have to come to his rescue. Sir, while it is true that there have been consultations with me and my Ministerial colleagues on the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, we did not take into consideration the point raised by the hon. Member for Queenstown. A question has been asked of him. This is his amendment and no doubt he has a reply to the point raised. I have, Sir, given further thought to the amendment proposed and I have an amendment to propose to the amendment. This amendment which I am going to move seeks to give special consideration to the aged, the sick and the infirm to have motor cars bring them right up to the gate of the polling station. I said, Sir, during the Second Reading of this Bill last month, that the Bill incorporates everything that was agreed in the amendments to the Local Government Elections Ordinance and that the amendments proposed in that Ordinance were as a result of the deliberations in the Select Committee on which the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar sat as a Member. It would appear, Sir, that he has had further thoughts on the matter and felt that further improvements could be made - hence the proposed amendment. I agree with him that his second thoughts now appear to be better and, apart from the amendment which I am going to propose to his amendment, Government supports his motion.

Mr Chairman, Sir, elaborating on the Chief Minister's remarks, may I use the very words used by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar - that we do not want to be rubber-stamped in this House? It was he who said this morning that anyone who moves any motion in this House should be able to clarify it. This amendment is moved by the Member for Tanjong Pagar and it is his duty and responsibility to answer questions raised by any Member in this House.

Having been terrorised into making a defence of myself, may I say, with temerity, that the Member for Queenstown has every right to ask anybody any question? But I had assumed that the S.P.A. is a properly organised Party and that the leader speaks on behalf of his Party. When I went to the series of meetings with the leaders of other Parties, I thought I was dealing with plenipotentiaries. It now appears that I was dealing with people who are playing marbles, and are incapable of pledging their Party to anything. However, I would like to explain for the benefit of the Member for Queenstown that there was nothing that he had raised which had not been carefully considered by his able leader, the Member for Havelock. He had considered all the points, including the one raised by the Member for Queenstown, and had decided that my second thought - as he had chosen to call it - is, to say the least, an improvement on the first draft of the Government. But if the Member for Queenstown would like to know why we did not raise the matter earlier, I will tell him that I never believed that there were going to be local government elections within the lifetime of this Government, and that I saw no reason why we should debate things which we were not going to use.

Arising from the remarks of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar that he thought he was dealing with a cohesive Party-

Coherent Party!

Coherent then. I would like to say this - that at least it indicates that we are a democratic Party; that the members of this Party are allowed to ask questions, especially when there are points to be elucidated. We are not a Party whose members suffer dictation and who cannot raise any points whatever.

It seems, Sir, that we are having a preview of the elections that are to come! The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar said the S.P.A. is not a cohesive organisation. I do not know what I should say of the P.A.P., Sir. When discussing the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill, they had certain ideas which they put forward and which were adopted. And then whatever cohesion they may have had at that time was no longer cohesive last month, and the poor Member for Tanjong Pagar had to stand up and propose further amendments to improve on what he thought was already very good! He now states that he did nothing. He did not feel it was necessary for him to strain himself over the question of the amendments to the Local Government Elections Ordinance, although he knew full well that whatever amendments were proposed and accepted to that Ordinance would be incorporated in this Bill. He knew it was to be so. He did sit on the Select Committee. He did help to bring about considerable improvements to the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill. Now he has given the matter further thought. He feels that further improvements should be made. And because we are prepared to concede that there could be further improvements, it would now appear that he is the only one who knows how to make proposals to tighten up the Elections Ordinance so that the elections in May could be clean. Sir, I have said I propose to move an amendment to his amendment. Shall I do it now?

By all means. Amendment handed in. 3.15 p.m.

The amendment as it stands is in order. There is a point which I shall raise when copies are handed round. Copies of the amendment distributed to hon. Members.

Before the Chief Minister moves, I would like to indicate the point which is in my mind. The original amendment speaks of "a motor vehicle". The prohibition is against a motor vehicle parking within one hundred yards of any polling station. The Chief Minister's amendment has reference only to "a vehicle". Is the amendment meant to refer to "a motor vehicle"?

Yes, Sir.

Perhaps the word "motor" should be inserted before the word "vehicle"?

Yes.

I trust that hon. Members have followed that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In line 3, after "station", to add "other than a motor vehicle used for the conveyance of any sick, infirm or disabled person for such time as is reasonably necessary to enable such person to cast his vote". Sir, as compulsory voting will be introduced during the general elections, it is felt that sick, infirm and disabled persons should be given special sympathetic consideration and be allowed to ride in a motor vehicle right up to the gate of the polling station.

I am gratified that the Chief Minister admits that his Government also continues to keep thinking, and to arrive at second thoughts which add to the general effectiveness of the provisions that he has proposed. I have no objection to this clause being added, but I would like to remind him that when his draftsmen first prepared the original draft, they had altogether forgotten about the sick, infirm and disabled or other such unfortunate people. I would like to add this for the benefit of his colleague, the Minister for Commerce and Industry, who is very fond of coming out with bright first ideas. Bright ideas can always do with some polishing up.

It may be that the Member for Tanjong Pagar has forgotten that I mentioned to him the sick, the aged and the infirm before his amendment was drafted.

Not to my recollection.

I wonder whether I can seek clarification on the amendment to the amendment. I presume that a motor vehicle conveying a sick person would be the motor vehicle of a wife driving her husband or her child, or something like that. It does not imply that I can take a sick person in my car and say, "I am now authorised by this section." I would like to be quite clear that it does not vary the law and that it only permits a further thing for the sick. It does not give them special rights which are not otherwise allowed. Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose-

Is the Member for Tanjong Pagar explaining for the Chief Minister?

I am always ready to oblige him. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Attorney-General pointed out to me, after I had proposed my amendment, that in fact I had left out the sick, the infirm and the disabled. I then pointed out to him that in his original draft be never had the sick, the infirm and the disabled. So now he is carrying out a partial amendment in that the sick, the infirm and the disabled, whose family owns a car, can go to a polling station, park within a hundred yards of a polling station, go in and vote, and then come back and sit in the car. As the hon. Mr Francis Thomas has pointed out, it does not include disabled people whose families do not own cars. They presumably, will stay on the register because they have a good excuse.

Sir, it is so amusing for us on this side of the House to see a good fight between friends who have been three years together - ex-Labour Front Members, now S.P.A. and the P.A.P.! It is very amusing, Sir, but on this point about those who do not own cars and because they are sick and infirm, they can remain in the house, but they would like to vote. If this provision is not included, I think a proviso may be added to the end of this amendment to the amendment - "for those who own a car". This is meant for those who own a car and not others.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I point out to the Member for Telok Ayer that it is not a change of mind or a change of attitude? This is a piece of legislation which will govern a very important election. The Member for Tanjong Pagar agreed at the All-Party meeting on the Local Government elections. It was he who agreed to all those things. It never came into his mind that he should move all these amendments. It is surprising that, after this new Bill has come out, he has thought it necessary to move this amendment to suit the conditions of the coming elections. It is an afterthought, and I think everyone should have afterthoughts. It was as a result of his afterthought that this amendment came about and it is my afterthought that I should make the intention clear.

We are on the amendment of the Chief Minister at the moment. If there is no further comment, I will put the Question on the amendment to the amendment.

I have just proposed that these words be added.

If the hon. Member has an amendment to the amendment to the amendment, will he put it in writing?

My suggestion is whether these words can be added - "for those who own a car" - if the Chief Minister will think over it?

If the hon. Member wishes to pursue that, he must put it down in writing.

Sir, I would like to do that if you will permit me some time.

Yes. Perhaps the Clerk will be of some assistance. If the Member for Telok Ayer would like the assistance of the Clerk at the Table, I am sure that the Clerk at the Table will assist him.

I am advised that the Chief Minister, the Attorney General and the Member for Tanjong Pagar have discussed this point and it is not feasible to include it. So I do not think that I should do anything more about it.

What a change of attitude!

Not from one side of the House to the other side, and then over again to the same side!

Order. It is getting to be quite friendly banter! Amendment to the amendment agreed to.

Now the original amendment, as amended, is before the House.

I do not think that the Member for Queenstown proposed any amendment to the amendment, but I would like to say a word about his suggestion that a man, who has a motor car and also has a house with a frontage on a public road within a hundred yards of a polling station, should have the right to park his car even though the public are not allowed to. If I understand him rightly, his view is that if a man owns a house, it entitles him thereby to the use of the road for parking his car. This seems to me to be totally wrong; I believe, in law and certainly in common sense; and I hope that no illusion will be spread that his suggestion is correct.

Sir, I am a bit bewildered now as to the general tenor of the remarks. I would like to point out that there are certain streets in town where people live, and they have traffic signs which say "No parking on even days". If you happen to live on that side of the street and you own a car, you park there on the odd days. On the even days, if you park your car there, you get a ticket, and the fine goes up for every even day that the car is left there. Similarly, if you happen to live within a hundred yards of a polling station, between the hours of 8.00 am, and 8.00 p.m., you betake yourself and your car to some other more convenient place of abode.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am much obliged for the answer given by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. As a legal man, he should have given me that explanation when I asked for it, rather than now after everyone has told him so. Original Amendment, as amended, agreed to. Question proposed, "That clause 23, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to comment on clause 23 - the use of motor vehicles at elections. Hon. Members in this House are aware that over 5,000 people of Tiong Bahru district have shifted to Kallang. They are there now because of the big fire in Kampong Tiong Bahru on 13th February, 1959, and I am quite sure that about 50 per cent of these 5,000 people now living in Kallang are voters in my area. I wonder whether the Government will consider setting up a polling station in order that these people can cast their votes in Kallang, instead of coming down to the Tiong Bahru district - a distance of several miles. The Chief Minister was kind enough to say that motor vehicles used for the conveyance of the sick, infirm or disabled would be allowed to park in front of polling stations, and I am quite sure that among this large number of voters, he will give consideration to the fact there may be quite a number of sick and infirm persons. I would strongly urge that Government either set up a polling station in Kallang itself, where there are thousands of workers, or allow these people to go to the district of Tiong Bahru in vehicles provided by Government. 3.30 p.m.

Sir, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru for drawing Government's attention to the difficulties which will be occasioned to this particular section of the population, and I do give him an undertaking that we will look into the most practical way of trying to assist them within the obligations of the legislation.

Thank you.

May I just read an excerpt from the Petir editorial entitled "Pre-election Exercise". I think it bears on this point. In the editorial's speculation as to the date of the elections, it has this to say: "That polling day would not be until late May is corroborated by a Government statement on the 17th February that the Tiong Bahru fire victims should be rehoused in new low-cost housing on the burnt-out site in three months' time, i.e. 17th May. We can be sure pleasure - loving and indolent Ministers are rehousing the fire victims in record time for reasons not unconnected with the elections. If the fireworks of the great Trade Fair had not turned out to expectations, why not take advantage of the fireworks at Kampong Tiong Bahru? The Chief Minister turned out, and acted as an amateur fire-fighter, and as was intended, pictures of this heroic feat -".

Order. That article contains several unparliamentary expressions, and I do not think the honourable Member is justified in hiding behind an article of that nature which uses unparliamentary expressions, that is to say, offensive remarks about Members of this Assembly. Therefore, I would suggest that if he is reading extracts from that paper, he should leave out the unparliamentary expressions.

On another point of order, Sir. May I know whether Petir is a recognized paper of this Assembly or not? If it is not recognized, then how could he quote extracts from that paper?

It is not a point of order on which I can rule. It is, in fact, not a point of order. It is a paper which is in circulation, I take it, in Singapore. The only thing I was going to ask the Member for Tanjong Pagar is for him to give us the date of that paper.

Coming from a man who has the impudence to -

Order. I think I have ruled on that point, and I do not think the hon. Member should add any further comments.

Very well, Mr Speaker, Sir, but nevertheless since the Week-Ender has been quoted in this House by the hon. Member for Queenstown, I should think it extremely unwise for him to challenge the political propriety of a very sedate, and, if I may say so, an extremely worthy political tract like the Petir. If I may continue without the elegances which are contained in this piece it says here: "...as was intended, pictures of this heroic feat of the Chief Minister carrying a bucket of water to squash out a fire threatening the lives of our people was dutifully displayed on the newspapers the following day. We find it hard to believe that the target date of three months for rehousing the victims will be after polling. Already unprecedented S.P.A. Government generosity has overwhelmed the fire victims. Free S.I.T, housing, until rehoused in three months. Some cynical poor living in other miserable kampongs, many worse than Kampong Tiong Bahru, are saying that it is better to burn out the kampongs and get the S.P.A. to repeat their philanthropic schemes at public expense. But alas! the general election comes but once in five years. And an S.P.A. Government but once in a lifetime." Sir, I can assure the Member for Tiong Bahru that if the Government had the doers who could equal the people who did the thinking, and who could match the will of the thinkers, then low-cost housing would be ready before polling day. The voters will be brought back there before polling day, and the Member for Tiong Bahru can rest assured that the purpose is not to get them to vote for the present Member for Tiong Bahru.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is indeed very healthy to see these friendly exchanges across the Table during the last sittings of the life of this Assembly. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar felt it necessary to quote from his Petir, which I think is "The Lightning", and one does know the destruction of the lightning. And he went to the extent of suggesting that it is because it is nearing election time that we did all those things for propaganda. May I respectfully submit to the hon. Member, Sir, that I was in politics years and years ago, and whatever I did, I did it from my heart, without any desire whatever to seek publicity; unlike certain leaders of the P.A.P. If I may quote the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, I need not have to take along with me special photographer to snap pictures and to see that the photographs taken at the scene of the devastation are properly published in the local newspapers. I did not know there was going to be pictures taken, or that I asked for pictures to be taken. I have been working all my life helping people whenever help was needed. In fact, it is true, Sir, that it is very difficult for leaders of the P.A.P. to believe that there are sincere people who help those in distress out of their own heart, instead of seeking political credit for everything that they do. Now they say the fact that we are going to build houses in three months' time is a political stunt on the part of the S.P.A. If we do not do a thing, they will say that this Government is rotten; it does not look after the interests of the poor. And, "If your houses get burnt, well, you have to look out! You have a very rotten Government which does not have sympathy for your sufferings." I believe, Sir, even on the very day of the fire, while it was still raging, there was a P.A.P. propaganda machine out there saying that the Government was the cause of the fire! The Government was the cause of the fire! Sir, I do not play that kind of politics. Ten years have I served the people, and I will keep on serving clean, without having anything to do with politics. I do not have to try and tell hawkers that we love them, although -

Order. The Chief Minister is wandering very, very far away from parking cars!

With due respect, Sir, you have allowed the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar to depart from the subject and bring in the case of the fire victims just to explain the use of cars on polling day. I thought that in reply it was necessary for me too to say that I did not have to go to the extent of telling hawkers that I love them, and that I would not arrest them anymore, although they were arrested in their thousands only a few months ago. I do not have to do that, Sir. I think we have departed from the real purpose of this debate. It is nice to have these friendly exchanges! I welcome them, and I hope these familiar exchanges can keep on going until 4 p.m. this afternoon!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am really surprised at the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, that the flats being built or going to be built by the Government on the site of the fire in Kampong Tiong Bahru will be ready in three months; but I am quite sure that within three months the Government will not be able to build these flats, especially when they are multi-storey flats, as said by the Hon. the Chief Minister. So it is my duty, as the people's representative in Tiong Bahru, to see that these people, now living in Kallang, are not being inconvenienced. We either set up polling stations in Kallang for them or take them down to their original polling districts. Whether they vote for me or for anybody else is none of the business of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. My concern is that it is our duty and I so urge the Government not to inconvenience these few thousand voters, some of whom are old men and women and who may be sick or infirm, by imposing compulsory voting and restricting the use of vehicles, and so on and so forth. I feel that it is our duty and I, as the elected representative in Tiong Bahru, feel it is my duty to draw the attention of the Government to the lack of polling stations.

Sir, I have already given an undertaking to the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru, which I willingly reiterate since he has felt it necessary to stress the point again, that we will look into what is practicable in order to assist this particular section of the population to record their votes.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 24 to 26 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 27-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 11, line 14, at end, to add- "; or (f) open or maintain, for the purpose of any activity directed towards promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election, any office in any room, building or any place whatsoever, whether open or enclosed, within a radius of two hundred yards of any polling station on polling day.". Mr Speaker, Sir, there is provision in the Ordinance to prevent canvassing on polling day, and one of the loopholes which was left open was the use of election offices. No election office is prohibited, and it may well be that the practice in the past, of using or requiring election offices as near as possible to polling stations, would spread like a rash if the purpose is to try to overcome or circumvent the provision against canvassing on polling day. Therefore, I move this amendment to prevent any election office from being used within 200 yards of a polling station. The present provision without this amendment only prohibits canvassing, which means activity in a public place. This will close the last of the little gaps in the "no canvassing" or "no activity" directed to procure votes on polling day. Question proposed. 3.45 p.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the afterthoughts of the Member for Tanjong Pagar have prompted me to move this amendment. The wording itself sounds very good, but I am surprised that, with all his legal background and training, and although he has admitted himself that prohibition of canvassing would come in, he has framed the amendment in this way. The original wording of the clause itself reads: "73A.-

Order. Let us not wander over matters which are not before the Assembly. We have finished with the amendment on "family". We should now consider this particular amendment which is before the House.

Mr Chairman, I was only trying to indicate and then clarify how this amendment comes in. Now, canvassing is not allowed. You cannot even do anything at all. Sir, how could you then allow an office outside 200 yards of a polling station? Would not that be subject to abuse? If you can establish an office outside 200 yards of a polling station, what is there to stop a voter going to that office (or that desk) and obtain particulars of his name on the electoral roll and, at the same time, to be canvassed by the people who sit at that desk to vote for a certain Party? With all my experience in past elections, the P.A.P. has swarmed over all polling stations by establishing offices just in front of the polling stations. An amendment is now moved that an office should not be within 200 yards. It will be outside the 200 yards. What is there to prevent canvassing then? We can not do anything at all. So why cannot we say that we cannot even establish an office outside the 200 yards limit, Sir? May I then officially move, That the words "in Singapore" be inserted between the word "whatsoever" and ", whether" and to delete the words "within a radius of two hundred yards of any polling station".

May I have the amendment? Amendment handed in.

The hon. Member's amendment appears to be to leave out, in line 4, the words ", whether open or enclosed, within a radius of two hundred yards of any polling station on polling day", and there to insert "in Singapore".

If it pleases you, Sir, I think I am prepared to omit the words "in Singapore". The Bill is the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Amendment) Bill, and whether the words "in Singapore" are there or not, it does not matter much.

I did not indicate that the words "in Singapore" should be omitted. The words "in Singapore" should be inserted.

To be inserted? I am sorry, Sir, I am much obliged and I am prepared to accept your advice.

Has the hon. Member completed what he has to say on his proposed amendment?

Yes, Sir.

The original amendment is to add a paragraph (f) reading: "Open or maintain, for the purpose of any activity directed towards promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election, any office in any room, building or any place whatsoever, whether open or enclosed, within a radius of two hundred yards of any polling station on polling day." The amendment to be moved is to leave out, in line 4, the words ", whether open or enclosed, within a radius of two hundred yards of any polling station on polling day" and there to insert "in Singapore" so that the paragraph would then read: "Open or maintain, for the purpose of any activity directed towards promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election, any office in any room, building or any place whatsoever in Singapore."

"in Singapore", and stop at that.

That is my understanding of the amendment.

What about the words "on polling day", Sir, because I am trying to lay emphasis on polling day rather than on any other day during the period between Nomination day and the election?

To insert " in Singapore on polling day", is that it?

What about the words "open or enclosed"?

I take it that if a building is not to be erected, then whether it is open or enclosed makes no difference. If the hon. Member is happier to have it, we will put it like this: "in Singapore, whether open or enclosed, on polling day". Can I then indicate what my understanding of the amendment is? The amendment is to leave out the words ", whether open or enclosed, within a radius of two hundred yards of any polling station on polling day", and there to insert "in Singapore, whether open or enclosed, on polling day". The original amendment is as it appears in the Supplementary Order Paper. It has been proposed as an amendment to that amendment to leave out ", whether open or enclosed, within a radius of two hundred yards of any polling station on polling day", and there to insert "in Singapore, whether open or enclosed, on polling day"; so that the paragraph will read, "open or maintain, for the purpose of any activity directed towards promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election, any office in any room, building or any place whatsoever in Singapore, whether open or enclosed, on polling day."

Yes.

The question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

The Member for Queenstown has what is popularly called "a nimble mind". Sir, I congratulate him on the perspicacity with which he has been able to discern the other loopholes in my amendment. But I would like to remind him that it is normal during polling day to have what are known as polling agents and counting agents - polling agents representing a candidate, one in each place where the votes are cast. If you do not have any place where your counting agents can foregather, and then disperse to the various polling stations, how then do you organise your work on polling day? I am obliged to him for the simplicity with which he has swept aside all necessity for any activity whatsoever on polling day. But I must remind him that candidates are entitled as of right to have a polling agent at each place of polling, and a counting agent at the place of counting. These people have to be organised in shifts. They go in the morning - some are replaced in the afternoon. If there is no place where they can foregather, then how does one conduct these activities? Secondly, may I just explain the reason why the amendment was drafted in this way? It was because every other conceivable type of election activity on polling day has been catered for and properly circumscribed, except a candidate's election office. And we know from past experience that if an election office is near a polling station, the chances are that it will be abused. It will be used, not as an election office where the organisational operation - the backroom work - of the election is done, but it will also become a centre from which a certain amount of canvassing can take place, because voters would pass by on their way to the polling station. I did not originally phrase my amendment to include "within a radius of two hundred yards". I originally phrased my amendment to read "within two hundred yards", because I did not consider the back street of a polling station to be of sufficient importance to warrant its exclusion. I think the Member for Queenstown does not really know how much embarrassment he is causing his Government. This draft which he now sees on the Order Paper is, in fact, the Attorney General's improvement on my draft. Since he wanted it to read "within a radius of two hundred yards", I agreed. Even though we will have only one further sitting when we have to deal with the Government - Members of the Opposition will be well advised to circularise individually all Members on the Government side to get their respective views.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar says that he is dealing with the Government; but I, as an elected Member of this Assembly, have no right at all to raise any question or to move an amendment to an amendment. I, as an elected representative of the people, have no right at all to voice the views that I have gathered from the people. What nimble mind the Member for Tanjong Pagar has! I again emphasise, Sir, with all his legal training from the Colonial Office which he had condemned, he now comes and admits that he has not framed the amendment in such a way as he originally should have done so. I move this amendment to his amendment because it came into my mind, during the course of my interviewing the electorate and the public, that if his amendment were to be accepted, then it would be subject to abuse by the P.A.P. 4.00 p.m.

Order. Moment of interruption. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly. Progress reported.

Further consideration, what day?

Tomorrow, Sir.

Tomorrow it will be.

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

Sir, I second it. Question proposed.

4.01 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer to my question tabled in this House this morning and the reply given by the Minister. From what I find on the question of the operation of public passenger-transport service, there are two kinds of law - one for the S.T.C. and one for the Chinese bus companies. Prior to April 1956, the law where it controls the public passenger transport service was divided into two parts, as I have just mentioned. The Singapore Traction Ordinance, which controls buses operated by the Singapore Traction Company; and another one, which is section 326 of the Municipal Ordinance at that time and the Hackney Carriage by-laws made after this section 326 of the Municipal Ordinance, controls the Chinese bus companies. After April 1956, the Government thought it best that there should be a licensing authority and it introduced a new law, which is called the Omnibus Licensing Authority Ordinance, to control the Chinese bus companies. Under this legislation, three members were appointed to this authority. One is the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Communications and Works, who was made Chairman of the authority. Another one was the Chairman of the Rural Board, and the third member was the then President of the City Council. Unfortunately, with the new City Council that has come into being, neither the Mayor nor the Chief Administrative Officer of the City Council could sit on this authority, because at the time when this authority was introduced it was made clear that only members of the civil service could sit as members of this authority. The Mayor, who is an elected representative, cannot sit on this authority. So is the case with the Chief Administrative Officer who happens to be an employee of the City Council. So after 1957 or 1958 this authority has only two members - one, the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Communications and Works, and the other, the Chairman of the Rural Board. Sir, when this authority was introduced, I was told that it was at the initiative of the then Minister for Communications and Works. It was he who had bright ideas of alleged corruption in the City Council and that it would be better to set up a new authority to control the public passenger-transport service, because he felt that even if more members sit on the Board it would not serve any purpose. It was subject to corruption. That was his way of thinking. I cannot understand how he could make it this way. When there are six, seven or eight persons to decide an issue - and it is so difficult to canvass or bribe all of them to come to a definite conclusion - there are allegations of corruption! Now, today with only two members sitting on that authority, there is no corruption at all. I am not suggesting that the members of this authority are corrupted. But I am trying to point out to the then Minister for Communications and Works, who sits right behind me, that his way of thinking about corruption is entirely from the practical side of it. With the introduction of this new licensing authority, the Singapore Traction Company comes under the old law of the Singapore Traction Ordinance, and these Chinese bus companies come under this new Ordinance which also includes the Municipal Hackney Carriage By-Laws. Under these two laws, I find there is a lot of disparity in treatment. I will now come to the different types of disparities. The first is the monopoly given to the S.T.C. The S.T.C. is given a monopoly under a sort of charter and this charter was extended by the City Council for another seven years, because in 1956 the City Council was not able to buy up the S.T.C. The monopoly gives them special rights to run a certain number of routes, they are covered in the Singapore Traction Ordinance, Section 3 of the Ordinance gives the different routes that the S.T.C. were allowed to operate: Telok Blangah Road, Keppel Road, Anson Road, Telok Ayer Street, Cecil Street, Collyer Quay, Fullerton Road, Anderson Bridge and High Street, Hill Street, River Valley Road, Tank Road, Tanjong Pagar Road, South Bridge Road, North Bridge Road, Jalan Sultan, Victoria Street, Kallang Road and Geylang Road (Part), Geylang Road (Part), Bras Basah Road, Prinsep Road, Selegie Road, Serangoon Road, Upper Serangoon Road, Lavender Street, McKenzie Road. And list "b" which was included later: Upper Serangoon Road, Geylang Road, Victoria Street, Hill Street, New Bridge Road, Bukit Timah Road, Rochore Canal Road, Rochore Road. This is the monopoly that has been given to the S.T.C. It is more or less a statutory right that the omnibuses or the buses operated by the S.T.C. should run according to these routes. If they want to apply for new routes, apart from what is in the Ordinance, they will have to apply to the proper authorities. The proper authority are the City Council where it is within the City radius, and the Rural Board where it is outside the City limits it should now be the District Councils. This means that they are only confined to the Ordinance. They are allowed to operate only within the routes I have mentioned. And if they are to apply for any route outside that limit, they will have to submit plans to the proper authorities, showing the way how they are going to run it and the reasons why they are going to run it. I will read the interpretation of the word "Authority": 'the expression "the Authority" means, in the case of that portion of the Island of Singapore situated within City limits, the City Council and, in the case of any other part of the said Island, the District Council;' This part of the law which I have found recently is not in the least respected by this authority, because, as I have mentioned, this authority has only two members sitting on it. You can now find S.T.C. buses penetrating into every other street not listed in the law. Applications are made and if the authority thinks fit to give it to the S.T.C., it just says "Yes" and it goes ahead without reference to the City Council. Why are the applications not referred to the City Council or to the District Council? I quote a case where representations were made to me by the Queenstown Community Centre and the Redhill Community Centre. There are many thousands of residents in these two localities - Alexandra, Queenstown and Redhill kampongs. They come down to Tanjong Pagar or to town either for work or any kind of business. There is no direct service at all from Queenstown or Redhill to Tanjong Pagar, which means that all the residents within these two areas will have to take two or three different buses by different routes to come down to Tanjong Pagar. Apart from this, Sir, there are many school children who attend the Fairfield Girls' School, which is near Cantonment Road. These school children, aged seven, eight or nine, will also have to travel two or three different routes to get to their school. Application for a bus service was made to the City Council about two years ago. At that time the Licensing Authority had not taken over, and the City Council took all the trouble and spent money to widen Cantonment Road, so that it could take the heavy load of these omnibuses. Cantonment Road is now widened and it can take omnibuses. But when that application was referred to the Licensing Authority after it has taken over, it was turned down. I do not know why should it be turned down. If that application had been approved, it would not have caused so much trouble to the bus company that is running that route. It would only necessitate a very slight deviation of the existing route of the bus company that is operating in that area. Why then, Sir, should the residents of Queenstown and Redhill suffer because this Licensing Authority did not look into their plight? On the other hand, Sir, as I have said, the authority has allowed the S.T.C. buses to penetrate into the Chinese bus companies' areas. Why should there be disparity and discrimination, Sir? I think it is either due to the ignorance or inefficiency of the members of that authority who do not look at things in the right way. If the members of that authority claim that they are neither ignorant nor inefficient, then I say it is discrimination of treatment. Because it so happens that the S.T.C. is not an Asian company. It is more or less run and managed by the Whites or the Europeans. That is the reason why. The then Minister at that time was a nominated Minister. He was not aware of the trouble, because he did not stand for election. He does not know what the people want, and he does not know the troubles of the people. The members of that authority also do not know. May I say that the then Minister was a white man and, as a white man, certainly I think he was in his mind pro-white. The Singapore Traction Company is more or less controlled by Europeans and he should be a little bit pro-white. I wonder whether the Minister himself has given a direction to this authority that whenever they decide on these applications for bus routes, they should be pro-white. Because, as far as I understand, Sir, section 4 of the Omnibus Services Licensing Authority Ordinance does give powers to the Minister to issue a directive to the authority. Section 4, reads: "The Minister may from time to time give to the Authority such general directions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance as he may think fit and the Authority shall comply with all such directions." Sir, it is my assumption - the Member for Tanjong Pagar always assumes things - that the then Minister, who was a white man, would have given directions to this authority that it should be given to a white company and not to any of these Asian companies. If that is the directive, Sir, it is now high time that the new Minister, who is an elected Minister and not a nominated Minister - he is also an Asian - changed that directive. Now, coming to the licence and licence fees, this is where the disparity comes in. The S.T.C. do not pay any licence fee at all to operate bus routes. It was given free of charge to them. You have your buses, you run on the routes that have been given to you. The Chinese bus companies will have to pay $10 every six months for a bus route licence, irrespective of the number of buses that operate on that route. Coming to the licence fee of the vehicle itself. The S.T.C. enjoy the privilege of paying a sort of royalty to the City Council and the Rural Board - 5 per cent of its gross takings, plus two cents for every car-mile run whilst carrying passengers -which means that they only pay 5 per cent of the gro ss profits plus two cents for every car-mile run. This means that an S.T.C. vehicle which is stationed on the S.T.C. premises, does not pay at all. Only when it runs and carries passengers does it pay two cents for every car-mile run. What do the Chinese bus companies pay? First, as a seating fee of $5 per passenger per month. This means that it depends upon the size of the vehicle, and for every passenger the Chinese bus company must pay $5. Second, we have a horsepower tax that we normally pay. We have our vehicles on the roads and the Chinese bus companies must pay the same tax as we pay. This is what is imposed on the Chinese bus companies. Third, Sir, there is the hackney-carriage fee of $30 for every six months. Now, the Chinese bus companies have to pay $10 for the use of a route every six months. On top of that $10, they have to pay a hackney-carriage fee of $30 every six months. Just compare the difference in treatment and the fees paid! Coming to the question of fares, Sir. The S.T.C. are allowed to charge a minimum of ten cents for the first mile and five cents for every subsequent mile. But can the Chinese bus companies start with a minimum fare of ten cents for the first mile? No. I am not trying to suggest that the Chinese bus companies should raise their fares to ten cents for the first mile, because it will make things difficult for the travelling public who will have to pay more for their fares. I am suggesting that the S.T.C. should reduce the fare to five cents for the first mile to bring it in line with the Chinese bus companies. The travelling public would benefit by this. Most people who travel in public transport do not travel long distances as car owners do. It is only on these short distances that the companies make a bigger margin of profit. No wonder the S.T.C. make a lot of money every year! Coming back to accidents and mechanical defects in buses. Sir, if a bus belonging to a Chinese company is involved in an accident or if it has mechanical defects, it has to be brought to the Registrar of Vehicles immediately for a mechanical inspection. Only after the mechanical inspection and after all the defects are attended to can that bus go back on the road. But the S.T.C. under its charter or under the Ordinance, enjoy a privilege. They have their own Registrar of Vehicles to inspect their vehicles. If an S.T.C. bus is involved in an accident or there are mechanical defects in a vehicle, the S.T.C. repairs it in its own shed. I am even prepared to overlook this, but why should it not be sent to the Registrar of Vehicles for inspection after it has been repaired? There are qualified inspectors who can check the vehicle instead of their saying, "All right, you have already repaired your vehicle. You can put it back on the road." The Chinese bus companies must send their vehicles to the Registrar of Vehicles for inspection, and if there are any defects, they are sent to the workshops for repairs. After that they are sent back again to the Registrar of Vehicles for inspection and if they are certified fit for road service, then only can they go on the road. But in the case of the S.T.C. buses, who is there to check whether they have been repaired or not? The S.T.C. can say, "We have repaired this vehicle after the accident." There is no inspector to certify whether that is the case. Their own people pass judgment on their own vehicles. There are many, many more points of disparity, but it may take me too long to describe them. I have already spoken for about 18 minutes and I want to give the Minister a chance to reply if he wants to. Sir, I would like the new elected and Asian Minister - I congratulate him on being an elected Minister and I am much obliged to him for the reply he gave me this morning - to consider my suggestion: one, to put the S.T.C. on the same footing as the Chinese bus companies, or, alternatively, to bring the Chinese bus companies in line with the S.T.C.; and two, to review any directives that may have been issued by the former Minister for Communications and Works to the Licensing Authority consisting of only two men who are supposed to be incorruptible. There should be a Committee consisting of about six men. If there have been such directives issued, they should be withdrawn and new directives issued.

I do not propose, Mr Speaker, Sir, to attempt to deal with the lengthy and extremely inaccurate remarks of the Member for Queenstown. Anybody who wishes to inform himself on transport matters should get a copy of the Hawkins' Commission Report in which he will find the situation properly laid out. Anybody who is misguided enough to accept the guidance of the Member for Queenstown in this matter will certainly find himself in error. Now, there are two points on which I would like to speak. The first is what appears to be a suggestion by the Member for Queenstown that foreign investors should be deprived of the protection of the law. His own Party newspaper has been quoted in the daily Press - I have not seen the paper myself - as threatening that if his Party does not get elected, there will be a strike of capital to be organised so as to strangle Singapore. Yet he himself is proposing in this proposed treatment of the Singapore Traction Company precisely the sort of anti-foreign investment line which would be the worst possible thing for Singapore. He is proposing apparently to deprive them unilaterally of the benefits of the Singapore Traction Ordinance. I have seldom heard a more irresponsible speech and I hope that it will be officially denied by the Government Front Bench that there is any reason at all to support that. If he is suggesting that foreign investors should be deprived of the protection of the law, I hope that will be made quite clear by the Front Bench, that there is no question of that at all. If it cannot be made quite clear, it is a matter where I shall personally feel bound even to sever my long connection with this side of the House and move across to the other side of the House - if I thought that this Government is going to adopt the line of frightening away reasonable and responsible overseas investors in the hope of getting votes for the elections. Another point on which I would like very briefly to deal with is the allegation or insinuation by the hon. Member that I am a white man and therefore I have given pro-white directives to the officers in my Ministry and to the Members of the Omnibus Services Licensing Authority. I think the time has come when we should stop talking about the colour of people's skins and talk of people according to their citizenship, whether they are Singapore citizens or not. I am a Singapore citizen. I have a home in Singapore. I married a Singapore woman. My child goes to a Singapore school and I hope to live and die a citizen of Singapore. I have the most sad and pained feelings in my heart when again an hon. Member of this Assembly can raise - for what reason I can hardly guess, nor would you allow me to guess, Mr Speaker - a racial and a communal issue on a matter which is purely concerned with the profits of Chinese bus companies. He referred to the rumour, I believe, that there was corruption in dealings with bus company matters when they were handled by the City Council. Matters of corruption are very hard to prove indeed, but those who have made any examination of the facts, either of the furniture in people's houses or of the new cars that appeared in front of people's houses when there was a new route approved, or of the presence of other goods, have also studied the irrationality and the folly of the City Council. Mr Lee Choon Eng rose-

Is it on a point of order?

Yes, Sir. The Member is making accusations, Sir. Can the Member name the City Councillors who had new cars when a bus route was approved?

It is not a point of order. Mr Thomas.

Sir, the irrationality and folly of some of the licensing decisions made in the City Council in those days imposed on Singapore a completely irrational and unserviceable transport system. Those are the two points which I thought were unfortunate in the hon. Member's speech. We do not need in Singapore today to try to create more fears and hatred between the citizens of this city. We need to bring people together, not to try to separate them on grounds of culture or colour or language or religion, and anybody who takes any other line is performing a great disservice to this country. We also need to preserve the most friendly relations we can with overseas territories, particularly with those who have invested or who may invest in the development of Singapore, and any suggestion that foreign investors are going to be deprived of the protection of the law is a most mischievous and irresponsible suggestion. 4.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very unfortunate indeed that various allegations and many things which have no bearing on the subject should have been discussed. First of all, may I dissociate myself from the remarks of the Member for Queenstown when he said that my predecessor had judged all issues of licensing on the basis of colour. Having had the privilege of looking into the whole aspect of the traffic problem and the enormous amount of work which my predecessor had to go through, I am convinced beyond all doubt that there had been no bias in the discharge of his duties. The Member for Queenstown is not in full possession of the facts regarding the membership of the Omnibus Licensing Authority. I heard him say that there are only two members on the Board, namely, the Permanent Secretary to my Ministry and the Chairman of the Rural Board. I must inform him, Sir, that the Board consists of three members: the Registrar of Vehicles who is the Secretary of the Board, my Permanent Secretary, and the Chairman of the Rural Board. Sir, I can show that many of the points he raised were baseless. I do not think I have enough time now at my disposal to do so; but may I just inform this House that there are two important documents in regard to the passenger transport service which have been in the hands of hon. Members for a long time? The first one is the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Public Passenger Transport System which was accepted by the Government as a clear, comprehensive and authoritative analysis of the grounds for concern of the state of industry in Singapore. The other document is Cmd. Paper No. 48 of 1956. Both these two documents give full details of the complications of our transport system and the Government policy regarding it. Sir, I said this morning that the Government has fully realised and has come to the conclusion that there cannot be proper co-ordination of the service in the public interest and that the traffic needs of the area as a whole cannot be met unless all operators are subject to the same licensing system and rules. The activities with regard to unifying the transport system in Singapore have been undertaken by my predecessor, but they were negatived by difficulties. We have felt, Sir, that the only step which is of paramount importance to the achievement of a unified bus transport system is the purchase of the Singapore Traction Company and, as my predecessor has stated in the Assembly, the stumbling-block to this has been the lack of finance. I must say here and now, Sir, that if we have the money, the problem can be ironed out fairly quickly. The other difficulty which faced the Ministry was the question of the Chinese bus owners not being able to agree among themselves on the amalgamation of all Chinese bus companies, which we thought was the first step to the unification of the bus service. Sir, I have not been able to make the whole thing clear as there are so many other points which could further clarify the whole matter. I do not think I have any more time left, but I would just like to point out one more point and that is the allegation against the Licensing Authority. From my own experience, Sir-

Order. We have reached the time of termination of the sitting. Of course, the Minister may take advantage of the opportunity tomorrow to make a Ministerial statement. The Question having been proposed at Four o'clock p.m. and the Debate having continued until the time appointed for the termination of a sitting, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at half past Four o'clock p.m.

Tuesday, 3rd March, 1959

asked the Chief Secretary whether the Government has received a report from the Public Service Commission Standing Committee on recognition of foreign University degrees; whether and when the report will be published; and what is the reason for the delay in its publication.

The Government has received three interim reports by the Standing Committee on Foreign University Degrees covering the following subjects:-

asked the Minister for Education to state-

The number of Primary and Secondary Schools functioning during each of the years 1952 to 1958 was as follows: 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 Primary Government 109 106 147 169 194 230 253 Aided 105 130 225 257 256 258 257 Unaided 234 220 147 102 95 79 76 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Total 448 456 519 528 545 567 586 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 Secondary Government 8 10 11 14 20 27 30 Aided 2 4 4 30 51 56 59 Unaided 21 44 44 23 27 28 29 -- -- -- -- -- --- --- Total 31 58 59 67 98 111 118 -- -- -- -- -- --- ---

asked the Minister for Education whether he has proposals for a part-time education service, and if he will state them.

There are no proposals for any part-time education service scheme.

asked the Minister for Education to state-