Hansard, 1959-03-18

I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor dated the 16th March, 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: (i) Adoption of Children (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Immigration (Amendment) Bill; (iii) Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Bill; (iv) Minor Offences (Amendment) Bill; (v) Midwives (Amendment) Bill; (vi) Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Amendment) Bill; (vii) Nanyang University Bill.

I shall cause to be printed in the Official Report information as to assents to Bills passed by this Assembly and in regard to which I shall be unable to make any communication to Honourable Members in this Chamber prior to the dissolution of this Assembly.

Hon. Members are informed that there will be published in the Official Report a record of attendances of Members at sittings of the Assembly and Sessional and Select Committees during the Third Session of this, the First Legislative Assembly.

asked the Chief Secretary how many Malayan Officers appointed by the Secretary of State have applied to retire under section 18 of the Retirement from the Public Service (Compensation) Ordinance, 1956; whether he will state their names; and whether he will make a statement in the matter.

Sir, one officer has elected to retire after receiving approval of an application under section 18 of the Ordinance. His case was debated at the last sitting. Five other officers have applied to the Secretary of State under the same section. Of these, only one, an officer domiciled outside Malaya, satisfied the Secretary of State under this section. He is still serving. I am not prepared to disclose the names of the officers concerned.

asked the Chief Secretary, on the termination of the Constitution Exposition at Kallang, whether the Government will make available a portion of the 200-acre site for the development of a sports stadium, and appoint a Board to collect funds for, and to administer, the stadium.

Sir, there is land at the Kallang Exposition site which could be made available for development as a sports stadium. It is not proposed to take any steps in the matter in the lifetime of the present Government.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing what is the policy of the Government in regard to the letting out of the Singapore Badminton Hall to applicants for professional purposes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy of Government is that the Singapore Badminton Hall should be used primarily and substantially for the purpose of furthering the game of badminton. It is considered that the staging of professional boxing, wrestling and other matches will be alien to this purpose and permission has accordingly not been given to the general letting of the Hall for professional sport. An application for any specific purpose, however, can be considered.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.05a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." At present, the Chief Secretary holds property, both movable and immovable, on behalf of the Government by virtue of the Chief Secretary Incorporation Ordinance, which is Chapter 54 of the laws. The office of the Chief Secretary will cease to exist in its present form on the coming into force of the new Constitution, and it will therefore be necessary to make other provision. It is considered that, following the change made by the Federation, it will be more appropriate to have the necessary corporate body in the Treasury. This Bill therefore seeks to incorporate the Financial Secretary and to provide for the vesting in him as a corporate body of the properties now held by the Chief Secretary Incorporated. This will mean that on the introduction of the new Constitution the corporate body will be the Minister charged with responsibility for finance. The Bill itself follows, in the main, the provisions of the Chief Secretary Incorporation Ordinance. There is, I think, only one new provision to which I need draw attention, and that is in clause 5 (3) where it is proposed that there shall be power to vest property in a public officer or authority, that is in some person other than the Financial Secretary, should the need arise. It may occasionally be more appropriate that some other person, perhaps the Commissioner for Lands, should hold certain types of property. A similar provision appears in the Federation where they have it, mainly I believe, for the better administration of the railway. It is not inconceivable that some such power might be needed in Singapore at some future date. 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.

10.10 a.m. Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5-

Sir, I move, In page 2, line 27, after "tenure", to insert "and for the like purposes". This is to correct a drafting error, Sir, Amendment agreed to. Further amendment made: In page 2, line 36, after "tenure", to insert "and for the like purposes".-[Mr Shanks]. Amendments made: In page 2, line 38, to leave out "the Order" and insert "such order".-[Mr Shanks]. In page 3, lines 2 and 3, to leave out "the Order" and insert "such order".- [Mr Shanks]. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 6 to 9 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with Amendments; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.13 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to the further stages of this Bill being proceeded with, and I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." At present, the only statutory provision for the enforcement in Singapore of judgments obtained outside Singapore is contained in the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Ordinance which applies only to judgments obtained in the United Kingdom and those parts of the British Commonwealth to which its provisions have been extended. It provides that the person who has obtained a judgment in such territory may apply for registration of the judgment to the High Court, whereupon the Court may, if in all the circumstances of the case it thinks that it is just and convenient so to do, order that the judgment be registered and thereby become enforceable as if it were the judgment of the Singapore High Court. This Bill now before the Assembly goes further in that it applies not merely to countries within the Commonwealth but to foreign countries where reciprocal provision has been made for the enforcement of Singapore judgments. It follows very closely the provisions of the United Kingdom Act of 1933 and lays down detailed provisions relating to the registration of foreign judgments, with provision for its extension where substantial reciprocity is assured. Another important difference in the procedure will be that where the provisions apply judgments shall be registered by the Court if certain prescribed conditions are satisfied. The Singapore Court must in certain cases register judgments and thereafter enforce them as though they were its own. It is not, of course, possible at this stage to say to what foreign countries this Bill when enacted will be applied, but it is a most useful first step in giving Singapore citizens the right to enforce here judgment that they have obtained elsewhere, and in a trading community such as this, I consider this Bill to be a most useful and progressive step. 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.

10.17 a.m. Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8-

It appears to me at page 3, line 18, that it might be appropriate to insert a marginal note "Cap. 3." Perhaps the Attorney-General would like to comment?

Yes, I think it would be a most useful correction.

That will be done. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 9 to 13 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.20 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's consent and recommendation that this Bill be proceeded with, and I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill, Sir, seeks to make certain necessary amendments in various Ordinances - 17 in all. Some of these are consequential on the enactment of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958. Of the constitutional amendments there are three, and they are contained in clauses 3, 8 and 10. Clause 3 is self-explanatory. It is designed to repeal the Governors Ordinance. Clause 8 makes members of the Public Service Commission "public servants" within the meaning ascribed to that expression in the Penal Code. At the present time, the Public Service Commission Ordinance does this, but that Ordinance will be repealed in due course by the Constitutional Order in Council which, by Part IX, will replace the existing Ordinance; but it is not correct to put in an instrument like the Constitutional Order in Council the protection that is proposed to be given by clause 8 of this present Bill. Clause 10 is designed to amend the Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to paragraph 32 of the Report of the Constitutional Conference held in London in 1957 and published as Sessional Paper No. Misc. 2 of 1957. It was there agreed that while the decision to request the assistance of the British forces, or forces of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, in aid of the civil power would rest with the Singapore Government, Her Majesty's Government would retain the ultimate discretion as to whether, how and to what extent such a request should be acceded to; and to give effect to that, it is desirable to amend the Criminal Procedure Code by the insertion of a new section as is proposed by clause 10 of this Bill. Sir, the opportunity has been taken to make some other corrections and amendments to our law. Clause 2 is a comparatively minor matter. It corrects the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Ordinance to take account of the new status of the Federation of Malaya. Clauses 5, 6, 13 and 17 delete provisions of the law which are now spent, and clauses 4, 11, 12, 14 and 16 rectify inadvertent omissions from the Legislative Assembly (Presentation of Subsidiary Legislation) Ordinance, 1958, which hon. Members will recall was a Bill with a very long Schedule amending, I think, over 70 Ordinances to bring their provisions into line with the existing Standing Orders and practice of this House in relation to the presentation of subsidiary legislation. Clause 7 of this Bill merely corrects something that was inadvertently overlooked in 1955 when the laws were revised, and clause 9 amends the Children and Young Persons Ordinance to remove the conflict between an existing provision in that Ordinance and the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the age below which a person may not be sentenced to death. Clause 15 makes an amendment to the Road Traffic Ordinance rendered necessary by the present system of staggering the periods for the issue of vehicle licences by the City Council. At present, the period of grace is one month, which worked quite well when licences were issued twice a year, but now that licences are issued twelve times a year, it is desirable to shorten this period so as to avoid any overlap. Clause 18 makes a drafting amendment to the recently enacted Police Force Ordinance, 1958, which, on the coming into force of the new Constitutional Order in Council, ought to be worded slightly differently to make the position abundantly clear with regard to the powers of the Public Service Commission vis-a-vis recommendations from the Commissioner of Police. At the same time, it is proposed to amend in three Ordinances references to the Police Force Ordinance, 1941, which will become inaccurate when the Police Force Ordinance, 1958, is brought into force. Hon. Members will notice that the first clause of this Bill provides for its coming into operation on a date to be appointed. Some of these changes are essential preparatory steps to the smooth introduction of the new Constitution, and the date of the coming into operation of this Bill will, no doubt, be linked with the date for the coming into force of the new Constitution. Sir, I beg to move. Quesion put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Shanks]. Bill considered in Committee.

10.30 a.m. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4-

There is a note, In page 2, line 10, to leave out "four" and insert "fourth". This amendment will be made. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5-

Sir, I move, In page 2, line 19, after "amended", to insert 'by deleting the sign, brackets and figure "-

Order for Second Reading read. 10.34 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Governor's recommendation to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The provisions for ordinary expenditure made in the Appropriation Ordinance, 1956, were exceeded by the amounts and under the various Heads shown in the First Schedule to the Bill, and they amount to $10,239,684.

10. In the case of the Development Estimates, the excess expenditure of about $142 million is shown by the amount and under the various Heads shown in the Second Schedule thereto. In this connection hon. Members will recall that at a previous sitting of the Assembly held on 17th July, 1957, it was resolved that long-term loans to the Singapore Improvement Trust and other bodies should be charged to expenditure and not, as in the past, shown as assets in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. This procedure is in accordance with established financial practice - that all transactions involving loans which diminish the presurplus of revenue should be recorded "Expenditure" at the time payment is made. These excesses have all been covered by supplementary votes approved by the Legislative Assembly from time to time. The Bill seeks to give legal sanction to the supplementary votes already approved by resolution of the Assembly. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Please proceed with the Third Reading.

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

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

Order for Second Reading read. 10.36 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Governor's recommendation to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill introduces two important changes in the law which are considered desirable in the light of experience in the administration of the Ordinance, both here and in other countries. The first change proposed is that gifts of property should be deemed to be part of the property of the deceased at his death for the purpose of liability to estate duty if made within five years of the death of the deceased, instead of the present three years as provided in section 7 of the Ordinance as it stands. This change is effected by clause 4 of the Bill. Clauses 5 and 6 are consequential amendments. It is quite legitimate for a person during his lifetime to make a disposition of his property with a view to evasion of estate duty on his death. The object of these provisions of the Ordinance is to stop such a loophole. It has been found that the present era of three years is too short to be effective in preventing evasion of duty; both in the United Kingdom and Ceylon, the period has been extended to five years. A similar amendment has recently been introduced in Hongkong. The second change, effected by clauses 7 and 9 of the Bill, seeks to remove what is considered to be a defect in the law relating to the assessment of estate duty. Under the existing law in sections 38 to 40 of the Ordinance, no transaction in any of the property contained in the estate of a deceased person can take place unless evidence is produced that the estate duty has been paid. But there is no direct obligation laid upon the executor or administrator or other accountable person to submit to the Commissioner of Estate Duty an estate duty affidavit relating to the duty payable; and in practice no such action is taken until it is intended to transact with the property. The result has often been delay in payment of duty and in some cases even non-payment. It is now proposed to make it obligatory on the executor or other accountable person, as defined in the Ordinance, to submit an estate duty affidavit within six months of the death of the deceased, and at the same time to give the Commissioner power to assess the estate duty payable in any case where he considers it desirable. Both these new provisions are based on similar provision contained in the Ceylon legislation, and will bring estate duty practice more or less in line with income tax practice. Clauses 8, 10 and 11 of the Bill introduce various consequential amendments. Clause 12 introduces two new sections containing formal provisions relating to certificates and notices issued by the Commissioner under the Ordinance. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Oon Khye Kiang]. Bill considered in Committee.

10.41 a.m. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 10, to leave out "or" and insert "of". This is to correct a drafting error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 36, to leave out "and" and add- '(b) by deleting the word "three" appearing in the sixth line of paragraph (c) thereof and substituting therefor the word "five"; and'. Sir, this is a consequential amendment following the proposal to amend the period of three years to five years in respect of gifts of property. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 34, to leave out "from" and insert "after". This is to improve the drafting so as to maintain uniformity of expression as in line 11. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 6, to leave out "of the deceased". The words "of the deceased" are superfluous and should be deleted. Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 8 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.45 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Rubber Regulation Ordinance was enacted before the war, and it was necessary in the 1930's, during the years of trade depression when there was over-production of rubber and the price of rubber had dropped to a very low level. This Ordinance enforces limitation of rubber production in both large and small estates by the issue of coupons or grants of credit for permitted production after due assessment has been made of the holdings in each quarter. It also regulates the sale of rubber lawfully produced under the terms of this Ordinance, as well as the import and export of rubber, except under prescribed conditions. Since the war, as hon. Members are aware, control over the production of rubber has not been exercised, nor is there any international agreement over production between rubber-producing countries, and as a result the provisions of this Ordinance have not been administered. The Ordinance has not, however, been repealed previously because of the necessity to keep in force the provisions of section 11 of the Ordinance setting up the Malayan Rubber Fund and the Advisory Committee for the administration of the Fund. This Fund and the Advisory Committee were in existence until 15th January, 1959. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 10.49 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with this Bill. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Rubber Regulation enactments of the Federation of Malaya have been repealed with effect from the 15th January, 1959, and have been replaced by the new Malayan Rubber Fund (Research and Development) Ordinance, 1958, section 13 of which provides for the establishment of a new Malayan Rubber Fund and for a Board, instead of a former Advisory Committee, which will be responsible for the administration of this Fund. Sir, the Singapore Government has been a contributor to the Malayan Rubber Fund since the enactment of the Rubber Regulation Ordinance, 1959. The objects of the Malayan Rubber Fund are, inter alia, to devote funds for the furtherance of rubber research, improvement of the rubber industry, and support for propaganda relating to rubber. These are laudable objects and the Colony should continue to give support and to contribute to the Fund. These contributions are derived from a surcharge which is levied under section 3 of the Rubber Estates (Surcharge on Assessment) Ordinance, and the proposed enactment of this Ordinance would enable the amount collected to be paid to the new Malayan Rubber Fund constituted under the Federation Ordinance. A motion to amend a minor typographical error will be moved by me at the Committee stage. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Tan Theng Chiang]. Bill considered in Committee.

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

Mr Speaker,. Sir, I move, In page 1, line 10, to leave out "11" and insert "12". The purpose of this amendment is to correct a typographical error in the reference to the appropriate section of the Rubber Regulation Ordinance. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.53 a.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As hon. Members will recall the primary purpose of the provisions of Part III of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance was to give effect to an arrangement with the Federation of Malaya for the regulation and control of the Straits of Johore in order to prevent the movement of persons and supplies designed to assist the Communist terrorists in the southern part of that State. With the gratifying success which has been achieved by the Federation authorities in the campaign against the Communist terrorists, it became possible at the end of last year for the whole of Johore State, adjacent to Singapore Island, to be declared a "white" area, and with the agreement of the Federation of Malaya Government, the Johore Straits Control Scheme terminated on the 31st December. It is consequently no longer necessary to maintain the provisions of this part of the Ordinance which confer the legal powers to implement that Scheme. There are, however, two other matters covered by this part of the Ordinance. The first is the creation of the Port of Singapore North and the application thereto of certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance. These matters are covered by sections 11 and 12 of the Ordinance, and in so far as the provisions are permanently required, they should more appropriately be embodied in the Merchant Shipping Ordinance itself. This is being effected by the Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Bill, introduced at the last sitting of the Assembly and which my colleague, the Minister for Commerce and Industry, will be putting through its remaining stages of the day. The second matter relates to certain restrictions imposed on shipping using Telok Ayer Basin and the waters around Keppel Harbour, Pulau Bukom, Pulau Sebarok, and St. John's Island. These are dealt with in sections 13 and 14 of the Ordinance. Certain of these provisions have since been included in the Singapore Port Rules and are consequently redundant, whilst the security of the places listed in the Fifth Schedule to the Ordinance can, I consider, be adequately protected, where necessary, by appropriate declarations under the Protected Places and Areas Ordinance, 1955. It is accordingly now possible to repeal the whole of Part III of this temporary Ordinance, and I accordingly 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. 11.00 a.m.

Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill is connected with the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1959, which my colleague, the Chief Secretary, moved just now. This Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill proposes, inter alia, the repeal of sections 11 and 12 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance so as to put into effect the termination of the Johore Straits Control Scheme. These two sections provide for the establishment of the Port of Singapore North, and require that vessels arriving and departing from places within this port must submit arrival reports to the Harbour Master, Singapore North, from whom they must also obtain port clearances. This is in accordance with the procedure for the main Port of Singapore. Section 427 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance dealing with port clearances is so worded that they must be obtained before leaving any port in Singapore Island. But section 423 of the same Ordinance does not specifically lay down the same requirements in regard to reporting arrivals. The Bill I now propose is designed to ensure that reports of arrival are required equally with port clearances, to enable the Port Officer to be advised of shipping movements in Singapore waters. I consider that this is a most desirable procedure. At the same time, I wish to assure this House that this Bill will not be applied so as to hamper small craft of under five tons, especially those of our fishermen in proceeding on their lawful mission. In consequence, I propose to use my powers under the relevant sections of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance to ensure a general exemption of vessels under five tons so that the important section of our productive industry constituted by our fishermen shall not be hindered in the movements necessary for their valuable work. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 11.04 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The primary object of this Bill, Sir, is to make the necessary amendments to the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance, 1957, consequent on the enactment of the State of Singapore Act, 1958, which amends the British Nationality Act, 1948, so as to confer the status of a British subject and Commonwealth citizen on a citizen of Singapore. As hon. Members are aware, this status was agreed to at the Singapore Constitutional Conference held in London in 1957, and is embodied in paragraph 51 of the Report of that Conference. At present Singapore citizenship has only a local status and significance, and it will not possess any international status and significance until the British Nationality Act, 1948, is amended to confer the status of a British subject and Commonwealth citizen on a Singapore citizen. This amendment, which is embodied in the State of Singapore Act, only comes into force when the State of Singapore Act comes into operation. This, in effect, means that the international status of Singapore citizenship will be recognised when the new Constitution of Singapore comes into being. This amending Ordinance, therefore, will not itself be brought into operation until the appointed day for the introduction of the new Constitution or immediately thereafter. Sir, the combined effect of clauses 2 (b) and 3 of the Bill is to provide that a citizen of Singapore shall, by virtue of that citizenship, have the status of a British subject and Commonwealth citizen, and also expressly to confer this status on a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and a citizen of any country other than the State of Singapore for the time being included in subsection (3) of section 1 of the British Nationality Act, 1948. It is considered more satisfactory that this common status of citizens of other Commonwealth countries should be explicitly conferred in Singapore law by the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance itself than by simply relying on the provisions of the British Nationality Act, 1948, to make this common status operative in Singapore. In clause 5 of the Bill, the proposed amendment of section 8 (2) of the Ordinance is a necessary corollary to clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. As hon. Members are aware, under section 8 (2), on a basis of reciprocity, the Singapore Government may allow a citizen of any Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland to be registered as a citizen of Singapore on the same conditions as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies are registered. Since upon the coming into force of the new Constitution, Singapore citizens will also be Commonwealth citizens, section 8 (2) is being amended to make it clear that this subsection does not apply to Singapore citizens. Sir, the opportunity has also been taken to make certain other amendments to the parent Ordinance. These are mainly of an administrative nature and are intended to rectify those provisions to the Ordinance which have been proved from experience to raise certain difficulties. Clause 2 (c) introduces a definition of "reside" and is intended to avoid conflicting interpretations of the meaning of residence in Singapore for the purposes of this Ordinance and of the Immigration Ordinance. At present the Ordinance provides for the registration of births of persons born outside Singapore to substantiate claims to citizenship by descent under section 5 of the Ordinance at the office of an official representative of Singapore in the country of birth or, where there is no such office, at the office of the Minister in Singapore. Clause 4 proposes to delete this provision since Singapore has no representative at present anywhere other than the Trade Commissioner in London, and it is intended instead to make provision for registration of birth by post in the rules. Clause 6 makes a small amendment to section 12 of the Ordinance to make it clear that the Minister refers an application to the Advisory Committee only when he decides to refuse the application in the exercise of his discretion. Applications which, on their face, fail to qualify under the law will not need to go to the Advisory Committee. The purpose of clause 7 is to tidy up the provisions of section 18 of the Ordinance which deals with the treating of periods of absence as periods of residence in Singapore. The Minister already has complete discretion which is not restricted by the specific purposes at present mentioned in the Ordinance. Clause 8 (a) is only a drafting amendment which makes for uniformity in expression in respect of sections 22 (3) and (4) of the Ordinance, and clause 8 (b) also amends section 22 (4) (b) for the same reason as that which I have given in respect of clause 4 of the Bill. Clause 9 makes provision for a fine as an alternative or in addition to imprisonment in the penalty under section 24 (1) of the Citizenship Ordinance, which deals with the making of false statements for the purpose of procuring anything to be done or not to be done under the Ordinance. At present the punishment is one of imprisonment only. So these are the amendments proposed in the Bill, and to summarise, they deal with matters which either are constitutionally required or seek to clarify the provisions of the Ordinance. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.10 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as we know, this amendment is merely just a consequence of the enactment of the State of Singapore Act. But there is one point which I wish the Hon. the Chief Secretary will clarify, and that is regarding the travel documents. We cannot deny this as a fact. At present the holder of Singapore citizenship must have a certificate of identity in order to travel, and even if he wishes to travel to London, he must have a visa to London. And if he is a British subject before the citizenship is granted, he travels on a British passport. I therefore wish the Chief Secretary can clarify whether the Government is prepared to issue a Singapore passport for all and not a British passport or a Citizen of Singapore passport.

Sir, I can deal very briefly with the point raised by the hon. Member for Changi. There has been no change up till now in the eligibility for passports as a result of the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance. As I explained in moving the Bill, it has at present only a local status and significance, and no international status and significance. All persons eligible for passports before this Ordinance came in, and who have acquired the status of citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, are still eligible for British passports. When the State of Singapore Act comes into force on the appointed day, Singapore will have the competence to issue its own passports and will do so for all Singapore citizens. One difficulty which has so far arisen, has arisen not in connection with the operation of this Ordinance, and that is the eligibility of Indian persons who have taken out Singapore citizenship and who have thereby lost their eligibility for Indian passports. That situation will be remedied when the new Constitution is introduced and the State of Singapore Act becomes operative.

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.

11.15 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Governor's recommendation to move the following motion, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $13,500 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in Schedule D contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 16 of 1959. Sir, in its White Paper on Malayanisation Policy, the Government stated that a complete reorganisation of the Civil Service was in course of being planned. One of the main objects was to ensure that as many Malayans as possible should be enabled, either by promotion within the service or by recruitment to the service, to fill posts vacated by expatriate officers. The general basis for the complete reorganisation of the public service has been agreed as follows: (i) The large number of salary scales in use for officers in Divisions I-III should be replaced by 4 key salary scales for men and 4 key scales for women appropriate to candidates of different academic attainments. There should, in addition, be a small number of key salary scales to which officers, after their first appointment, could be promoted. (ii) A new simplified salary structure for Division IV officers, consisting of 17 key scales, which had been agreed with the Staff Side of the Singapore Civil Service Joint Council in 1957 and implemented for the great majority of Division IV officers should be applied to the remaining few (except the Police) who had been omitted from the main revision for various reasons. A number of these proposals have been completed and approved by the Assembly. Hon. Members will recollect that the reorganisation of the General Clerical Services was implemented in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 14 of 1957 and approved by the Assembly on the 25th April, 1957. The revision and rationalisation of salary scales in Division IV as contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 43 of 1957 was approved on 16th October, 1957. The General Executive Service Scheme was contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 5 of 1958 and approved by the Assembly on the 24th April, 1958. The revision of the salaries of Revenue Officers in the Customs Department in Division IV was implemented in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 23 of 1958 and approved by the Assembly on 13th August, 1958. It is now proposed to implement the revision of salary scales of the other categories in Division IV in respect of: (a) Officers in the technical grades. (b) Open vote employees such as (i) Tan Tock Seng employees, who are 604 in number, (ii) School servants and others in aided schools, who are 701 in number, and (iii) Government employees, who number about 200. These were left out in the original review in 1957 referred to above pending examination of their status. The details of these revisions are set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 and Schedule A of the Sessional Paper, and have been agreed with the Staff Side of the Joint Council. The Customs Department is mainly staffed by officers who can seek their advancement in that department alone, i.e. they are not in the Common User Services. it is not necessary that they should have professional qualifications and, for this reason, there is no special difficulty in devising Schemes of Service which allow able men to reach the higher posts. They bear comparison with officers in the General Executive, General Clerical Officer and General Clerical Assistant Services in respect of the nature of the duties. On this basis, comparable Schemes of Service have accordingly been agreed with representative staff associations, namely: The Customs Officers Service, The Revenue Officers (Senior) Service, The Revenue Officers (Lower) Service. The salary scales used in these three Services are those used in their counterpart Common User Services. At the same time, an extensive examination of the duties of Customs Officers was undertaken, and it is anticipated that by a more economical use of Customs Officers a considerable saving in expenditure will be possible in future. No additional funds are, however, required. Although a complete revision of the salaries of all medical personnel is contemplated, it has been found expedient to deal first with Nurses, Hospital Assistants and related grades. An extensive survey of the working conditions and terms of service of these grades was carried out in 1957 as a result of which it became apparent that a very considerable reorganisation was necessary. For many years prior to that date, a grade of officer known as Hospital Assistant had been employed on a multiplicity of duties connected with hospital work. Their duties included nursing, dispensing, laboratory work, hospital administration, storekeeping, etc. It has been found under modern conditions that it is impossible for a man liable to such varied employment to become proficient at any one duty, and it is therefore decided that the Hospital Assistants Service should be broken up and its members transferred, so far as possible, to the Specialised Services appropriate to the duties they were actually performing. Some Hospital Assistants nevertheless remain who cannot be transferred to Specialised Services on account of differences in training. The services to which Hospital Assistants are to be transferred are those which deal with laboratory work, dispensing and nursing. At the same time, as the reorganisation of the Hospital Assistants Service is effected, it is also desirable to reorganise the services to which they are to be transferred. One of these services, the Nursing Service,, is closely related to the Assistant Nurses, Midwives and other Services. It has thus become desirable to revise the salaries and Schemes of all these related Services in one operation. In the event, it has been possible to come to agreement on new salaries and on detailed Schemes of Service for: Nursing Sisters Laboratory Technicians Public Health Inspectors Dispensing Assistants Midwives Dental Technicians Dental Nurses Assistant Nurses Dental Assistants, and Hospital Assistants (the residue who cannot be transferred to other Services). In respect of the above reorganisation, in most cases, there will be long-term economies when recruitment and promotion is made on the lower salary scales, but from the immediate point of view there are additional costs. In most cases, there are equivalent offset savings and, in all, supplementary provision of $13,500 only is required. The details are set out in Schedule D. With this development considerable progress has been made in implementing the decision to reorganise the Civil Service. It has however not been possible to finalise negotiations in respect of other sections of the public service which are now in progress. Other proposals will no doubt be considered at the next appropriate moment. Sir, I beg to move. it.

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

11.25 a.m. Schedule-

Schedule D, at page 25. Unless any hon. Member wishes to speak on any particular Head, I propose to take all the Heads en bloc.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak on Head 49. The sums stated for the Heads stated below ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head Title Total $ 8 Chief Secretary 10 (Token) 9 Broadcasting 10 (Token) 15 Police 7,400 (Token) 16 Printing Office 10 (Token) 17 Prisons 10 (Token) 27 Customs and Excise 10 (Token) 31 Agricultural 10 (Token) 34 Fisheries 10 (Token) 37 Marine 10 (Token) 40 Trade Marks Registry 230 41 Veterinary 10 (Token) 43 Land and District Offices 10 (Token) 44 District Councils 10 (Token) 45 Survey 10 (Token) ------ Total to be voted $7,750 ------ Head 49- Question proposed, "That the sum of $2,500 for Head 49 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to enquire whether I am correct in thinking that whereas up till now male nurses and female nurses have been, generally speaking, on the same salary scale, it is now proposed that male nurses be paid a higher salary than female nurses. I base my assumption on what is contained in Schedule C, page 22, for example, where at present both male and female nurses, or assistant nurses are on the same salary scale of $120 to $190, there is now a differentiation as between male and female nurses, for example, from $170 to $330 per month in respect of male nurses, and $160 to $270 per month in respect of female nurses. There is also a differentiation, if you turn to page 19 - male nurses, as they will now be called, and staff nurses on page 23, it appears they are now on the same scale, and there is to be a differentiation in favour of the male nurses. Sir, we would like to know the reason which prompted the Government to make this differentiation. We cannot accept the situation that female nurses, of all people, should be paid less than their masculine counterpart. When one talks of nurses, one naturally thinks of female nurses - the care, the attention and the devotion which women above all can give to the sick and the suffering. I think there is no question that male nurses come second in our minds as being employed for only a limited number of specific tasks. In this respect, therefore, we oppose this particular Head as being thoroughly wrong and unjust to the devoted band of women who form the major part of the nursing services. 11.30 a.m.

Sir, the matter raised by the hon. Member is one which is an issue of principle and is to be found throughout the salary scales in the public service below a certain level, and it is not based on any lower regard for the woman officer as opposed to the male officer. But it is based primarily, as I understand it, on the responsibilities which attach to the male member of the family in maintaining a family as against his female counterpart. Until such time as the principle itself is amended and equal pay for equal work is accepted in the Government service in Singapore, I do not see that there is any reason to single out any particular service in order to make an exception to the principle.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to inquire from the Hon. the Chief Secretary whether it is not a fact that up till now there has been equal pay for equal service as between male and female nurses as shown in this paper.

On that, Sir, it was made clear by the Hon. the Financial Secretary in moving his motion, that this has been a cleaning-up exercise in order to put all scales appropriately in line with one another, and this has been part of the negotiations with the Staff side of the Singapore Joint Council and is agreed with the Staff side.

Sir, the Financial Secretary says this is a cleaning-up. This is discriminating against the female nurse - a new departure for which we can see no justification.

Sir, I can only say that the hon. Member is entitled to his own opinion.

Sir, in this item, the explanatory note is quite clear - "This Unit would perform static guard and escort duties." And in the last part of the note can be seen the words, "It is proposed at present not to retrench those Special Constables who would not be absorbed into the Guard and Escort . . ."-

Order. We are on Head 49, Medical and Health. I cannot imagine that police constables are male nurses!

Sir, with regard to the explanation given by the Hon. the Chief Secretary in reply to my colleague, the hon. Member for Tanglin, is it not possible that the words "Male Nurses" be changed to something else? They sound very awkward. If we can expect service from a nurse, it is a female nurse and not a male nurse. If any difference in salary is to be kept, I think a wise move on the part of the Government will be to change from "Male Nurses" to something else for males.

Sir, as far as I am aware, it is only in the mental hospital that male nurses are in fact employed. The hon. Member is, of course, entitled to his own opinion as to which sex he prefers in his own nursing attendance. I would only say, on the point he raises, that I think it will be a pity if this Assembly should concern itself with details of this kind in matters that have been negotiated and agreed with the Staff side.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $2,500 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 58- The sum of $3,240 for Head 58 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 60- The sum of $10 for Head 60 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sum of $13,500 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the Motion. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question on the Motion put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $13,500 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in Schedule D contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 16 of 1959.

11.36 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Governor's recommendation to move the following motion, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $2,889,360 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 17 of 1959. Sir, as we are reaching the dissolution of the Assembly it would be appropriate if I were to make a short statement on the financial position as disclosed in the provisional 1958 Accounts which have still to be checked by the Director of Audit. Hon. Members will recall that at the last Budget sitting, it was forecast that the year would end with revenue and expenditure balanced at $248 million, with a deficit of $13 million in the Development Fund and a charge of about $4 million in respect of Malayanisation Compensation, both of which would have to be met from reserve. The general revenue balance which stood at $78 million at the end of 1957 was estimated to be $83 million at the end of 1958, after taking into account on the one hand, the $20 million which had been received in respect of Christmas Island transfer and the appreciation of investments, and on the other hand, deductions to be made to meet the deficit in the Development Fund and the Malayanisation Compensation payment. The year however ended on a slightly happier note. The revised estimate of revenue at the time of the Budget was $248 million. It was actually about $250 million, an increase of about $2 million, chiefly accounted for by an unexpected receipt late in the year of over $1 million, which represent refund of contributions to the M.E.O. after the M.E.O. accounts had been finalised. The total revised expenditure was then $265 million (which included $4 million for Malayanisation Compensation and a contribution of $13 million to cover this deficit in the Development Fund). As it turned out, the actual expenditure was $264.8 million (which included $4.7 million in respect of Malayanisation Compensation and $14.3 million as additional contribution to the Development Fund). Taking into account the $20 million revenue from Christmas Island transfer, there is therefore a surplus of about $5 million. There is again an appreciation of investments to the extent of $3.6 million. Taking this into account, the general revenue balance as at 31st December, 1958 was $87 million, instead of the estimated $83 million. When the Assembly is dissolved at the end of this month, there will be a lapse of about two months before the general elections are held. It will again be some time before the Government is ready with a supplementary budget to implement her policy. In the meantime, there are certain essential services which will have to be carried out during the interregnum and financial provision would have to be sought at this sitting so that there would not be any difficulty experienced during the next three months. It should be in this light that the various applications for supplementary provision in this Sessional Paper should be looked at. There are altogether 55 applications for supplementary provision including 18 revotes, involving a total expenditure of $3,060,135 with possible offset savings of $170,775, leaving a net expenditure of $2,889,360 in respect of which the approval of the Assembly is sought. In the Ordinary Estimates, there are 29 applications, involving an amount of $1,113,539 with 13 revotes involving $59,117. Among the big items of supplementary votes are the following: (a) $393,030 has been provided in the Estimates for the Legislative Assembly Elections. Following the proposal to introduce compulsory voting, it will be necessary to provide for additional staff, polling stations and equipment and also publicity to ensure the success of this proposal. Additional provision of $160,500 is required. (b) A further sum of $290,000 is required in order to retain the average strength of 234 special constables who will be kept on a temporary basis till the end of the year, and some of whom would otherwise be retrenched during the year. (c) It is proposed to make a grant of $102,000 on a dollar for dollar basis to the Kampong Koo Chye Fire Fund. This money will be utilised for the construction of flats for the habitation of some of the victims of the fire which took place last April. I should like to draw the attention of hon. Members to an amendment that should be made to the reference to Head D 22 under Application No. 39 in the last line of the first paragraph on page 4 of the Sessional Paper. D.22 should now read D.43 as it is a more appropriate Head under which the proposed expenditure should be shewn. (d) On the basis of a standstill budget, only 160 additional posts (including 5 additional Division I) were incorporated in the 1959 Draft Estimates. It was thought that this would be adequate and that the opportunity would be given to reorganisation and redeployment of the existing staff so as to achieve the maximum economies. It is not to be, for the education service is ever expanding. With the expansion of classes and increases in schools it has not been possible to cope with the expanding activities with the present staff. Additional staff will be required if new school buildings are not to be kept empty or new classes without teachers. In the case of graduate teachers, a number will be passing out from the University this month and posts will have to be created in order that their services can be engaged. It is not possible to hold these up till the latter part of the year. It is therefore proposed to create the following number of new posts: (i) 40 graduate teachers, (ii) 50 teachers of vernacular languages, (iii) 102 Probationer teachers in the Malay schools, and (iv) ancillary staff. The total estimated cost of the additional staff is $453,090. In the Development Estimates there are eight applications for supplementary provision amounting to $1,471,325, and five applications for revotes amounting to $416,154. Taking the revotes first, there is a big item relating to the purchase of equipment and fittings for the Polytechnic. The orders were placed last year and the payment cannot be met from this year's provision since these purchases are not included in the provision which is meant for the additional requirements to be purchased this year. A revote is therefore required. Additional provision of $120,000 is required for the three District Councils which have been set up in the beginning of the year, so that the essential health and other works can be carried out during the next three months. It will, of course, be appreciated that until the organisations have started work and have taken over certain former city areas it would not be possible to assess the minimum requirements. Provision of $30,000 is required for each of the three District Councils for improvement and expansion of works in the rural areas. There are a number of proposals for small amenities which uplift the morale of kampong and rural folks. They include minimum drainage works which involve-

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

11.50a.m. Schedule-

The summary is at page 19. Head 8- The sum of $161,020 for Head 8 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 15 - Question proposed, "That the sum of $290,000 for Head 15 stand part of the Schedule."

Sir, can the Hon. the Chief Secretary give us a satisfactory explanation as to what confidence he has and on what grounds he has to disband the Special Constabulary at this juncture at the rate of 34 per month, and for their substitution by trained police? Sir, it is a fact that in almost every police station, the Officer in charge, whenever he is approached in an emergency by people, especially these living in the rural areas, will say, "We are short of hands and short of staff." Many open-air cinemas, although they have licences to perform and are paying tax and licence fees, are always visited by gangsters, who create nonsense and fights in them, and as a result the open-air cinemas have to close down. And when they approach the O.C. of any police station, they are told, "I am sorry, we do not have enough men to patrol the area." Sir, not long ago I led a delegation of farmers from Geylang Serai. They all belonged to the Singapore Rural Residents Association. It had been reported to this Association by many members that poultry, fruit trees, vegetables and eggs were being plucked or taken away in broad daylight by someone who was daring enough to walk into their gardens. When they asked him why, he just showed his arm, and said, "This is my fist. I demand those things." It was reported to the O.C. of Joo Chiat Police Station, Mr Ong Kian Tong, accordingly. We had a frank and thorough discussion. We indeed owe Mr Ong Kian Tong a debt. After the interview, the delegation was quite satisfied. But the fact is this. The Police patrol still could not cope with the daily increase of thefts, house-breakings and gang fights in that particular area. The reason is simple. There was an Exposition going on at Kallang Airport, and therefore there was a shortage of staff. Sir, all this is quite clear now, especially since the election is approaching. We know that quite a number of dirty politicians try to make use of gangsters. We expect that the crime wave will increase and not decrease. And yet at this juncture, the Chief Secretary thinks fit to disband the Special Constabulary who have been well trained since 1945. Sir, the note says: "The Special Constabulary was raised in 1945 as an interim measure to maintain law and order whilst the Regular Police Force was being reorganised and trained." Sir, under the subhead Special Constabulary, we see that they have been well trained for such a long period, and yet it is thought fit to disband it at this juncture when the country is in need of their services. Therefore, the Chief Secretary must give us an assurance and a satisfactory explanation as to why he is confident that the present police force is sufficient to maintain law and order despite the fact that the crime wave is increasing daily. I will make a further suggestion. Why does the Chief Secretary not consider another point, to make use of our own people? Train them and encourage them to organise a Home Guard in every kampong and every street to fight the organised gangsters. With the support of the Government, we will have our own Home Guard patrolling our own streets. It will not only save a lot of money but it will also raise the morale of our people. In other words, there will be true co-operation between the police and the people. Sir, I wish the Hon. Chief Secretary will give us a reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very surprised at the Government in view of the crimes increasing day by day. There is no denying this fact. You read the newspaper every day and you find crimes - stabbing cases, gang fights. In view of these crime increases, it is my opinion that the Special Constabulary should not be disbanded because the police should know by now (I have said that in the Assembly) that there is discontent and disappointment among the rank and file of the police force. This is one of the discontents. These people, given guard duties to patrol the streets of Singapore, have to look after and protect the people of Singapore. Sometimes they have to face dangers, and yet the Government see fit that these people should be disbanded. I am really surprised, Sir. We all know why crimes have been increasing. Experienced police officers in the various divisions of the police force, who have the experience and knowledge of all the secret society members operating in their particular areas, have been transferred to another area at the whim and fancy of the senior police officers. The removal of these experienced detective officers from a division where they know the members of the secret societies operating in that area, is only to encourage the members of the secret societies to come out into the open. Now, we have another item - to retrench the Special Constabulary. Sir, I have met many Special Constables patrolling my area in the morning - 2 a.m., 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. They protect the people of Singapore and it is our duty to see that these people who have given much of their time and even their lives to protect the people of Singapore should not be disbanded. They should, as a matter of fact, be absorbed into the regular Police Force, as I feel that they have the experience to be in the Force itself. 12 noon.

Sir, both the Member for Changi and the Member for Tiong Bahru spoke with a certain amount of heat, but I am really not at all clear what they are grumbling about because what the Financial Secretary is doing on this motion is asking for additional money in order that I can keep these Special Constables on and not disband them. As is explained under the item, the intention has always been - the hon. Members concerned know that there has previously been dissatisfaction among the Special Constabulary - to put them on a permanent basis and this is in fact what has now been done by the provision of this permanent Guard and Escort Unit. The Guard and Escort Unit will consist of certain men engaged on duties for which the full qualifications and training of a police officer are not required. In regard to the incidence of crime and the ability of the Police to cope with it, there is no one more than myself who would wish to see an increase in the regular trained Police Force and if we had the additional funds to provide for it, then I should certainly not be backward in coming forward with the necessary proposals; but in the present financial situation, the allocation of the available resources with the different calls on available funds must be a matter of balance and, owing to a standstill Budget, it was not possible for me to ask for an increase in the regular Police Force for this year, but it is one of the needs which I commend to the attention of the incoming Government.

Sir, we shall be glad if the Chief Secretary will look at the explanatory note. Here it is: "This would relieve regular police personnel for duties for which they were trained. The remaining Special Constables except for 159 would be retrenched at the beginning of 1959 in a phased programme to allow for their replacement by 34 regular police every month." Does it not sound that it is your intention that you want to retrench, "except for 159", those Special Constables who have been engaged since 1945 by you?

Order.

By the Government, Sir - Special Constables "to maintain law and order whilst the Regular Police Force was being reorganised and trained . . . Accordingly, a permanent Guard and Escort Unit of 825 officers and men was formed with effect from 1st January, 1959." And what are the duties of this Unit? They are "to perform static guard and escort duties". Sir, I am sorry to state that I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the Hon. the Chief Secretary. I hope he will answer my question. What confidence has he in sacrificing so many well-trained people who have served in the Police Force - although in the name of the Special Constabulary - since 1945? Does the Chief Secretary not consider that to be better experience?

Sir, I shall try to explain to the Member for Changi. When the debate on the 1959 Budget Estimates took place, he was very active. In fact, he was the most active Member on the other side of the House. He talked quite a lot on the Estimates -

Do not pull my leg!

-and this new scheme was approved when the Estimates were discussed. Because of the approval of that scheme, 159 Special Constables would be gradually retrenched, but the Government now feel that they should not be retrenched - the Government are now asking for more money - and that they should continue in employment until the end of the year.

Sir, maybe the Government side misunderstood the purpose why I raised this point. I want the Government to spend more money because the Police Force is inadequate to provide for the needs of this country. I have already quoted so many examples to prove to you that many officers in charge of police stations have always complained about the shortage of hands. I am, of course, thankful to the Hon. the Chief Minister for explaining that this item was passed at the Budget sittings last year, but the situation now is quite changed, as has just been mentioned by the Member for Tiong Bahru. He says that crimes are increasing and that the people are getting worried. We know so many reasons coupled with that. Therefore, my purpose is to urge the Government to raise a larger Police Force to maintain law and order. That is all.

Sir, I cannot help feeling that it would be very salutary if we had a Standing Order in this Assembly that Members who constantly urge Government to spend more money should be under an obligation also to say where the Government is to get that money from. I have already said, Sir, that I am in entire agreement with the hon. Member that, in order to cope with the present level of crime, we do require an expansion of the Police Force, and I do hope that will be one of the first matters to which the incoming Government will devote their attention; but for the present we have, for the reasons explained at the time when the Budget was debated, confined the present Estimates to a standstill Budget and it is for that reason that I have not been able to come forward with proposals for expanding the Force.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $290,000 for Head 15 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head 17- Question proposed, "That the sum of $39,560 for Head 17 stand part of the Schedule."

Sir, as was mentioned by the Hon. the Chief Secretary, they intended to ask the Assembly to give more money to be spent on the Police. Unfortunately, they could not get it. Now, similar conditions apply to this Head - Prisons. I am sure this House will agree with me that the Borstal system has really worked very well. We are more than pleased to have spent more money on this Borstal scheme, but unfortunately, Sir, the Government have failed in one important point. Although they have succeeded in reforming and training such prisoners, have the Government any plans for them after they have completed their sentences? On one occasion, I had the opportunity to spend a solid six hours in Changi Prison. I had my lunch inside the Prison and I talked to quite a number of prisoners. There is a common worry and fear among them. It is employment after leaving the Prison. I will charge the Government to look into this point and do something for them. The Government should concentrate on the Borstal scheme and train and reform them. After he has completed his sentence, the prisoner walks out of the prison. Where does he go to? Will he go back to society with, he thinks, equal status with others? Because the Government do not take much notice of him, the people of Singapore pay little attention to whether the Borstal system can really work and train and reform him. The prisoner is not a life-long prisoner. The convict is not a life-long convict. It is the general opinion of the people, and it is the duty of the Government, to give more employment opportunities for the prisoners. The general public should adopt a new attitude towards ex-prisoners. I wish the Hon. the Chief Secretary would consider this suggestion, and not merely come here and ask for more money to be spent on the Borstal scheme and never think of the future of the prisoners after they have reformed and have received training in prison.

Sir, the Member for Changi was talking indiscriminately about prisoners in Changi Gaol and those detained in Borstal institutions. I am not sure whether he meant that they should be lumped together, or whether he intended to talk purely on the subject of this application for supplementary provision. In regard to inmates of the Borstal Institute, they are invariably released provided they are of good behaviour for some considerable time before the expiry of their sentences, and during that time they are required to report and a very close eye is kept on them. I know of no case in which a boy in a Borstal institution has been released from that institution without being suitably placed. If the hon. Member has examples that he can give to me, I shall be very happy to look into them, but he has not brought any such case to my notice and I certainly know of none. In regard to the prisoners in the Changi Gaol - the adults serving their prison sentences - there is, as he is aware, an association called the Prisoners' After-Care Association which is always seeking for public support in every way, and I am sure that they will welcome any support the hon. Member is prepared to give them.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $39,560 for Head 17 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. 12.15 p.m. The sums stated for the Heads stated below ordered to stand part of the Schedule. Head Title Total $ 25 Contributions and Charit- able Allowances 103,055 28 Estate Duty and Stamp Offices 17,244 41 Veterinary 10 46 Education 470,650 47 Library, Raffles National 22,080 50 Ministry of Labour and Welfare 11,140 9 Broadcasting 790 10 Chemistry 2,150 27 Customs and Excise 3,872 37 Marine 1,120 42 Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing 12,125 49 Medical and Health 30,840 53 Social Welfare 7,000 D 8 Chief Secretary 26,000 D11 Defence Services 23,100 D44 District Councils 120,000 D46 Education 679,549 D61 Public Works, Non-Recurrent (General) 1,000,000 D57 Postal Services 2,130 D60 Telecommunications 36,700 The sum of $2,889,360 for the Heads of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the Motion. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question on the Motion put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $2,889,360 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 17 of 1959.

I think it is an appropriate time to suspend. I will take this Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.18 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Governor's recommendation to move the following motion, That this Assembly resovles that the sum of $5,369,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 18 of 1959. Sir, hon. Members will recollect that two big fires took place in Singapore during the last one year. The first fire broke out at Kampong Koo Chye (Lorong 3, Geylang) on 5th April, 1958, and destroyed over 100 huts and rendered 379 families, which comprised 2,050 persons, homeless. 172 families have been accommodated in the S.I.T. flats in the old Kallang Airport site and 12 families in Queenstown at subsidised rents. The others are residing with friends and relatives. The first phase of rehabilitation has been completed and it is proposed to complete the second and final phase, by constructing flats for sale to these fire victims. It is estimated that the cost of each flat would be about $5,000 and any victim who wishes to purchase a flat must pay $500 as the first deposit and thereafter pay $50 per mensem for about seven years. A lease of 60 years at a nominal rental of $1 per year will be granted. Of 308 applications for the purchase of these flats, involving 323 families, only 186 families can afford to pay on the terms agreed. The others, including those who do not apply for the purchase of these flats, have asked that part of the money collected from the public amounting to about $192,000 be distributed to them, as it would be unfair that their share of the money be given to subsidise the cost of buildings which would eventually be purchased by those who could afford to pay. There are 193 families or about 1,000 persons who do not wish to have the flats. Distribution to them will involve a sum of about $90,000 and this will be paid out of the sum of slightly over $90,000 which has been donated to the Department of Social Welfare. It is proposed to build 190 two-room flats at the cost of $873,000. The City Council will hand over to Government a sum of $202,000 comprising: (a) contribution from public - $102,000 (b) City Council donation - $100,000 The Government will contribute $102,000 on a dollar from dollar basis, and this amount has been obtained under Head 25 in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 17 of 1959 and will in addition provide the balance of $569 towards the cost of this project. It has since been learnt that the contribution from the public received by the City Council amounts to $106,000. It is, of course, too late to ask for this additional $4,000. The S.I.T will be asked to construct these flats for sale. The second fire at Kampong Tiong Bahru broke out on the 13th February, 1959. It has devastated an area of 29 acres and the memories of this diaster are still fresh in the minds of the hon. Members to require any repetition. With the assistance of all concerned, the first phase for the rehabilitation of the victims has been completed. A total of 492 two-room flats and 239 one-room flats of the S.I.T. have been allocated to 5,023 persons. It is thought that the correct long-term solution to the problem at hand would be to develop the site to provide a better standard of accommodation for the victims and to prevent a recurrence of this kind of disaster in the area. It is therefore proposed to acquire the site and ask the S.I.T. to build low cost houses for rental to the victims. The development will be carried out in three phases. Phase I will cover the construction of 240 tow-room units on the lower portion of the site. The overall cost of each unit will be about $2,500 including site works. The structure will be simple but durable and wooden slabs and concrete blocks will be used. Phases II and III will cover the development of the higher portions of the site. It involves the construction of 500 two-room units in 7-storey buildings containing units exactly similar in plan to those in Phase I, but having balcony access on each floor. The estimated cost per unit would be $5,000 or $2,500 per single room. The additional cost in this case is accounted for by the need for piling, modern sanitation and other ancillary works. The cost of acquiring the site will be about $1.5 million. It is estimated that Phase I will cost $600,000 and each of Phases II and III $1.25 million. An additional cost of $200,000 will be involved in making up access roads from Kim Tian Road and other miscellaneous works. The estimated total cost will be $4.8 million in respect of which supplementary provision application is made. The Singapore Council of Social Services has started the Kampong Tiong Bahru Relief Fund which closed on the 13th March with about $600,000 from contributions from the public. It is proposed to distribute these proceeds to the fire victims. This will be in addition to $26,100 already paid out by the Social Welfare Department. The City Council has decided to donate $100,000 together with contributions of $38,000 collected from the public towards this Fund. The U.K. Government has also donated $42,850. This total sum of $180,850 will be utilised towards the cost of the building and the Government expenditure will thereby be reduced. The S.I.T. will again be asked to carry out this scheme and will assist in the other administrative work on behalf of Government. The other financial arrangements such as the amount of rents to be charged and maintenance costs, etc. are being worked out. In conclusion, Sir. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Members to a change in the Head of Expenditure in the printed Sessional Paper as compared with the cyclostyled copy which was first circulated to Members. In view of the natureof the two schemes it is thought that it would be more appropriate to show them under Head D43-Land and District Offices-instead of Treasury which is mainly concerned with loans as such. Sir, I beg to move.

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

2.40 p.m. Head D43- Question proposed, "That the sum of $5,369,000 for Head D43 stand part of the Schedule."

Could the Financial Secretary tell us what the square footage per flat will be? i.e. how many square feet of space will each flat contain?

There are two schemes here. Could Mr Thomas say which of the two schemes he is referring to?

Sir, since the cost of the schemes is different, I presume the square footage will be also different.

I regret I do not have the information available right now, and if the Member still requires the information, I shall arrange for the information to be forwarded to him.

This provision is of some importance, Sir, it seems to me, because I have not had the time to look it over thoroughly. But I went into the Library just now and got the S.I.T. Report for 1957-that was just after the Suez crisis and building costs had gone up-Kallang Airport, 5-storey flats with a two-room flat gave 284 square feet and the cost was only $4,345 per flat. Here, for Kampong Koo Chye, on a rather comparable site but probably less space taken up, we are going to pay something around $4,600 - about $300 more - and for Tiong Bahru, the cost came to $5,000. The difference in cost is quite considerable, and I wonder whether there is more or less square footage per flat, and how the cost is arrived at.

Sir, I have the information. It is 360 square feet per flat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure everyone in this House will welcome the scheme that Government has proposed to house the people who have suffered in these two very disastrous fires at Kampong Koo Chye and at Kampong Tiong Bahru. I am particularly happy to see that such energetic steps are being taken by Government to try and solve the housing situation for all these fire victims. Sir, I have been approached by people who had lost their houses in the Lorong 3 area, and they told me that the idea of two-storey flats is not particularly welcome to them because the first floor has two common staircases serving about ten flats. They request that instead of having two flats, one above the other, it would be a better idea to have one two-storey house for each family. In making this request, they were not asking for bigger and better accommodation. The accommodation could be on the same area of about 500 square feet per house. At the present moment, each flat occupying about 500 square feet will consist of two rooms, a kitchen and latrine; but if these two rooms are placed above the other, then each family will have their own house with their own staircase. I recommend this suggestion to the Government. 2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be much obliged if the Financial Secretary can inform thos House of the approximate cost per square foot of the land for acquiring the site.

I assume that the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru is referring to the Tiong Bahru site?

Yes.

Actually it is estimated at $1.5 million to acquire the whole site.

What is the approximate cost per square foot? Sir, what I want to know from the Financial Secretary is this. We are going to acquire the land where the huts were burnt. Can the Financial Scretary inform this House of the approximate cost per square foot to acquire this piece of land?

I am sorry that I am unable to give the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru the exact figure he wants, but the land to be acquired has been assessed by the Land Office, and we expect it to be $1.5 million. If the hon. Member still wants to know the exact figure, the information will be supplied to him.

Sir, I wonder why the Members on the Opposition side should embarrass the Hon. the Financial Secretary at all on this question when the Members who form the present Government will only remain a few days more in the Government.

Sir, if I heard aright, the Hon. the Financial Secretary gave us a figure of 360 square feet, while one of his Back-benchers gave us a figure of 500. I wonder if we can have a firm figure.

My information is 360 square feet.

Question put, and agreed to. The sum of $5,369,000 for Head D43 ordered to stand part of the Schedule. The sum of $5,369,000 for the Head of Expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule ordered to stand part of the Motion. Motion and Schedule reported, without Amendment. Question on the Motion put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the sum of $5,369,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure and for the services specified in the Schedule contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 18 of 1959.

2.49 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the Report of the Select Committee on the Secretary of the Synod of the Diocese of Singapore Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 5 of 1959, be adopted. Sir, I do not think I need take up the time of the House to do more than say that the Select Committee on the Bill, as stated in paragraph 4 of the Report, has examined the Bill and found the facts and allegations set out therein to be correct. Sir, I beg to move.

Sir, I beg to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Report of the Select Committee on the Secretary of the Synod of the Diocese of Singapore Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 5 of 1959, be adopted. Bill read the Third time and passed.

2.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, which reads, That, in view of the leakage of secret income-tax information as evidenced in the Assembly debate on the 4th of March, 1959, and in view of the resulting public anxiety regarding the safety of all the secret or confidential information about the general public entrusted to the Income Tax Department, this Assembly is of the opinion that a Commission of Inquiry should be appointed to investigate into and report on the circumstances in which particulars of file No. 47909/GS of the Income Tax Department became available to a person not entitled thereto. Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members will remember that on the 4th of this month, the Member for Tanjong Pagar disclosed the information recorded in file No. GS/ 47909. This file, I understand, is a file of the Income Tax Department, in the name of Mr Chew Swee Kee. This is what the Member for Tanjong Pagar said. I refer to Hansard, column 2153, of the 4th March: "The Financial Secretary said yesterday that Mr Chew never saw Mr Holloway. I know Mr Chew saw Mr Holloway and that it was recorded in a file." It is surprising how the Member for Tanjong Pagar knew that! And in column 2155 he continued to say: "Sir, the facts are there. First, for the benefit of the Financial Secretary, we will just tell him that we have got all the cards on the table. Mr Chew's file is G.S. 47909." This is what he said. It is rather surprising how the Member for Tanjong Pagar was able to get that information recorded in a confidential file. As far as I know, all files or documents of the Income Tax Department are considered confidential. There must have been then some leakage in that Department, Sir. The duty of the Income Tax Department is to receive accounts from either firms or individuals for the purpose of assessing income tax, and not for the purpose of exposing the contents of any confidential documents or information to any political Party. Such accounts, I say again, should be treated in the strictest confidence. I will quote section 6 of Chapter 166 of the Laws of the Colony, which refers to the Income Tax Ordinance. "6.-

Order. I would remind the hon. Member of one of the Standing Orders, which reads: "The personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose." This was the personal conduct on the part of the hon. Mr Francis Thomas and therefore cannot be referred to except on a substantive motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged for your drawing my attention to the Standing Orders. It was as a passing reference that I made those remarks, because I was

Order. Even in passing, the remark is out of order and it should be withdrawn.

Sir, I accept your ruling and I will withdraw. But what I would like to say is that, if we have politicians of that calibre in Singapore in whom we have trust and faith and who can just leak out secret information, is Singapore safe enough?

Order. The hon. Member is becoming very disorderly. Perhaps he should now turn to some other aspect of his speech.

All right, Sir, If you so rule, I will try to turn round to other subjects of the speech which refer to this leakage of income tax. I must warn all civil servants to be on the lookout for such power-corrupt politicians. Unless they are on the look-out, they may ask for trouble. For the purpose of obtaining information, politicians or political parties may promise heaven and earth, and when they come into power, will they give that heaven and earth? We have already seen this happening in the City Council. The Chief Administrative Officer, Mr Marcus, was promised heaven and earth and was called or considered to be the best and the highest esteemed officer in the City Council. Today, we have Marcus vs. Mayor Ong in the City Council. Is that what it should be? I feel that no political Party should influence the civil service in order to obtain secret or confidential information, and, at the same time, no civil servant should disclose any secret or confidential information to a political Party and expect promotion if that Party comes into power. All civil servants should be above board and above Party politics and be loyal to the service in maintaining the faith and confidence entrusted to them. Sir, I am quite sure, after what I have said just now, that hon. Members in this House, including the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, who is a firm believer of loyalty to the service, will join me in deploring in the strongest terms the leakage of secret income tax information and will wholeheartedly support my motion. Sir, I beg to move. 3.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to second this motion standing in the name of the Member for Queenstown, and I heartily endorse every word he has said. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has every now and again said in this House that he would expect the highest standard of efficiency from Government servants and absolutely incorruptible standards. We all agree with him there wholeheartedly. And yet, Sir, he gave us an exhibition the other day of how he expects Government servants to behave should his Party come into power. It is quite clear that under his Party rule, every Government servant would be expected to give every piece of information that would be required by the Party, no matter how secret it should be, otherwise he would get into very serious trouble. How can he justify in this House giving the number of a secret file - No. 47909/GS of the Income Tax Department? Not only did he mention this secret file number once in this House, but three times, and I have been wondering for what purpose he did this - to show to the world that nothing is sacred to him? How can he, who so blatantly throws his weight about as if he is to be the first Prime Minister of Singapore in the next election, have the face to give out the file number and the information that is contained therein? The answer I think is that he wants now to threaten the civil servants so that in the next two months they should bow to his will and give him all the information he wants, and give them notice that they must not do anything against what his Party wants. Let everyone of us in Singapore take heed and be prepared to accept the form of government that he or she can expect if he or she does not exercise his or her vote properly. These two months are the most crucial in the history of Singapore. Everybody who does not think in the same way as the P.A.P. does should come together and have a straight fight - Party against Party, ideology against ideology. Sir, it seems to me that the policy of his Party is that the end justifies the means. It does not matter how you get it so long as you get it, it does not matter to them how they get into power and how they can win the election, so long as they do win the election. The dreadful part of it is that they have managed to get information - secret information - from a person who holds such a high and responsible position in the Labour Front, so that-

S.P.A.!

Sir, the S.P.A. have nothing to do with it. What happened in the last debate was that the sole heir of the Labour Front crossed the Floor, and is sitting opposite us now. I appeal to everyone in Singapore to realise that in the vital next two months, he must rise to the occasion and cast his vote according to his own conscience. Question proposed. 3.11 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is indeed with a very heavy heart that I read through this motion. We have just heard what the mover and seconder of the motion said. The seriousness of this leakage of information from an Income Tax official to a political Party, is already a well-accepted fact. It is most recoiling. But, Sir, what I want to point out to the House is this. It is a waste of time to come here to deplore the action of someone who is so much pleased with what he has gained. What the people of Singapore would like to know is, what is the position of our political situation today because of this leakage? What makes a Government officer risk his career to pass on the information? He knows very well, when he was first employed by the Income Tax Department, that he had to sign a declaration form. May I take this opportunity to read it aloud: "I, so and so, of address, so and so, do solemnly declare that I will regard and deal with all documents, information, returns, assessment lists and copies of such lists relating to the income or items of income of any person as secret and confidential and that I will not, except in the performance of my duty under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1947, communicate, attempt to communicate or suffer or permit the communication of such information or anything contained in such document, return, list or copies to any person other than the person to whom such document, return, or information relates or his authorised representative. Signed, So and so. Declared before me." Sir, even a magistrate or the Comptroller of Income Tax is required to witness the declaration. I tried very hard to find out from the Income Tax Ordinance, 1947, whether there was a case to exempt this officer from passing on information to the P.A.P. and also whether the P.A.P. have any right to know such a secret: but, Sir, unfortunately, I could find none. There are a few exceptional cases: for example, the Commissioner of Estate Duties, the Financial Secretary and the Auditor can obtain information. But members of a political Party or even the Prime Minister of the day are not allowed to know everything about the Income Tax Department. It is through the Official Secrets Act that we hold the confidence of the taxpayers of this country. So, Sir, it is quite clear now that the secret is out. The file number has been quoted by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. He even knew of the interview which took place, although it was denied by the Financial Secretary. Sir, I would like to read certain passages delivered by the Member for Tanjong Pagar regarding the civil service. He said: "..to remember this. Keep your politics and your personal views out of your service."

Will the hon. Member give the column number?

Sir, this is from Hansard, Volume 3, No. 24, dated Wednesday, 4th March, 1959, column 2134. The Member for Tanjong Pagar said: "...to remember this. Keep your politics and your personal views out of your service." He also said that the Hon. the Chief Minister was ill-advised to advise the public service how to oppose the P.A.P. I would like the Member for Tanjong Pagar to explain how his remarks "advise the public service" apply to the facts of this leakage, and how he could secure the services of anybody working in the Income Tax Department. Sir, my second point is this. What makes this public servant think fit to pass on this information? I do not have the slightest doubt that it is because of the corruption of money. The I'.A.P. paid out a lump sum to this officer. I have never the slightest doubt about that; and I do not doubt that power corruption is going on. "I offer you a quicker promotion if the P.A.P. come into power and if I can down the S.P.A., the U.M.N.O. -"

No!

"- and the Lib-Socs: and then I can promote you to be Permanent Secretary even." Sir, I tried to trace the cause of this leakage, why this public servant had to risk such a severe penalty if he was discovered, such a risk to his career to pass on information to the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Does a national emergency require such an important leakage to save the whole country, Sir? I shall not waste too much time by using the same words delivered by the Member for Tanjong Pagar when he pressed for the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. He said in Hansard, Volume 3, No. 24, the same date, column 2149: "...in view of what the Hon. Mr Chew has done, that there is any doubt as to the truth of what the Chairman of the P.A.P. stated, and a Commission of Inquiry is completely unnecessary to prove the allegation! that we made." Sir, I am sure that you will notice that the Hon. the Minister for Education was referred to as Mr Chew and the Member for Tanjong Pagar said fair play was not very necessary. I am not interested in a Commission of Inquiry, because the truth is the truth and because Mr Chew has already resigned, not only his Ministerial post but also as a Member of the Assembly and even from the S.P.A. Yet the hon. Member thinks fit to let us know so much more in detail. He says that it is not necessary. For the national interests. Sir, no. I quote from Hansard, column 2152: "There was no crime [in other words, about the $500,000]. No act of illegality had been committed. We have not accused the Income Tax Department of doing something irregular. In fact, we admit that if the money was a political gift, as we say it must have been, then it is not liable to income tax." Sir, the P.A.P. themselves admitted that receiving the $500,000 was neither a crime nor an act of illegality. They even supported the fact that this money was exempted from income tax. And then the hon. Member tried to advise the Secretary-General of the SPA., "Be brave and say, 'Yes, I have got the money. So what?'" Unfortunately, this time the relationship between the Member for Tanjong Pagar and the Hon. the Chief Minister is not very good. Sir, it is deplorable, because this is not a national emergency demanding a martyr, that our most valuable public service system should be destroyed only for political party interests and not for the national interests. My third point is this. What makes the P.A.P. think of going deeper and deeper into this $500,000? The leader of the P.A.P., the Member for Tanjong Pagar, made a remark that there was no crime and no act of illegality. Why do the P.A.P, not tell the truth? We know there are many intelligent leaders in the P.A.P. They know what the situation is in Singapore. Was the money from America? Of course, dollars are remitted from America. Of course, an American bank is here, and therefore the money is from America. Sir, it is not so simple as that. The P.A.P. know exactly that the money is not from the American Government. I would like to tell him that the Formosan Government and the Japanese Government have for many, many months gone into the question of how to make Singapore politics suit the South East-Asia Organisation, how to divide our people-

Order. I must, of necessity, keep a very close watch and see that hon. Members keep to the strict terms of the motion. I am just wondering how those remarks have any relation at all to the motion, which merely asks for the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry to investigate a leakage in the Income Tax Department.

Sir, I beg your pardon. Maybe I have to seek your clarification. I spoke on three points. My last point is this - that the P.A.P. fail to realise the actual political position of Singapore today. They are merely seeking their Party interests and not the national interests as a whole. That is the point of this motion. If I am wrong, please rule me out. I would like to emphasise this. The damage has already been done to the public service. Nobody doubts that. I may quote a further point. Only last Saturday night I had occasion to meet a foreign diplomat. He did not know that I am an Assemblyman but he knew me as an accountant. He is worried about his money. Sir, it is an open secret. The surrounding countries are corrupted, and there are corrupt diplomats and a lot of corrupt money. This diplomat saw fit to consult an accountant. He asked, "How now, this leakage in the Income Tax Department of $500,000. Now I have to submit my returns. My accountant is so and so. He is seeking certain solutions to help me out." Sir, that is one likely ironical example - how much confidence of the taxpayers has been lost as a result of this leakage of information from the Income Tax Department through the P.A.P. organisation. My conclusion is this, Sir. Since the P.A.P. said that this $500,000 was neither a crime nor an illegal transaction and it was exempted from tax, because it is a political gift, they were prepared to withdraw the motion calling for the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. They take this matter so lightly. Why? Because they have already achieved their political aim! But there is one thing I cannot understand - despite all the remarks in favour of this $500,000 - case, yet they thought fit to do nothing about the integrity of the public service. That is the thing that should open the minds of the people of Singapore - to take a close look and analyse what makes the leader of the P.A.P.? Somebody says, "A political bankrupt"; I do not think it is true. The P.A.P. are the strongest political Party, but if they are politically corrupt, then they are power corrupted. Although they already have one foot in the grave, yet they choose to sacrifice their "Marcus", the hero who passed information to the Party. That is the thing that worries me much - that if our political leaders, or our political Parties for that matter, work along the lines only for party interests and not for the national interests, then we are really doomed. Our national movement requires the full support of the masses, irrespective of whether you are rich or poor, whether you are a Malay or a Chinese, or whether you belong to Party (A) or Party (B). We must all stay together to work towards full independence. Sir, through this leakage, the eyes of the people of Singapore are open to the corruptness of the political Parties in Singapore, politically corrupt at the expense not only of the poor Income Tax officer who passed out the information, but also of the whole public service and the interests of the national movement. Sir, I sincerely wish the Member for Tanjong Pagar is guilt-conscious, not only duty conscious, and that being so, he has to reply and make a clear statement about this leakage. 3.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if confidential and secret information leaks out from Government services, it is certainly deplorable and should not be, and proper action must be taken to see that it does not occur again. Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, I do not think that appointing a Commission of Inquiry is an appropriate and proper action in this case. I believe this motion is purely a political motion designed for political advantage and prepared to expose the Civil Service in the interests of political advantage. If there was a genuine desire on the Government benches, if there had ever been a genuine desire that leakages should be cleared up, there would have been calls for a Commission of Inquiry long, long ago. There have been continuous allegations by the Press - out come the newspapers, "The Council of Ministers this morning decided so-and-so." There have been continuous allegations from confidential and secret documents in different Ministries; there have been almost weekly headlines in the papers (not even headlines sometimes) about the allegations that leaks have taken place, and yet this. Assembly has never in the least been interested. It is only now, when the political heat is coming on, that we show our keen desire that the Civil Service must be properly careful with all its secrets, and all secrets must be revealed to a public enquiry in order that they may be more secretly kept. We had an enormous number of Commissions of Inquiry in the last few years, relatively enormous compared to the usual practice. I fear that if we go on calling for Commissions of Inquiry, the whole system will become ridiculous. The tendency now is to call for Commissions of Inquiry not because there is anything useful that is going to result,, but because it is a sort of jest, "Look, I am an honest man; he is a crook: set up a Commission of Inquiry to prove that I am right." That is an absurd way of behaving and brings the idea of Commissions of Inquiry into disrepute. If there have been leaks, then it is for those in the Civil Service, through the Civil Service, to stop those leaks and to see that they do not occur again, and to see that proper disciplinary action is taken. If there had been a leakage it is as well that it should be made known and preferably made known to the responsible Departmental Head or the Minister or whoever is concerned in the Civil Service. If it is made known to the public, well that is less desirable; in my view to give publicity does not help anybody. But certainly if a leak has taken place and if an honest citizen gets to know of it, he should not keep silent about it. He should see that action is taken to stop the leak for the future. We have on the Government benches the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary - as I understand, the mechanism of the Service - they were both concerned with a leak of this sort, and I have no doubt at all that they would have already looked into it and are capable of taking appropriate action to see that such things do not occur again. If there is a suggestion that they cannot do their work and the Commission of Inquiry tells them how to do it, that is a suggestion that they are incompetent in their own jobs - and that is from their own Government supporters suggesting that their own Ministers sitting with them are not able to keep proper control of the affairs of the Civil Service. There is an enormous number of ways in which leaks can take place, and they need not necessarily be malicious or deliberate ones. I remember some years ago I was quite a new Minister going to the Chief Minister's Office, just next door to this Assembly House, and seeing a secret document being typed on a typing machine and then taken downstairs for duplication in the Public Relations Office in this Assembly building - what I call the Press Room of the Public Relations Office - on the duplicating machine down there. They had not got a duplicating machine upstairs and had to go downstairs, and the secret document which is supposed to be seen by a very particularly limited number of people, was being duplicated in an open office with pressmen coming in and out. I do not know whether they got it, but there were a number of leaks at that time of quite secret information. Now in the Chief Minister's Office there is a Confidential Registry - the door is to the left of the room and marked "Confidential Registry" - supposed to be, I believe, inviolate. Nobody goes in except confidentially-cleared people, or people who have had their security checked. Nevertheless, I have seen the door open with nobody inside and I had heard two men, looking for somewhere quiet to talk, say, "Now, come on, it is all right." And in they went and sat down in the Confidential Registry and they had their private conversation, because there was no other private place to sit. What was on the table I do not know, as it was not my business. I am not alleging anything about those things. I made mention about the difficulties of maintaining security. Papers have got to be handled here and there: it is a continuous job and there is always a possibility of a leak. And in what circumstances was there a leak, if there was a leak, about this file? It seems to me that somebody has talked out of turn and it appears to me that the thing must be looked into. But I do not see that any advantage to the public at all can come from setting up a Commission of Inquiry. I consider this motion should be dropped; I consider that the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary and their Departmental Officers should take proper steps to see that no further leaks of this sort occur; and I think that the Government benches should find other ways of looking for votes. 3.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am horrified at the disclosures from the hon. Mr Francis Thomas - there were leakages from even the Council of Ministers! He has admitted that. That is terrible! Things that were important were being looked at by unauthorised people. What I want to know is: what did he do about stopping those leakages when he was there?

Set up a Commission of inquiry.

Today, Sir, with him sitting on the Opposition bench, I am certain there will be no further leakages.

Order. I think that was clearly an imputation, and I do not think the hon. Member is justified in saying that.

Well, Sir, I have not referred to him. I have not referred to anybody. Possibly Government has taken tighter control, and there shall be no further leakages.

Order. If the hon. Member will not submit to the ruling of the Chair, then of course he cannot carry on. He must withdraw that imputation.

If that should be your desire, Sir, I do withdraw, if it implicates him. Sir, on the matter of inquiry, we must view the matter from the gravity of the offence. If a certain person is going to leak out news that probably will not harm anybody, then I see no reason why that matter should be taken up and investigated into. But if a leakage of such important information on Income Tax has occurred, it is a matter that has the whole attention of the people of Singapore focused on it. We in Singapore have always said, "We must trust our Civil Service. We want our civil servants to be neutral. We want them to be efficient. We want them to be able to work well !" On the other hand, we deplore the public for not coming out to help Government. We deplore the people of Singapore for sitting on the fence; not coming out with information to help the Police to enforce law and order. We blame them for not passing on information to the Criminal Investigation Department. But if we have such leakages as this from a Department that is sworn to secrecy, then what will the public think of coming out with information to the Government, when in all probability they will be discovered by their enemies the moment they step out of Government offices? This matter, Sir, is of a very grave nature, and it must be thoroughly investigated so that the wrong-doers are not just told off and the matter not repeated again. But they should be punished, and punished in accordance with what the law stipulated. This is a case, Sir, where the Members of this House have thought to be of such a serious nature that it must be brought up with a motion, and I am certain that everybody in Singapore is of the same opinion. We do not say: "If a person is wrong, well, other people may carry on. If it is wrong to leak out information, well, never mind, there have always been leakages," and so on. I think if there is something wrong, and we know that it has happened, we should find ways and means of stopping it. We should have ways and means not just of stopping it but also of protecting ourselves. We depend, Sir, on the Income Tax Department to collect large sums of money for our expenditure. If the people have no more faith in the Income Tax Department. I wonder what will happen. Sir, I want to talk about this matter of honour. I feel that when a person is on oath, when a person has made a promise to do something, or not to do something, it is of very great importance that he should keep that promise. I certainly feel that a person who has sworn to secrecy and then leaks out all such information is doing society a great harm. Such actions strike at the very roots of our democratic society. I always have remembered the good words Westerners say about the Easterners. I have heard it being said over and over again, that if you deal with an Easterner, especially with a Chinese, you can depend on his word. His word is as good as any legal document - even better. He will honour it, even if it means a loss to him. And today, Sir, we find that officers whom we have engaged to do confidential work leak out such information. They shake the very foundation of our society! Where will we end? I personally feel that we must keep all that is good that we have. We must not allow political or personal gains to come in between us, and disregard honour and good faith. I certainly feel that if people are weak in their faith, weak in keeping their promises, we should help them along, so that they are able to keep up the good old traditions. The way of the world today, Sir, is always for oneself, always for one's Party, and always for one's own power. What do we get out of that? Why do I worry about society? Society can go its way - anywhere, so long as I can get to where I want. If we do not train the people of Singapore, or rather - because it is a matter of preservation, and not training that we need - if we do not preserve this code of ethics, that we must keep our promises, then I think we will end up with something very sorrowful. We have heard in Singapore and elsewhere stories repeated in the Press, stories talked about by travellers. We have read that in the Press where Parties not of a democratic nature are ruling, Parties like the Communist Party to which the P.A.P. say they are not opposed, are having another type of ideology, another standard of conduct. We have heard that if you happen to be students, you may spy on your teachers and report to the People's Court, and condemn the teachers right off. If you happen to be employees, you can go along and condemn your employers publicly. Even if you happen to be the children of your own father or mother, you may go along and condemn them too, and then you will be held as heroes! I am certain, Sir, that we do not want such things. Society must be built on faith, on the faith that we have for our own fellowmen, and not on a spying system, whereby you may not do what you think is right to do without being reported. You have the fear of punishment hanging over your head, not knowing who is friend and who is foe. In a department like the Income Tax Department. I certainly have a very low opinion of the person who leaks out such secrets. Such a person is leaking out secrets to sources or to persons to whom he should not be loyal. I certainly believe that the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who offered us all this information, has a very low opinion of the person who offered such information in order to destroy those to whom he owes loyalty or loyalty to the Government he serves. We have heard, Sir, nowadays of what such people will reap in the end. We know that it may be of advantage to be in the favour of the Party that seems to be up and coming. But I would like to warn such people, and all civil servants, that if they are helping people, and by helping them they are disloyal to the Government, they are not going to go very far. In the City Council today, Sir, we have seen with our eyes what happened; we have heard that Mr Marcus is the founder member of the People's Action Party. He had been promoted one step after another until he came up to the top. Mr Marcus was the best man on earth! He was very efficient! He was rendering the people a great service! Under him there should be great progress! Indeed, there should be great progress - the progress of elimination of the people who have done them service and are now of no further use! Such will be the fate of all people who betray others in order to have personal gains. Let me say here, Sir, that if anybody should betray the Government to which they owe loyalty, then the next Government that comes in will have no faith in him. And if they have no faith in such a person, the only solution is the word "go" - with all the pension rights washed off. I certainly feel that honesty, loyalty and all those qualities that we have learned and that we feel are dear to us have always been a part of our civilisation and should be preserved at all costs. Today, with the elections coming so near, there will be many people trying to take advantage of the situation. There may be people who come along to the Assembly to say: "Look, you need not worry. We have all the information - all the files, whichever number; and we also know that there have been conferences behind the scenes with Mr Holloway, or with whoever is controlling any department. Oh, we know even more. You need not hide from us. Even in other departments, we have information. We have information even of a more secret nature. I can give an example. The Minister for Commerce and Industry need not tell us any tale. We know even more of the plans. We have the Permanent Secretary working for us, Mr K. M. Byrne." I have the greatest of respect for Mr Byrne, but when his name is used in such a manner, when he has just left Government service, it does give me a feeling that something is not quite right. I wonder, Sir, if a person were to give information to his Party when he is still in Government service, would that be right? Is that honourable? However, this may not be true. But then, coming from the Member for Tanjong Pagar, I cannot disbelieve it. This is getting more and more serious. We have heard the Member for Tanjong Pagar say: "Civil servants, keep politics out of your work!" And yet we have heard from him in the same breath: "We have so-and-so in our Party, a founder member, and another member in the Government service, very high in the Government service. They have resigned to contest the elections." Sir, it is wrong to take an active part in politics while in government service, and yet these people, although they may or may not have taken part in active politics, have certainly given information. What has the Government done about it? This is something worth investigating into. But I certainly hope that the people who have always been respected as civil servants by the people should keep politics away from their career, and keep the information they have at their disposal away from politics until such time as they have left the civil service and taken up politics. Even then, it will not be right for them to divulge secrets. The secrets should remain secret-secrets to which they have sworn secrecy!

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

Tomorrow, Sir.

Tomorrow it will be.

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