Hansard, 1959-07-15

10.01 a.m.

I have to inform Honourable Members that, under the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (6) respectively of Standing Order No. 61, I have appointed Mr A. P. Rajah to be Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and Mr G. Kandasamy to be Chairman of the Estimates Committee.

10.02 a.m.

Mr Speaker, I propose Mr G. Kandasamy as the Deputy Speaker.

I second the motion.

There being only one proposal, I declare Mr G. Kandasamy to have been duly elected Deputy Speaker.

10.03 a.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to provide for the control and management of the public finances of the State of Singapore, and for financial and accounting procedure, including procedure for the collection, custody and payment of the public moneys of the State of Singapore, and the purchase, custody and disposal of public property, other than land, of the State of Singapore and for matters connected therewith." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on item No. 1 of the Order Paper.

So be it.

Mr Speaker, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Financial Procedure Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Yes.

Can I have them?

Yes. Printed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Hon. Members will notice that in the copies handed around, there are manuscript alterations which did not appear in the original copies which were circulated prior to today.

10.07 a.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to provide for the suspension of the City Council and for the transfer of its functions to the Minister for National Development". Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Financial Procedure Bill.

So be it.

Mr Speaker, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the City Council (Suspension and Transfer of Functions) Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Yes.

Can I have them?

Yes. Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

"to make provision for the audit of the accounts of the State of Singapore and of other public authorities and bodies administering public funds", presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Thursday, 13th August, 1959, and to be printed.

"to amend the Trade Unions Ordinance (Chapter 154 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Thursday, 13th August, 1959, and to be printed.

10.15 a.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, (Chapter 53 of the Revised Edition)." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the City Council (Suspension and Transfer of Functions) Bill.

So be it. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of this Bill.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members? The Minister indicated assent. Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Honourable Members will notice one minor manuscript alteration to clause 1.

10.19 a.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to make temporary amendments to the Control of Rent Ordinance (Chapter 242 of the Revised Edition)." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Mr Speaker, immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Amendment No. 2) Bill.

So be it.

Mr Speaker, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Control of Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1959. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Yes, Mr Speaker. Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

10.23 a.m.

I beg to move, That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 7, at its rising today this Assembly do stand adjourned to Thursday, the 16th of July, 1959, at 2.30 p.m. Sir, under existing Standing Orders the House sits at 10 o'clock a.m. and adjourns at 12.30 p.m. It resumes sitting from 2.30 p.m. and adjourns at 4.30 p.m. The total time available for business in the House is altogether 4½ hours. It is proposed now that the House should sit from 2.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. This will give the House a total time of 5½ hours to attend to our business. With the new Government and with the new Constitution, we have entered a new era. The lackadaisical, slipshod and inefficient methods of the past must give way to efficiency and earnestness in the conduct of Government. It is the purpose of this motion to enable the Government benchers to attend to routine departmental work in the mornings. Under existing Standing Orders, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and our Assemblymen will not have time to attend to Governmental duties, nor will they have the time to meet the large numbers of public who are constantly interviewing us at the Ministries. This, Mr Speaker, is the main reason why I move this motion.

Khoon Choy): I rise to second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved. That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 7, at its rising today this Assembly do stand adjourned to Thursday, the 16th of July, 1959, at 2.30 p.m.

10.26 a.m. Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day].

Will the Minister signify the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before the Committee proceeds with the consideration of these Estimates?

I so signify.

The summary is at page 12 of Paper Cmd. (New Series) No. 10 of 1959. No notices of amendments have been received. I therefore propose to take the Heads of Expenditure en bloc. Question, "That the sums stated for the Heads stated in the summary of totals* contained in Paper Cmd. (New Series) No. 10 of 1959 stand part of the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959", put and agreed to. *Following is the summary:- Head Title $ 11 Defence Services 8,320 20 Legal 300 25 Contributions and Charitable Allowances 74,811 29 Income Tax 27,611 39 Supplies 1,500 60 Telecommunications 15,325 9 Broadcasting 1,046 15 Police 55,600 46 Education 2,500 47 Library, Raffles National 425 49 Medical and Health 522 56 Meteorological Services 1,150 D17 Prisons 100,000 D46 Education 374,928 D60 Telecommunications 3,500

Will the Minister please confirm that the total sum to be voted is $619,382 and not $667,538?

I confirm it.

Question, "That the sum of $619,382 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959 contained in Paper Cmd. (New Series) No. 10 of 1959", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, sections 95 to 100 in Part XI of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council-

Order. We are still on item 1, and all the Minister need do now is to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move that the Assembly doth agree-

Order. If the Minister will just report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution, the Clerk will then read the resolution and thereafter the Minister will move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Assembly doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.31 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, sections 95 to 100 in Part XI of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, establish a general framework for the control of public finances by the Legislative Assembly. It leaves the detailed forms of financial control, however, to be provided by law. The provisions of these sections of the Order in Council come into operation on the appointed day. It is therefore necessary that the former financial procedure for accounting based on Colonial Regulations and General Orders, which are now obsolete, should be replaced by new provisions. The new Constitution will effect certain changes in procedures and introduce new ones. For example, the terms of the Order in Council are such that it will not be possible to continue the practice of Below-the-Line Advance Accounts, financed from cash balances without a vote. These have hitherto been extensively used for trading and working accounts involving suspense payments. Again, section 99 of the Order in Council creates a Contingencies Fund which will be a new and useful method for meeting urgent and unforeseen needs. These and other changes in procedures will be effected by the Financial Procedure Bill now before the House. As indicated in the Preamble, the Bill will provide for the control and management of the public finances of the State of Singapore, and for financial and accounting procedure, including procedure for the collection, custody and payment of the public moneys of the State of Singapore, and the purchase, custody and disposal of public property, other than land, of the State of Singapore and for matters connected therewith. The explanatory statement sets out in simple form the effect of the various clauses of this Bill, and I therefore do not propose to enlarge at this stage upon this explanation. The Bill is complementary to the Audit Bill, which has had its First. Reading today, and to the Development Fund Bill which will shortly be introduced. Sir, I beg to move.

Before we proceed with the Second Reading, I think the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is required.

I have the recommendation, Sir. Question proposed. 10.35 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir. I rise to speak on the general merits of the Bill, and in doing so, I would like to touch particularly upon clauses 17 and 19 of the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 17 refers to the Audit Ordinance, 1959, and the provisions of clause 17 of this Bill seem to hinge on section 9 of the Audit Ordinance, 1959. As the House is aware, the Government proposes to take this Bill through all its stages this morning, this day. Perhaps the Minister for Law might indicate whether there is such an Ordinance known as the Audit Ordinance, 1959, on the statute book because, if there is not, it seems to me that clause 17 is quite meaningless. Now, clause 19, Mr Speaker, Sir, proposes a new method of dealing with defalcations of public servants or negligences committed by public servants with regard to public property or public finance. I have nothing to say against the principle of surcharging public servants, but Mr Speaker, the manner in which it is proposed to bring home the surcharges to public servants as set out in this Bill is, to say the least, very drastic and most unfair. The Bill proposes that if certain events do occur, then the Treasury calls upon the offending public servant to give a satisfactory explanation. The "Treasury", as defined in the defining clause, is the Minister himself, so that the position is - and the Minister here, I take it, is the Finance Minister - that when a public servant has infringed the provisions of clause 19 (a), 19 (b) or 19 (c), the Minister for Finance calls upon the public servant to give him a satisfactory explanation within a period specified by the Treasury - which again is the Minister himself - and if such a satisfactory explanation is not furnished to the Minister - who is again the Finance Minister - then the Minister may advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to surcharge the said person. The Constitution being what it is today, any advice tendered by the Finance Minister must be accepted by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and he must act on it. So we reach the position, if clause 19 is accepted by the House, that the Minister for Finance is both the policeman, the prosecutor, the judge and the jury - a state of affairs which I think the House will agree is undesirable if we desire to maintain a public service which has confidence and faith in the Government. And I do not think any Government which bases itself on parliamentary democracy would wish to destroy the morale of its public servants. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, at the appropriate time I shall move an amendment to seek to rectify what I consider an undesirable position. The second point, Mr Speaker, on which I wish to address the House, appears in line 22 of clause 19, which says "the original value of the property destroyed". I think it should not be the original value. It should be the value of the property destroyed at the time of destruction, and therefore I shall, at the appropriate time, move an amendment to seek to rectify this rather difficult position.

Mr Minister, in reply? If the Minister who has moved the Bill rises in reply, then, of course, no other Member will be allowed to speak. But if any other Member wishes to speak, perhaps the Minister will wait. 10.43 a.m.

Mr Speaker, I have heard the comments by the Member for Farrer Park on the Financial Procedure Bill in respect of clauses 17 and 19. In my experience, the most important thing is to see that the public finance of the State is being properly audited, to have a proper system of accounts instituted by Government, and a strengthening of the Audit Department. Clause 17, as far as the law is concerned, gives the Legislature enough power to check on the public accounts. I feel that the Member for Farrer Park has exaggerated what is laid down in clause 19 of this Bill. The purpose of clause 19, as I see it, is to protect the funds of the people from any misappropriation or any loss due to the negligence of certain members of the public service. Those members of the public service who have done a good job need have no fear. I remember in the Local Government Ordinance, which was passed in the previous Legislative Assembly, that there is also a clause which entitles the City Council - and I think the Member for Farrer Park has much experience there - to deduct from the provident fund of any member of the staff of the City Council who has misappropriated funds, or who has caused a loss of public money due to his negligence. There is no question that the Minister for Finance shall be the jury, the prosecutor and the judge, because, as it stands, there will be checks inside a democratic framework which Will prevent the Civil Service, or any member of the Civil Service, from being unduly brought to bear on any loss of public money. I am sure that the Member for Farrer Park will know that if any member of the Civil Service is to pay up money which the Government has decided that he should pay back to the public funds, there is always the resort of going to the courts of law; and in a democratic system, so long as the independence of the judiciary is being protected, I see there is no undue encroachment on a responsible, honest and efficient civil servant. 10.47 a.m.

Mr Speaker, within my experience of Government which has extended over many years, I can assure the House that it is not the usual practice to institute, say, judicial proceedings against officials when it is established that funds properly belonging to the State have not been carefully accounted for by the officials concerned. Whenever it is found that there has been a misappropriation or misapplication or an unaccountable loss of public property or public funds, the usual practice is for the head of department concerned to make a report to the Audit Department, and the Audit Department then in its executive function proceeds to make a full enquiry. After that, the matter is reported to the head of department and it is then up to him, after getting an explanation from the person concerned, to decide whether that person is to be surcharged with that loss. There is no question of there being a judicial inquiry into such matters. In this, Mr Speaker, we are not in any way departing from the usual procedure. In the procedure indicated in clause 19, it is quite clear that it is the Minister who will initiate action when it is brought home to him that there are defalcations and misappropriations or misapplications of public funds or public property. An inquiry is made if a satisfactory explanation is not given. Then he takes the matter up. He advises the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to surcharge the person with the whole or such proportion of the amount as is unaccounted for. That is the usual procedure. So I do ask the House to disregard what the Member for Farrer Park has said. He has suggested that the Government is trying to introduce a novel procedure - a procedure that is not in accordance with democratic practices. I would suggest, Mr Speaker, that there is no substance in what the hon. Member said. 10.50 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park made two points in his speech on the Bill. The first is a technical one, namely, that clause 17 of this Bill refers to an Audit Ordinance which does not exist and, to that extent, this clause of the Financial Procedure Bill may appear somewhat nonsensical. May I refer the learned Member for Farrer Park to clause 1 (2) of the Bill which provides that "The Minister may appoint different dates for the coming into operation of different provisions of this Ordinance."? Therefore, Mr Speaker, it is clearly an elementary matter to hold up the enforcement of clause 17 until the Audit Bill has become law. His second point is that clause 19 concentrates too much powers on the Minister in charge of finance in the civil service. Sir, the power to surcharge civil servants found guilty of carelessness or defalcation of funds is not, as my colleague the Minister for Labour and Law has pointed out, a new introduction in financial procedure in this country. I am surprised that the Member for Farrer Park raised objections to the granting of such powers to an elected Minister of the country, while he had no such objections in regard to powers. formerly held by the Financial Secretary to surcharge negligent public servants. My colleague the Minister for Labour and Law has explained in detail the procedures for disciplinary action when negligence is discovered in respect of public servants, and I have nothing more to add to it.

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. [Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee.

10.53 a.m. Clause 1 -

Honourable Members will notice two manuscript alterations in the clause. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Honourable Members will notice a manuscript addition in line 20. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 -

Honourable Members will notice a manuscript addition in line 11. Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 13 to 16 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 17 -

Honourable Members will notice a typographical alteration in line 5 and a manuscript addition in line 6. Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 18 -

There are deletions in lines 34 and 35 and manuscript additions in lines 35 and 38. Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 19 -

Sir, I beg to move two amendments to clause 19. May I hand up the amendments?

May I just look at the amendments? Amendments handed in. 11.00 a.m.

Perhaps the hon. Member will move the first amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, At page 9, lines 15 and 16, to leave out "a satisfactory explanation is not, within a period specified by the Treasury, furnished to the Minister" and insert "after due and proper inquiry, the Public Services Commission is satisfied that the said person has been guilty of misconduct or negligence".

Has the hon. Member got copies of the amendment by any chance?

Sir, I have only two copies. I regret that I have not made extra copies.

If the Member will please take his seat, perhaps hon. Members on the Government side would like a repetition of what is proposed to be moved unless notes have already been taken. Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

It is: At page 9, lines 15 and 16, to leave out "a satisfactory explanation is not, within a period specified by the Treasury, furnished to the Minister" and there to insert "after due and proper inquiry, the Public Services Commission is satisfied that the said person has been guilty of misconduct or negligence".

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for National Development, when speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, seemed to indicate that I was averse to the position where public servants can be surcharged for their misdeeds. In fact, the truth of the matter, Mr Speaker, is that when the Municipal Ordinance was in force for some considerable period since 1946, from which time I was a Member of the Commission. I felt that one of the defects of the Municipal Ordinance was that it did not have provision in that Ordinance whereby the neglect of Municipal servants could be surcharged. When the Municipal Ordinance was amended and the Local Government Ordinance, 1957, was brought into force and for some considerable time prior to that while the Ordinance was being considered by the City Council, I was in charge of that Bill on the City Council and I might inform the Minister for National Development that it was on my suggestion that that provision was inserted in the Local Government Ordinance, 1957. I want to make my position quite clear - that I am not quarrelling with the principle that a public servant should be surcharged for his misdeeds. It is only right and proper that it should be so because he is dealing with public funds. But my quarrel with this clause of the Bill is not the surcharging of the public servant but the manner in which the surcharge is sought to be brought about. Now, public servants, Mr Speaker, are an important category of persons in our system of government and they should be given every possible protection. I do not say that they should be molly-coddled and pampered like some of the past civil servants were, but they should be made to realise their proper position in society as we now know it, and they should be given proper protection in the discharge of their functions. That is the first point I would like to make. The second point is I think the Minister for Finance is the head of the civil service, or at least he is in control of the civil service, it would place the Minister himself, I beg to tell him, in the most invidious position where he has got to investigate the defalcation or the misappropriation of public funds, call for the individual servant for a satisfactory explanation, sit in judgment over it and then advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, who merely is the constitutional hand that imposes the surcharge, but the real hand behind the surcharge is the Minister himself. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I were the Minister for Finance, I should hate to be placed in that position. It is not merely a question of giving the public servant adequate protection but it is also giving the Minister himself adequate protection against placing himself in such an untenable position where he calls for an explanation from the public servant concerned and proceeds to take action himself. If hon. Members of the House will turn to the Explanatory Statement on page 12, paragraph 16 says: "Clauses 19 to 22 provide for the levy and enforcement of surcharges against any public servant who has been guilty of misconduct or negligence...". Might I repeat the phrase again: "...who has been guilty of misconduct or negligence which has occasioned the loss of moneys or stores, or overpayments of moneys, or failure to collect moneys duly payable to the State of Singapore." Quite a proper explanation: quite the proper thing. But the Bill itself, I regret. Mr Speaker, Sir, does not bring out the intention set out in paragraph 16 which appears on page 12 of the Explanatory Statement. It is the misconduct or the negligence of the public servant that must occasion the loss of the moneys. Now, does clause 19 bring that out, Mr Speaker, Sir? I beg to suggest that it does not. We have a Public Service Commission here, the Members of whom have been recently appointed. The function of the Public Service Commission is two-fold. First of all, to appoint public servants without fear or favour, and those public servants having been so appointed should hold their offices without fear or favour and without any danger of being victimised by a particular Minister or somebody over him. It was for that intent and purpose that the Public Service Commission was created. We have that body. Why do we not make use of that body? It costs the Government nothing. If the Minister for Finance or a departmental head finds that there has been defalcation, he merely reports the matter to the Minister concerned. The Minister concerned then reports it to the Public Service Commission which, I take it, has its own machinery to make these inquiries. All I ask this House is to accept this, not that surcharges should be dispensed with but that surcharges should be strictly adhered to. But in surcharging the officer, because the matter is so serious to the officer concerned, I think it is necessary that not only the officer but the Minister for Finance should himself be satisfied that perhaps he has not made a mistake. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Hon. Members are of course at liberty to range over the whole of the amendment.

Mr Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Farrer Park is still trying to make a gentle smear against the Government, that the Government is either lending its hand to or giving its support to undemocratic practices whereby good civil servants can easily be punished, say, by an irresponsible and a very bloody Minister for Finance. Now, Mr Speaker, I think my hon. Friend has not taken the trouble to read the Order in Council for, if he had done so, he would then understand the true functions of the Public Service Commission as laid down. I would refer my hon. Friend to section 81 (1) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council where it is stated: "Subject to the provisions of this Order, the appointment (other than an appointment to act in an office for two months or less), promotion, transfer from one Division or Service or from one class or grade to another, termination of appointment, dismissal and disciplinary control of every public officer is hereby vested in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara acting in accordance with the advice of the Commission." Mr Speaker, the question of a surcharge against any public officer for any misappropriation or defalcation of public funds or public properties is not a matter which concerns the discipline of an officer. It is just ordinary accounting practice: if it is found that the officer concerned is accountable for that loss, I would submit, with respect, that it is the duty of the Minister for Finance to see that that loss is properly accounted for. The question of discipline is an entirely different matter. Should it be found that an officer, through his negligence, merits dismissal, then the procedure will be through the Public Service Commission. I have no doubt that my colleague the Minister for Finance, who has been in the civil service with me for many years, understands that practice. If it is found that an officer should be surcharged and if it is found that although he has been negligent he has been a good officer and that the Government does not wish to take any disciplinary proceedings against him for that loss, then he will be only surcharged for that loss. But if it is found that his conduct merits more than a surcharge, then I have no doubt that the Minister for Finance will see that the necessary disciplinary proceedings are instituted against that officer. I have no doubt that he will then have recourse to the Public Service Commission, because it will be the Public Service Commission that will be the proper organ to deal with cases of indiscipline in the service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I again refer the Minister for Labour and Law to the clause in the Objects and Reasons on page 12?

Objects and Reasons are out of date. We now have Explanatory Statements.

I am sorry, Sir - the Explanatory Statement. Well, apparently the object of clause 19 would appear to be to surcharge a public servant who has been guilty of misconduct or negligence which has occasioned the loss. The loss should stem from negligence or misconduct. If there was any loss which did not stem from negligence or misconduct, clause 19 does not apply, according to the Explanatory Note. Now, negligence and misconduct are matters of discipline in any system of government. If the Public Service Commission is an instrument for discipline, what is the object of preventing the Public Service Commission from going into the question of misconduct or negligence before surcharging the officer? According to the Explanatory Statement, it is not the intention of Government to surcharge a public servant every time loss occurs but only when such loss stems from negligence or misconduct, which are matters of discipline or could be matters of discipline. 11.15 a.m.

Mr Speaker, I think the proposal before the House now is that the words, "if a satisfactory explanation is not, within a period specified by the Treasury, furnished to the Minister" be left out, and that they be substituted with the words indicated by my hon. Friend. Now, the explanations given in the Explanatory Statement will never form part of the Ordinance. I am only concerned with that proposal, and it is quite clear that it is very necessary that those words should be included in the text of Clause 19, because it is the Minister who will have to satisfy himself as to the reasons for the loss. I have already indicated just now, Mr Speaker, that it would be quite improper for the Minister for Finance to abdicate those functions of enquiry to an extraneous body like the Public Service Commission, when the question at issue is a loss of public funds and public property. Those are not the functions of the Public Service Commission, and I do recommend, Mr Speaker, that those words be left in the text of Clause 19.

Mr Speaker, I oppose the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Farrer Park. The hon. Member, when proposing the amendment, said that it was moved in part by feelings of compassion for the Minister for Finance, who would be faced with very hard decisions as to whether or not a public servant alleged to be negligent had provided a satisfactory explanation within a specified period. He said that the Minister would be placed in an untenable and invidious position. Sir, the Minister for Finance is responsible to this Assembly and to the country for the proper collection, custody and expenditure of public funds. In order to discharge these functions, he must have at his disposal certain powers to act against negligent public officers. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that the Ministers of the P.A.P. Government are of a more robust disposition than the Member for Farrer Park would credit us. I myself find no difficulty when confronted with a particular case to decide whether the explanation is satisfactory or not. There are certain rules and regulations which financial officers have to follow in the discharge of their duties, and if they have failed to observe these regulations, as a result of which the Government suffers financial loss, then I say it is quite an easy matter in a particular case to decide whether a surcharge should be levied against the offender.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I take objection to this amendment on principle. If Ministers abdicate their functions and hand them over to impersonal bodies, be they statutory or otherwise, then the whole business of this Government will slow down. We have seen what has happened in surrounding countries where, after they attained independence, the framework of the Government was based on the theories of democracy, and how by hard, practical experience, they went back to forms of guided democracy, or controls by Generals - in Burma and Pakistan - and by a Governor-General in Ceylon. Let me make it quite clear, at the opening of the five years of the P.A.P., that this is a Government prepared to govern. We are not going to "pass the buck" to anybody else. We need no Public Service Commission to be our executioner. We can carry the burdens of office, and I would be ashamed of my Minister for Finance if I believed that he could not discharge his duties as well as a former British official. And the activities of many former British officials, who had powers similar to these, have not, at any rate according to the opinions of Members of the Opposition, brought about the ruination of the Civil Service. Let me assure them that when we take action, the paramount consideration is the interest of the country as a whole. We are not out on petty vendettas. If we were, some of the Members opposite would be having a much more unhappy time than they are having at the moment.

Mr Chairman, I am glad of the assurance of the Hon. the Prime Minister that the P.A.P. Government are not engaged on any vendetta. All they are concerned with is the preservation of parliamentary democracy. I am very glad to have this assurance from no other a person than the Prime Minister himself. I should hate to agree with anybody outside that is not so. However, Mr Chairman, the point and purpose of this discussion today is not on the mechanics of parliamentary democracy, or what is going on in surrounding territories, or that guided democracy has come into force, but a system of-

Check and counter-check.

No. If you will let me finish, Mr-

Order. The hon. Member should address the Chair.

What we are trying to do here today is to find a suitable financial procedure within the context of our own conception of what parliamentary democracy should be. We in the Opposition feel that there are others also besides Ministers who have their places in a parliamentary democracy. Those sitting behind the Hon. the Prime Minister too have their place in a parliamentary democracy, and I and my colleagues sitting beside me too have a place in a parliamentary democracy. So let us therefore not talk about our various allotted and destined places in the system of government on which we are now embarked. But what I am concerned about, Mr Chairman, is this: if the point and purpose of this clause is to see that the public does not lose its funds, then let us create a system which will ensure that without causing untold damage or harm. Let us not get too dictatorial because we think we have the power at our disposal. Let us find a system under which we will meet the needs of the situation without causing too much hardship, and giving the impression to everyone that the thing has been done properly. That is the purpose of this amendment, and if the Government feel that they cannot accede to it, they have got 43 votes and they can use them against me.

Mr Speaker, imagine ourselves, the people of Singapore, as shareholders of a firm and entrusting the money of the public to the Manager, the Minister for Finance. In order to carry on business, the Minister for Finance, as Manager, will engage many accountants and storekeepers. One of these storekeepers was found out - that instead of 10 cases of beer, there were only five cases in stock. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that it is the duty of the Manager, and not of a judge, to go and claim the 5 cases of beer lost. Why has this to be done? Why have clause 19 and the whole idea of the Financial Procedure Bill, to be pushed through? It is because we have found out that the whole state of affairs of public finance in this country is most unsatisfactory. In the City Council, we found out that many bills were paid without proper vouchers. Money had been wasted. The auditors had passed very pertinent remarks on the accounts of the City Council for 1956 and previous years, and even 1958. When we were in the City Council, we managed to put the whole thing right. We have now moved into the Government, and we find that the same state of affairs exists in the Government as existed in the City Council. The Public Works Department, which spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year, has only a qualified accountant, working part-time, and I can assure hon. Members that certain regulations will be enforced. The Telecommunications Department, where millions of dollars a year are involved, has no qualified accountant; neither has the Post Office any qualified accountant in the past few years. I am not in a position to make mention of the departments in other Ministries. In my Ministry, where these three departments are, the most money is spent on them, and in the Ministry we have only the services of a part-time qualified accountant to look into the question of how hundreds of millions of dollars which the people pay in taxes are spent. Mr Speaker, clause 19 is to see that the public funds of the people of this country are properly spent, and that every cent which our people have to contribute to the State Treasury through their sweat and toil is properly looked after by our Minister of Finance.

Mr Speaker, it appears that the Member for Farrer Park is against clause 19 of the Financial Procedure Bill just because, in his interpretation, the absolute authority is vested in the elected Minister. The Member quite obviously is prepared to accept an inefficient and inadequate management of public finance, as it has been in the past, but not the integrity and judgment of an elected Minister. 11.30 a.m. Sir, during the past 130 years of colonial rule, there have been many stages in our history where colonial masters were in absolute authority over many affairs of the country. It was so even a few years ago when the hon. Member for Farrer Park and his colleagues were in reign. It appears to me that the hon. Member for Farrer Park is confusing the mechanics of democracy with the functions of the civil service. The duty of this Government is to make sure that the civil service implements the policy which we want implemented. We have stated very clearly that we do not intend to victimise the civil servants. An elected Minister of this Government has a duty to the Party, and the Party as a whole has a duty to the country. Our paramount duty is to implement our policies in general, and in this particular event to make sure that the finances of the country are in order and that there is no misappropriation and mishandling of public finances, it is proper and morally right that that duty should be vested in the elected Minister and not in any public body.

(In Malay): Mr Chairman, regarding the Financial Bill which is under discussion in this House, on this the first day we are carrying out our duty together, I, on the Opposition side, do not wish, at all times, to oppose or criticise the Government on any matter to be carried out for the people and for the country. But, at first, today, it did not occur to me, nor do I see, anything in clause 19 which could be said to be a matter that can cause fear to those who are in or who are serving in the Government. If we really truly love our responsibilities, then there is not a thing, I find, in clause 19 which gives the Minister power whereby he could threaten or victimise people who, as I said, truly wish to serve loyally for the benefit of the people and of our country. So I would like to emphasize that we, on the Opposition, particularly speaking, for myself, I would like to state that whatever is good we will surely support. But we are not happy because a while ago, I myself was surprised to see that when the Prime Minister rose to speak, it appeared as though the Prime Minister wanted to pounce on the Opposition Members - not all perhaps - but it certainly appeared as though the Prime Minister wanted to pounce on and to devour the eight of us including me myself. But we the Opposition will always co-operate and give due consideration to whatever is for the benefit of the country, but not with the object of benefiting a political party or those in sympathy with any political party. This is what we wish to emphasize, because our duty is to develop the country; and for national development we need money and it is our duty to see that every officer to whom we have entrusted power, should safeguard the property of the public and of the country, so that we would be able to carry out whatever is deemed appropriate for our count. So, clearly, I do not wish to say that I do not completely agree with what is in this clause. But I wish to emphasize that whoever among the government staff will really serve and sincerely carry out his duty, will not have anything to fear in this Bill, if it is passed - for it seems, passed indeed it will be; for if it is not, and if it takes two or three days, we are surely going to be steam-rollered; but even if we are steam-rollered, we still say that if whatever the Government proposes to do is for the good, we will surely support it, but if, and I stress, if it is for the selfish interest of only a handful of people, my fellow citizens, then we will surely voice our regret and sorrow, for, perhaps this Government is not based on such an outlook. Amendment negatived.

My second amendment concerns clause 19 again, line 22, Sir. It is quite a simple amendment, by striking out the word "original" in that line and substituting nothing for it. The purpose of the clause, Mr Chairman, is to charge the officer concerned with the original value of the property destroyed. I take it that the original value of the property destroyed would be the value of the property at the time of the purchase. Now, if the property destroyed is, in fact, destroyed three or four years after purchase, the value of the property would have gone down. In these circumstances, would it be fair to charge the officer with the original value? I take it that there is no intention on the part of the Government to make a profit on this surcharge, but merely to recover whatever actual loss Government might have suffered.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I oppose the amendment. The Member for Farrer Park seems to have in mind the fact that the Government intends to surcharge the offending officer with the whole value of the property destroyed. But it is clear that the wording of this clause, which I will now read, gives the Minister discretion to reduce the amount of surcharge. Now, may I refer him to line 19 onwards: "...the Minister may advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to surcharge against the said person the whole, or such proportion of any such amount not collected, payment, deficiency, or loss or the original value of the property destroyed as the case may be,". The presumption which moved the amendment seems to be that this Government has in mind the worst possible penalty to inflict upon the civil service. I see no reason whatsoever for the Member for Farrer Park to have this frame of mind against the present Government.

Sir, when a statute gets on to the statute book, it remains in force for a longer period than five years. Surely, Mr Chairman, when we do get a statute on to the statute book we do not think of the particular Government in power at the time when that legislation is enacted. One thinks of the enactment as an enactment which will remain in force for a longer period than the P.A.P. government itself. So why the P.A.P. should align itself and identify itself with all the provisions of the Bill I am at a loss to understand. We are legislating for the country and not for P.A.P. Ministers. Amendment negatived. Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 22 -

There is a manuscript addition in line 35 after "21". Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 23 and 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.45 a.m.

Mr Speaker, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main purpose of this Bill is to provide for the suspension of the City Council and transfer of its functions to myself as Minister for National Development. Mr Speaker, we have gone down to the people, to absorb the Local Government operatives of Singapore within the framework of the central government. It was one of the planks in our election platform. We come today in order to carry out that plank. During the first week of June, the by-elections of the City Council were suspended and, at the same time, the functions of the City Council which were not taken over by the previous Minister for Local Government were transferred to myself as Minister for National Development, by order, namely the City Council (Transfer of Functions) Order, 1959. The present position is that we have 16 Councillors, who exist in name but who have no functions to play. We have decided that they shall not get any allowance since the City Council (Transfer of Functions) Order, 1959, was promulgated. By this Bill, the City Council shall cease to have responsibility for the local government of the City and the Council shall be deemed to have retired on the date of the coming into operation of this Bill. Clause 6 of the Bill will enable myself, as the Minister for National Development, to exercise the functions, duties, discretions and authorities normally exercised by the City Council. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.50 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the principle involved in this Bill. It is this: Is the present Government interested in fostering democracy in this country and therefore supporting and fostering democratic institutions which build up to the apex of parliamentary government, or is the present Government merely interested in concentrating all the powers of Government into the hands of seven or nine individuals and thereby making it easy for the time to be reached in our history when the power in the nine could be concentrated into one to merge into a national dictatorship? It seems to me that the signs are that the present Government is only interested in centering unto itself all the powers of Government which previously had been distributed into this group, that group and the other in order that these groups themselves would understand what a parliamentary government is and what a parliamentary institution is and what a democratic system is. In no country, Mr Speaker, where parliamentary democracy prevails, has the central government abolished a system of local government. The lifeblood of a parliamentary system of government comes from the local people themselves who govern their own affairs in their own small way. A licence for a hawker, a licence for a market stall, might be a very small matter to the Minister for National Development when he has so many departments under his control - half of Singapore is under the control of the Minister for National Development. In these circumstances, who could blame him if he is not bothered about a hawker's licence or a stallholder's licence, which, Mr Speaker, are important matters in the life of certain people? Now, is it not fair and proper that some time should be spent over people like them, rather than that they be brushed aside by bureaucratic methods? Is the Minister for National Development trying to tell this House that he can adjudicate on all these claims himself, or will he be completely dependent on his civil servants? If not his civil servants, then those sitting near him beside him and behind him. No, Mr Speaker, if we are interested in fostering a parliamentary democracy, it is vital that the country should also foster local institutions which govern in a democratic way. It is no use telling this House that all the Government is interested in is efficiency. Efficiency is not everything in one's life. If you want efficiency there are other systems of government which we could go to. In any event, what does this Bill mean? It merely means that the Minister for National Development takes over all the functions of the City Council. The City Council as a statutory corporation, I take it, still remains intact. That is not tampered with. I think the more logical thing, Mr Speaker, would be to have the whole of the Local Government Ordinance repealed and whatever functions the City Council or other local authorities have under that Ordinance be transferred to the Government. Let us get back to the original state of Singapore when Government was the apex and point of all Government functions. Is that what we are getting back to? Are we getting back to 120 years ago instead of moving forward and trying to decentralise? Are we trying to centralise everything in that seven-storey building at Upper Pickering Street? Many people have fallen to death from that place. I hope the Minister for National Development has not taken too much on his plate. I hope he will still be with us at the end of his five years. 11.57 a.m.

Mr Speaker, I think I may remind the Member for Farrer Park that we are springing no surprise on the people of Singapore. We have in our publication "The Tasks Ahead", even before Nomination Day explained to the people of Singapore what were the policies we intended to implement if with their support we became the government of this territory. We have explained, Mr Speaker, that it was quite impossible, in a territory which measures only about 220 square miles, to have in it two governments, two administrations competing side by side in a territory which is so small in its extent, Sir. We traced the history of municipal governments in Singapore in our publication "The Tasks Ahead". There were, Mr Speaker, in the past, two rival administrations in this territory. One was the Colony of the Straits Settlements and the other was the Federated Malay States. You will find that in these two administrations at one time in our history there were a Governor of the Straits Settlements and a High Commissioner of the Federated Malay States. Those were Colonial administrations no doubt, and they were unified by the Head of State. At that time, Mr Speaker, I think you will remember, and many of us here will remember, that there were separate settlements in Penang, in Malacca and in Singapore. The Colonial Secretary was in charge of the Settlement of Singapore and there were resident counsellors in Penang and in Malacca. The same pattern of Government obtained in the territories of the Federated Malay States. There were British residents in those territories, and above all these at the apex were the Governor and the High Commissioner. Now in that set-up, it was natural that you did foster local government. In fact, there was a time in the history of Singapore where you did have, say, an elected City Council, and for some reason or other, way back in 1879 to the 1880's, the Singapore Municipal Council ceased to be an elected body. Now, with the liberation after the Japanese occupation of this country, the pattern of Government has changed. You had then a Malayan Union which was, in fact, a British Crown Colony of what was the Federated Malay States and the Unfederated Malay States. And then you have a separate Colony of Singapore. I will not go into the details of recent history. It is known to you all, that the idea of a Malayan Union, the idea of a Crown Colony of the Federated Malay States and the Unfederated Malay States was not acceptable to Malay opinion upcountry. For that reason, the Administration there was transformed into the Federation of Malaya, which has since given way to the present situation in the Federation. Since then, we also have marched on the road to self-government and eventually to the road of merger with the Federation in one sovereign independent State of Malaya. Now, in that situation, Mr Speaker, you have seen what had happened in the City Council in the past two years before the P.A.P. became the Government of Singapore. You could see, Mr Speaker, that parliamentary forms were completely abused. There was no government in the City Council as we understand it. In the colonial system it was possible for matters to be managed and for some semblance of a government to be in the City Council, but that was not a situation which obtained when the P.A.P. became a majority party in the City Council. Then again we have asserted in our manifesto, "The Tasks Ahead", that we as a Government, we the P.A.P. as a Government of Singapore, believe in efficiency, and we want the cost of administration to be reduced. It is well known to everybody in Singapore that the functions of Government are distributed between the central Government, the City Council, the S.I.T. and other quasi-Government bodies and agencies. Now that leads to a tremendous duplication of effort. It leads to a considerable waste of public funds and waste of public time if you want to get on with the work you have in mind. We are no more in the period when we can afford waste in the system of Government. There is no reason why they should vie with one another. There is no reason why, for instance, there should be a Ministry of Health and also a Department of Health in the City Council duplicating all the functions all the way. There is no reason why there should be an Engineers' Department in the City Council and a separate P.W.D. for the central Government. It has been known that each department tended not to regard the interests of the community of Singapore but to regard its own interests as paramount. We have known cases where there were idle engineers and idle architects in the City Council. There was no means by which we could call upon their services to reinforce, say, the architectural department or the engineers' department in the P.W.D. when they were hard pressed. Now, that is a very simple illustration of the things we have in mind. All that leads to extra cost. All that leads to frustration amongst the public and a complete hatred of the present scheme of things. During our election campaign, we had only to tell the public of Singapore to just look at the situation that had been produced by the energetic sense of duty and the excellent performance of our former Mayor in the City Council. He could get things done, and that was what the members of the public wanted. They wanted things to be done. It was quite easy to get their support. We had only to tell them, "Look at the situation before Ong Eng Guan was the Mayor of Singapore. You queued outside the office of the Registrar of Vehicles." You and I have seen them queuing up day after day, night after night, whenever they wanted to renew their licences and registrations. All that ceased with the energetic work of our former Mayor, Ong Eng Guan. That is what the public of Singapore want. They want efficiency and they want government. What did our colleagues seated opposite me say? They were going to give everything away to the people of Singapore: free this, free that. We had only to mention that on our platform and they just laughed in complete scorn. Now, Mr Speaker, that is what we stand for. We stand for an efficient, honest and incorruptible administration. We do not believe in mere performance. That is what our opponents believe in. It is only under that scheme of things that they are able to perform. We can perform because we have the support of the masses and because we know that we have the will and the determination to govern for them in their interest and to do everything we can for them. 12.04 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the Member for Farrer Park when debating this Bill always mentioned the question of parliamentary democracy. We sitting here got our seats through democracy. If it was through dictatorship, there would have been no opposition in front of us here. We consider that our victory, that we can form this Government, is based on parliamentary democracy. We have obtained a mandate from the people in submitting this Bill. We are not submitting this Bill without having proposed in the general elections that if we were elected we would carry out this and that. What we are submitting now is what we promised to the people, if we formed the Government, which means that what we are doing now has the support of the voters in Singapore. It is not through unparliamentary democracy. If this Government centralise its work at Upper Pickering Street, which is said to be the venue of many a death, I think the deaths were due to disappointments at the previous Government. I think the administration will be easier if it is not through so many steps, which delays the work of Government. This is especially needed by people who are lazy. In fact, the people of Singapore require a quick change to improve their life. 12.07 p.m.

Mr Speaker, it is the second time this morning that the Member for Farrer Park stood up as a defender of parliamentary democracy. All of us have heard this before during the election campaign - the great Alliance of defenders of democracy. And here we see in the Assembly on the opposite side of this House the remnants of that "rabble" army.

Order. I did not, of course, think that so early in the proceedings I had to rise on a point of order. I think that possibly "rabble army" with reference to Members of this Assembly is an unparliamentary expression and ought to be withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, I meant `r-a-b-b-l-e".

Order. "Rabble" is unparliamentary and I ask the Minister to withdraw it.

I withdraw it. Mr Speaker, perhaps the Member for Farrer Park fails to realise that this Assembly has come into being as a result of compulsory voting, and if anyone is to be the defender of parliamentary democracy, it is the Government that is in power today. There seem to have been fears that, in the name of efficiency, certain local authorities are to be scrapped. Evidently, certain people would prefer inefficient government, but this Government will not stand for it. We have made it quite clear in our election campaign that we shall scrap the duplication - perhaps the triplication - of work in a small island of 1½ million people. If we think of the island of Singapore in the context of the world, those who have been around would have laughed that a puny little island of 1½ million people has got so many bodies trying to govern within themselves and ignoring the others. So in the interest of efficient administration and of producing the goods to the people, we the Government wish to centralise. Centralism can be dangerous but with he overwhelming majority of the people behind this Government and the fact that we are grounded with the people and not away from the people, we shall maintain true parliamentary democracy. 12.12 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, in the debate regarding the City Council (Suspension and Transfer of Functions) Bill, it seems that among the reasons given by Government is the allegation that the previous power was a colonial power and was corrupted: but what the Opposition side would like to emphasise in this Bill is the true fact given by the Minister for Education who said that centralised power can bring disadvantages to this country. In this way, we would like to make a suggestion regarding this plan so that the Government will not spoil the fate of the people of Singapore. There are reasons to say that the Government cannot properly administer the State of Singapore in an orderly manner. We all understand that the previous period was a period in our history which aimed at high ideals in administering our own country. Now we have just come to the stage of holding the reins of government fully in all matters of administration. We must be careful in a plan such as this. I am afraid that this Government is trying to establish a government - or, the democracy to be carried out in Singapore, is a democracy in the form of the suppression or the prevention of opinions which are contrary to those of the government, because I have observed the things which have been carried out by the Ministry of National Development in investigating the conditions in places which they thought should be given every facility; they did so without discussing the matter with the elected representatives for those areas. For instance, I am the representative elected by the people of the Southern Islands, but when the Ministry of National Development wanted to investigate the conditions or the weaknesses of the islanders, the Ministry never contacted the representative of that area. Is this the parliamentary democracy which is uppermost in the minds of the Government? If it is our intention to work together to build the State of Singapore, mutual respect should exist in this Assembly. The Opposition should not be looked upon as the remnants of colonialism. We are the representatives of the people. We are supposed to work together to build an independent Singapore.

I think this is an appropriate time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.16 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, this morning the Member for Farrer Park has expressed his concern for the welfare of taxi drivers, hawkers and other members of the proletariat. His concern, I must say, warmed the cockles of our hearts, at least even if it does not raise the temperature of this chilly Chamber a bit. However, I would like to assure the Member for Farrer Park that to express concern for the welfare of the proletariat in the Assembly, or be it in the City Council, is not enough. What the proletariat is more concerned is that action be taken on their behalf, and my Party has never missed our work and neither have we been content to lead on our words alone. I would assure the Member for Farrer Park that our taxi drivers, and our hawkers today are happier, now that the P.A.P. is in the Government than at any time when the Member for Farrer Park was a Member of the City Council. I do not want to go into the technical details and reasons why we are proposing to absorb the City Council into the functions of the Central Government. We have had several weeks of debate on this problem during the General Elections campaign, and the electorate was fully aware that this scheme of ours to absorb the City Council into the Central Government was part of our five-year plan. The fact that the P.A.P. today has been returned by the people with an absolute majority would show that they fully support this scheme of ours which we now formally propose in this Assembly to be regularised by an Ordinance. It will be tiring and wearisome if we were to go again into the details of speeches we made during the five weeks of electioneering, and I do not propose to do that. This morning, the Member for Farrer Park showed a considerable degree of preoccupation with dictatorship. I am sorry that he has an obsession on dictatorships, but I would say that there are two possible solutions to this obsession - one, to flee the country; two, to jump down from the seventh floor of the S.I.T. offices in Pickering Street, as advocated by the Member for Farrer Park. However, I would say that this latter action would be, to say the least, most embarrassing because, on the one hand, someone on the Opposition benches would have to make an obituary speech and, on the other hand, for us altogether we shall have to face a by-election. I can assure the House that we on the Government benches do not have people who are megalomaniacs, nor manic-depressives. I must say that we should thank our lucky stars that there are not enough paranoids in this Chamber to make the public conclude that we are like Woodbridge Hospital inmates. 2.35 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, this morning we heard speeches relating to the Bill tabled by the Government. I am surprised when I see the Government's stand, because I know when I was a Minister in the previous Government, we formed a Committee on Local Government, on which the P.A.P. were represented. This Committee made many proposals which were tabled in the Assembly and were accepted unanimously by the P.A.P. and their representatives. Besides, in 1957, the then Government tabled a Bill on local government on the number of assemblies - the City Council and District Councils - which were agreed to by the representatives of the P.A.P. In addition to that, the P.A.P. also took a major part in the general elections in 1957 when the P.A.P. put up 14 candidates. Mr Speaker, I am surprised that the P.A.P. took a decision about a month or two before the general elections to abolish the policy concerning the legislation or the policy regarding local government. This morning, the Government gave three reasons for abolishing local government. The first concerns finance; the second, to lessen administrative problems; and the third, to centralise administration. I would like to debate them one by one. Regarding finance, I do not know how we can reduce it. If we want to consider the expenses of the representatives - $200 each per month, the Mayor, $1,000 per month - I estimate that approximately $90,000 will be scent every year. In my opinion, the $90,000 per annum spent is not $90,000 thrown into the ocean; rather with it we can train representatives from the people. I know, Mr Speaker, that today the P.A.P. naturally represents the majority of the people. On the other hand, we on the Opposition side, also represent the people of Singapore. Although the number is small, it is the responsibility of the Opposition to give advice and views to the Government to facilitate government administration. Therefore, Mr Speaker, if the aim is to lessen expenses, and if we take that as a basis, the Opposition in this Assembly might as well be abolished. Secondly, to minimise the work. Mr Speaker, it was to streamline the workings of the local government that Government appointed a Committee on Local Government in 1955 which included representatives of the P.A.P. That Committee put up a number of suggestions, among others, to separate public utilities from the City Council. It was also suggested that Government should unite a number of departments in the City Council with those of the Government. When the present Government say that they want to lessen work, it is not a new suggestion. It is really an old proposal, a proposal which was submitted by the Committee on Local Government and was accepted by the previous Assembly. The matter of lessening the work, Mr Speaker, is a matter which has been accepted by the previous Government, including the Opposition side, that is to say, the representatives of the P.A.P. The third reason which has been put up by the Government is to centralise administration. It is a good thing to centralise administration and that was also suggested by the Committee. But if centralisation means putting into the hands of a few the power of life and death then we might as well have no elected representatives. Just now, if I am not mistaken, one of the Members of the Government said that in Singapore the population is only 1,500,000. He also said that in a small island such as this, where the population is one and a half million, it is not wise to have a number of layers of administration. This I think is not reason enough. There are a number of countries in the world which have a population of less than 1½ million which have an administration as we do have in Singapore - central and local governments. If this is one of the reasons, it is not right. Another said that numerous layers of administration will give rise to unnecessary arguments between the Government and various bodies. But, Mr Speaker, I am of the opinion that because this Assembly is the highest authority in Singapore, it has power to amend laws and to take action if there is any maladministration - whether in the City Council or District Council - which contradicts the position of Government. So the power is with us. It is not necessary to abolish a body which in my opinion - whether administered by Government or not - should always work not for self interest but for the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, if we decide today to abolish local government it would mean that we will be taking action with an iron hand. Although I know that the Government has a majority, I am of the opinion that the decision to abolish local government will only give rise to bad blood which is not good. What will the people say? The Government must realise that not all the people of Singapore voted for them, but only 54 per cent, and there are the 46 per cent who did not vote for them. Finally, Mr Speaker, as far as I know, from my experience, it is only countries which do not practise democracy which can and indeed had carried out a measure such as this. 2.49 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the Bill before us and under discussion today, in my opinion, is a Bill which should not be debated upon at great length because the question of absorbing the departments of the City Council into Government service, especially into the Ministry of National Development, has already received the support of the people because the P.A.P. has made it a major point on its platform during the election campaign. For the information of the Opposition Members, our Party has been successful in getting the reins of Government in Singapore today. The basic question which should be discussed concerning the question of absorption of these departments into Government service is the question of finance. The financial stringency faced by the Government today is a real one. We have asked the people to take steps to do their bit to shoulder this urgent problem. We have heard the Member for Geylang Serai say that this Government is taking action with an iron hand, and the Member for Southern Islands has said that the Government is not practising democracy. But this, surely, is absolutely untrue, because the factors which we should consider are varied. What has been said by the Member for Geylang Serai is only a figment of his clouded and erratic thoughts. He stated that the previous Government had formed committees, etc. But the ex-Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing should realise that whatever departments are functioning in the Central Government, for example, the departments of health, architecture and engineering are also to be found in the City Council. And all these factors should be seriously considered; we have a number of departments in the Government and in the City Council where the nature of the jobs done is the same. The best example I can cite is the question of building houses. The plans for these houses are given to the City Council, then they are given to the Department of Lands and then to the S.I.T. If they are concerned with rural areas, the plans are sent to the Rural Board. This process is indeed a time-waster. Some plans take months to be finally approved and some have been known to take two to three years. This would not only cause loss in revenue to the Government but this is also a loss of considerable time to the applicant. This is a matter which should be rectified in the administration of this country. Our main aim regarding administration is to make it function smoothly and and efficiently and we can achieve this if we absorb these extra departments into the central Government. Lastly, I wish to say something to the Member for Southern Islands about his reference to the P.A.P. as not being democratic, by mentioning the recent visit to the Southern Islands by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development. I suspect that certain people are jealous or envious and feel that they should have been informed about this visit. I feel that this kind of feeling should be erased from the mind of everyone who is a democrat, and who is conscious of his responsibilities and the responsibilities of others. The new Government of Singapore does not only look into the interests of Members but rather, and more, into the interest of people as a whole. Therefore, whoever has a task to be carried out should be able to do so without having to refer to the Member of the constituency concerned. Whatever job that is done is not done for the self glorification of any particular Member but for the Government and the people at large. I do not intend to say anything adverse about the character of the Member of the constituency concerned. I want him to know what the new Government is attempting to do. As for the remarks made by the Member for Geylang Serai, I just have to say that we should work for the benefit of all. Therefore let us work together not for any particular section of the people, but for all the people in Singapore.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today we are facing the local government Bill. We must face it on two reasons. I wish to give the two reasons to our friends on the opposite side. We told our Opposition Members what we wanted to do, but if they can be more wise, the creation of this Assembly is by means of democratic election. In the election the P.A.P. had a certain and correct manifesto with a five-year Government policy put before the people for them to decide. Today we must do the duties which are given to us by the will of the people. Sir, talking about democracy, we must respect the will of the people, to put it more correctly. Therefore, this question we can answer Members on the opposite bench. The second point. If a government is elected by the people, then we must think whether we can make full use of our strength to put our effort to do the things and duties which are given to us by the people. If we can ask ourselves that, then our answer must be yes. We must keep our promises made during the elections. If the previous Government dared to see the people, then they would know how the people suffered. My colleague just now said that in the previous colonial society, in an application for building an attap house, they had to run to three departments to get a licence. When they are hawking, they are suffering two ways of oppression - arrests and prosecutions. There is an arrest issued by the central government. Then we must make the people of Singapore continue to suffer without any change in the society to improve their lives. If we can amend this Bill then we can make full use and save a lot of effort by the people of Singapore and we can lessen a great amount of inconvenience that has been put on the common people of Singapore. During this period of change, we must get rid of the bureaucracy that was left to us by the previous Government. We must establish an efficient administration. All this work depends on the joint effort of the Members of this Assembly. This refers to the livelihood of the people of Singapore and we must try our best to meet their needs. 3.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Honourable Minister in charge of the Bill in moving the Second Reading of this Bill gave, in fact, a very short speech. I had hoped that he would at least have given us some cogent reasons why this Bill should have been introduced. I know, Sir, why this Bill has been introduced. Of course, Members on the other side will rise and deny that it is so. Because it is not to their credit if they were to admit that what I am going to say is right. Sir, there had been no talk of winding up the City Council until the P.A.P. City Councillors, including the P.A.P. Mayor, resigned from the City Council. They had to find a reasonable excuse why these City Councillors deserted their posts in spite of what their chairman said at a Press Conference when my colleague, the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing in the previous Government, took over certain powers of the City Council. What did their chairman say? "The P.A.P. City Councillors will remain in office to serve" - this is what he said - "to serve the interests of the hawkers, the taxi drivers and a lot of other things, the proletariat." This, Sir, is the Party that claims that it always stands on what it says. And yet the P.A.P. Councillors deserted their posts. Some hon. Members: Nonsense!

"We always stand" - that is what they say, I never said it - "we stand by what we publicly proclaim! We proclaim that our City Councillors shall remain in office to serve the poor people". And yet they ran away. Ran away! An hon. Member: Rubbish!

Order. An hon. Member: Rubbish!

Order. I think the hon. Member is perhaps getting a little excited. Perhaps he should modulate his voice because it rather intimidates the Chair.

I am sorry, Sir. One tends to lose one's sense of balance when one comes across such hypocrisy, and I must admit-

Order. The hon. Member has forgotten that I have in the past over-ruled the word "hypocrite" in relation to Members of this Assembly. There are certain Members of this Assembly to which that word is, I think, being applied by the hon. Member. Therefore, he must be rather careful of what he says.

Not hypocrite, Sir. All I can say is there is a claim to honesty which is a most dishonest claim.

Order. I am afraid the hon. Member is still being a little disorderly. The expression `claim to dishonesty' - I forget now the exact wording-but the expression itself implies dishonesty in so far as Members of the Government benches are concerned and, therefore, again that expression is unparliamentary.

Sir, the Members on the Government benches are honourable men and, therefore, they cannot be dishonest at all because they are honourable.

Has the hon. Member withdrawn that expression?

I have, Sir. They have to find a reasonable excuse for it. There was this sudden - I will not call it running away - this sudden desire to better serve the people of Singapore, and they had to find a reasonable excuse. And what is the reasonable excuse? "Oh, the City Council is no good! We scrap it!" Sure, it is a reasonable excuse. It had never been in their minds before. In fact, if it had been, the Chairman of the P.A.P. would not have said, "Our City Councillors will remain in office to serve the people - the proletariat." Yes, nice word - the "proletariat". Then they say, "This is for better efficiency." Wonderful, Sir, It means that during the time when the P.A.P. was in power in the City Council, they were not efficient. Therefore, they must scrap the City Council for better efficiency. Wonderful! For economies? Yes. And yet during the election campaign what assurance was given to the City Council employees? "We will scrap the City Council, but the City Council employees need not be unduly alarmed. They shall not be affected." Sir, how could you practise economy if you do not cause hardship or affect the livelihood of City Council employees? I do not know. Perhaps the economic experts can produce a plan whereby they can practise economy without saving money. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister said that the drivers and hawkers are happier today now that the P.A.P. is in the Government. I would ask him to go and ask the hawkers and the taxi drivers, who now curse the day that they ever voted P.A.P.

At any time, when you were-

Order.

No, it is all right. Taxi drivers have now reduced their fares just to attract the people. "Mari-lah, dua puloh sen! Twenty cents is all right. I do not want 30 cents because times are hard! You know, we have a Government now that does everything and times are hard. Twenty cents will be enough. We do not want 30 cents. Never mind." Sir, they are happier because they earn less money; the hawkers are happier because they cannot sell all their goods. Naturally they are happier because they can bring their goods home to eat themselves. Therefore, they are happier. Indeed they are happier! Now. Sir, why scrap the City Council? We say that it is good that there shall be a City Council so that there shall be a training ground for future legislators. If there had not been a City Council during our time, I do not think the P.A.P. would have become so, shall we say - I will not use the word "notorious" - so well-known for its activities to help the proletariat. It is because of the City Council that the P.A.P. was able to capture the City Council with 13 seats. That was because of drive and ingenuity. That I must give credit to the P.A.P. Mayor. They brought to the forefront the meaning of an elected Government. It served their purpose and now they want to scrap the City Council because perhaps they now feel that if there were to be further elections today to fill the vacant seats in the City Council, the P.A.P. would be nowhere. It is because they fear that that is so that therefore they should scrap the City Council.

That is what you say.

What I say and what the others might say can never be proved until and unless there be by-elections or there is a by-election to the City Council. It is useless for us to argue. Sir, we feel that you cannot scrap the City Council. As I have said, it is going to provide a step for, shall we say, local politicians to climb to this Assembly. They say they want merger with the Federation. We all want merger with the Federation, and yet in every state in the Federation, there are municipalities. Now, suppose Singapore were to become a state of the Federation of Malaya and, by becoming a part of the Federation of Malaya, we accept the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya. Therefore, there would have to be municipalities. Perhaps they will say, "Never mind, we in Singapore do not want a municipality. The City Council is not good enough because we have done enough damage. We do not want other people to correct the damage that we have done, nor do we want to be exposed. The damage we have done should not be exposed." That is why they want to scrap the City Council now. But what about the public utilities? They have said. Sir, I think during the election campaign, that the public utilities will be taken away from the City Council and be handed over to Boards. Not a word have they uttered about this. Do they now mean that they did not mean what they said? Perhaps sometimes they try to say what they mean and end up by saying they do not mean what they say! 3.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a politician like the Member for Cairnhill deserves to be congratulated on one special attribute of his, and that is his capacity to survive. When the military administration was dissolved and the civil government was proclaimed by the British colonial government, he was nominated a Member of the then Legislative Council. Since then, there have been various changes in the constitution of our country. There have even been elections. The Member for Cairnhill has shown considerable intrepidity in surviving and even prospering for a while throughout all the vicissitudes of our constitutional changes. One would have thought, Sir, that as a result of his wide experience he would have learned one principle, and it is this: that what is right and proper under one set of circumstances is not necessarily right and proper under another set of circumstances. When the P.A.P. contested the City Council elections, the main purpose was to use this vehicle of local government to serve the people, and more particularly to bring about the contrast between what a vigorous and dynamic Party can provide for the benefit of the people and what a feeble, inept and decadent Party can perform. During the period of the Rendel Constitution, it was absolutely vital that this lesson be brought home to the electorate. Now, Sir, we have a new Constitution, and the functions which certain organs of local government perform must be reviewed in the light of the new political situation. The Member for Cairnhill has had the temerity to suggest that the P.A.P. runs away. The P.A.P., Sir, does not run away. When the City Councillors resigned, they did not retire to Ipoh with a bagful of money. They faced the people again, put forward new policies for the approval of the electorate. That is not running away, Mr Speaker. The Member for Cairnhill has further suggested that the City Council may be useful or should be retained because it provides a training ground for future legislators. Now, the City Council has been in existence for quite a number of years and if we were to study the records of the majority of City Councillors, we can see no evidence whatsoever that their terms of service had done them any good at all. If they have received any training, it is such as to make more certain that they will meet with disaster in a fair contest before the electorate with a Party that has contact with the masses at the grass roots. Now, Sir, the hon. Members of the Opposition have delivered a number of homilies on the democratic system. I have no doubt that they will continue to deliver further homilies in the future, but may I suggest that in their future efforts, they try to distinguish between the form of a democratic state and its substance? The form of a democratic state finds expression in various organs of Government, in institutions such as the judiciary, the law courts, the Public Service Commission, and so forth. Indeed, in this very House itself, we observe certain - may I put it - rituals with which the business of this House can be conducted with order and expedition. For instance, Sir, when you enter this building, it is the convention - it is perhaps even the duty - of every Member in this Assembly to stand up as a token of respect and as an expression of acceptance of the need for order and proper procedures in debate. But no one is going to suggest, Sir, that these forms are the essence of a democratic system. You will find rituals equally elaborate observed perhaps in the Reichstag of the late lamented Herr Hitler. In the Roman Senate, similar elaborate rituals were observed by the senators and equal respect was paid - perhaps in a more elaborate way - to victorious generals returning from campaigns to Rome. These are the forms by which the state carries out its functions and one must be careful to distinguish between the forms of a democratic system and the substance. In the situation that we find ourselves today, the substance of a democratic system can be expressed in a few simple words. Today, we have an energetic electorate mostly brought up in the Chinese cultural tradition. They do not have as part of their culture any love and respect for the parliamentary traditions and procedures of the British system. So far as they are concerned, the position is this. They have elected a Government which has certain powers and which has to operate under certain limitations, and they demand of this Government that, within the five years of its office, it must produce tangible and concrete results in the way of the improvement in the standard of living of the humble people. This is the substance of the democratic system here. Can your elected Government produce the results which the people demand? It may have to modify the institutions which it has inherited from the colonial powers, and indeed my Government will not hesitate to scrap any institution we inherit from the past which we find unsuitable and unfitted for the present. Our supreme purpose is to deliver the goods for the people and that is the real test of the democratic system, not the frills and the froth about which Opposition Members have waxed so long and, to my mind, to so little purpose. 3.25 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, and hon. Members, in our debate today for the purpose of the suspension of the local government authorities of the past, I am of the opinion that my view may differ from that of others. But I wish to say what I think is reasonable for all, particularly for our society and our country. In this debate, we wish to suspend the legislation concerning local government. I admit the victory achieved by the P.A.P. is resounding so that they are now holding the reins of government, which we cannot say is the case with us although we can give opposition that is acceptable. However for our part, I often hear in the course of debate that our debate is based on discussions, that is to say, on negotiations between one side and another, and on compromise in order to bring about the betterment of our society which, it could be said. is meeting with various difficulties and shortcomings, in our struggle to achieve the type of independence which we all long for. So, I am not surprised at all to see that the Government has already introduced a Bill for us to debate upon. Perhaps there will be people who, on reading this paper tomorrow, would say that we are debating in the manner of people who are in the wrong places. So I know and understand that old clothes will be refused by those who are recently victorious, and therefore the old clothes must be changed to meet the change of time on the basis of one's struggle. But let us ponder together about the future consequences and the benefits that will be enjoyed by our society and our country in this Bill. In my opinion, as one who at all times wishes to safeguard the position of the Government, to criticise it in a manner wherein it could be said we are upholding the struggle, this Bill is premature. If the Government finds that my view is unacceptable, it can say that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose; the Bill is too premature and hasty. It is too hasty for the Government to carry out such a policy. I believe it is our good and pure intention; as clarified by one of the Opposition Members earlier, it is our objective to safeguard the welfare of the citizens of Singapore. Now we have a Bill for the suspension of past local government authorities. It is my view that our brothers in the Federation of Malaya will take notice of this, in regard to the question of a merger which, I feel in the long run, is of prime importance. So if a matter of policy such as this could be mutually discussed in a spirit of compromise rather than in a spirit of showing how plucky we are, then it is the main question of merger that should be considered, for in many States in the Federation of Malaya, local governments are still functioning in the small areas, perhaps to afford the opportunity of training those who are keen to serve the country. So, I have no doubt that local government is like normal clothing. As I have said earlier, I myself would refuse clothes which are handed down and left by those who have gone. There is one other important thing which I wish to stress on and which I hope will be heeded. I have seen it happen in the City Council in the past when the P.A.P. was in power. I hope, if possible, let nothing be done which perhaps is unacceptable to a section of the people of which we are the representatives. Regarding students who have passed Standard Seven in Malay Schools, I congratulate the Ministry of Health which has announced that the Ministry will accept these students for employment in various capacities. So if this Government will continue with this policy as regards the students who have passed Standard Seven in Malay Schools, I believe perhaps it will get good support from the people; but if it is only to make fun of our struggle, then I believe we will not enjoy what we set out to achieve. So that is the matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Ministry which moved this Bill. For if it wants to carry out the policy let the Ministry do it with full discretion and not with discrimination against that section of the people which, it can be said, wants to co-operate with the others. This is one example which I hope would be carried out by the Ministry concerned. Apart from that, I wish to clarify further: although I am from the Opposition side, as one who is upholding the policy of his Party, it is the basic principle for the Opposition, particularly for myself, to continue with what other Members of the Opposition have said earlier; if possible, as it must be, in our struggle, let it be seen by our brothers in the Federation with whom we are proud to reunite, and let it be observed by our brothers who are not far distant in Indonesia, that we in our struggle today are not taking the opportunity of using any public facilities or utilities such as water, the civil service, gas or electricity as political weapons; for with the existence of this Bill - or it could be said it is unanimously agreed - all responsibilities for public service are suspended; I fear if that is the case, the question of understanding and goodwill between one another will not be anywhere near. So this is the main point - this question of water, light, etc. - the time has come for the Government to set it aside so that this matter will not flare up as it had in the past City Council, particularly between U.M.N.O. and the P.A.P. So I hope the Government who has the majority vote today will act with justice for all without favour to any particular group. That, hon. Members, is our stand today regarding the Bill before us. In relation to this, I admit the P.A.P. is the victorious Party which is now holding the reins of Government; I need not inform the hon. Inche Baharuddin that I am not trying to defend my colleague Inche Ahmad Jabri, but what I wish to clarify is -

Order. The hon. Member must remember that in addressing or in referring to a Member of the House, he ought not to use the name of the Member. He ought to use the name of his constituency.

(In Malay): I beg your pardon, Sir, I wish to draw the attention of the Member for Anson, the hon. Inche Baharuddin, for the remarks made by him also affect the Member now speaking. I acknowledge that the P.A.P. and its Ministers have officially acted along proper channels. But as I said earlier, I hope, if possible there is nobody among the unsuccessful members of the P.A.P. taking the opportunity to use or to decry or who does not realise that the successful representatives who sit on the Opposition side are given an allowance, the sum of which we all know. If we wish to do that, I believe, surely we will not be well understood in the country, to achieve our cherished objective. So I hope that those concerned should, in all matters, remember the various communities in Singapore. For I wish to stress, the action of the Government in trying to amend or suspend the local government authorities cannot be forestalled, but on behalf of the Opposition I wish to warn them against it and do my duty to the Government, if indeed that is so; and I hope the Government will not, at a future date, allow a new Bill to be enacted, which cannot be accepted by various sections of the people of this Island. That is all. 3.40 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, we have agreed to debate in this Assembly a matter connected with the administration of the City Council and the District Councils which is to be handed over to the Government. We have heard a number of people of the Opposition remarking about the past City Council and about members of the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, I would like to mention that no matter what kind of accusation comes from the Opposition, we have witnessed that the people as judges have given their verdict and that the P.A.P. Party has won 43 seats and has formed the Government. As stated by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, he objected to the City Council being handed over to the Government. He mentioned about the unification with the Federation - I think he does not see far enough, because in future we do not know what the condition or the changes in the Federation will be. Therefore, on the part of the P.A.P. as the Government today, we should use our initiative as quickly as possible to improve the livelihood of the people of Singapore. Furthermore, I should like to state that people who do not like improvement, or those who do not like to improve-

Order. I think the hon. Member has got a microphone before him, and if he modulates his voice, I think we could hear him just as well.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, once more I reiterate this - in connection with the Member for Kampong Kembangan who mentioned about unification with the Federation of Malaya and criticised our plan - I think the Member does not observe or does not look forward into the political resolutions in the Federation and Singapore. Once again, I repeat to the people or to a section of those who do not like improvement or who do not like to defend the people and who like to oppose or criticise our plan: no matter from what quarter the allegations come, Mr Speaker, for our part, Government will certainly carry out its duties and it will be left to the people to judge, when the P.A.P. carries out the duties of the Government, whether it is true that the P.A.P. is popular with the people or not. As we all know, the S.P.A., the Liberal Socialist Party and their other colleagues, on the 30th of last month, were wound up, because the people have no confidence and did not vote for them. I may state that one is afraid because of one's wrong, and one is brave because one is right, and because we protect the interest of the people. 3.46 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, it seems that on this first day the new Government has debated on the work of Government. Today we have heard various criticisms from the side which was formerly the Government but now the Opposition. My colleagues and I know the Member for Cairnhill; as has already been said by my colleagues, we know him to be a smooth politician, adept at the game of politics, and so is his friend, the Member for Geylang Serai - the Dato, who, unfortunately, is not here. He does not feel happy about his position today, though not so long ago he was a very proud person and claimed to be the leader of his community in Singapore. But after I have heard him and seen him for four years he is now a different man, completely altered in character and behaviour. That is what surprises me. The reason I say so, Mr Speaker, about the Member for Geylang Serai is that if he had a definite policy or a firm stand, I believe he would have spoken differently from what he did just now. The Member for Geylang Serai stated the Government led by the P.A.P. is maintaining policies and making decisions that are not in the interests of the people of Singapore. Today is the first time I heard him talk of the people generally. Outside this Assembly, he does not talk about the people as a whole, irrespective of race, creed and religion. But here, everyone claims himself as a representative of the people, defending the people, for the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Government and Members of this side, I say that we are brave enough to face facts; whatever we say to the people we intend carrying out; we are not scared to meet them and face criticisms, or whether our actions are unsatisfactory to a small minority of the people. But what we have been hearing since this morning is just talk about democracy. Everyone is fond of talking about democracy. Outside this House we see many of those who in the past knew nothing about the Labour movement appear in various guises as Labour leaders. Why is this so? I believe, Mr Speaker, it is because they do not agree with the P.A.P. in particular and with the government of the people in general. Coming back to the question under discussion in this Assembly concerning the suspension of the local government and the transferring of its functions into the Ministry of National Development, we have heard the Member for Cairnhill saying that the Members of the P.A.P. in the City Council ran from their posts. But I fee that if those P.A.P. Members were really irresponsible and did not dare face facts, they would not have come out to contest the last elections. The reason why they walked out of the City Council was because they believed it was their duty to do so. They believed the reason why it was necessary for them to leave the City Council was the responsibility of the past Government. It had carried out secret means to stain the good name of the P.A.P. members who had a majority in the City Council. But I believe, on the part of the Member for Cairnhill and the Minister then responsible - the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing - they had taken various measures to confuse the people of Singapore that the P.A.P. and its members in the City Council were carrying out polices which were unsuitable and against the wishes of the people. But, Mr Speaker, I feel, on that matter, the people today are no longer the same in their outlook as in the past several years. They are awake and they know how to choose between the good and the bad. If Members of the P.A.P. in the City Council carried out their duties for their own selfish purpose, then the affairs of the City Council would not have been as satisfactory as they actually were while the P.A.P. was in control of the City Council for 14 months. If what I heard just now was correct - I hope if it was wrong, the Member for Cairnhill would please correct me - he too congratulated the ex-Mayor who is now the Minister for National Development in our government today, for the able manner in which he carried out the administration of the City Council. But I am surprised and perplexed here, Mr Speaker, that there are Members of the Opposition who say that the People's Action Party is always priding itself on the fact that whatever it promises and says, it fulfils - it does. The Member for Cairnhill made reference to what the Chairman of our Party had stated at the Press conference. Our Chairman had said before the elections that whatever the actions of the past Government against the P.A.P. in the City Council, our Party would continue to serve the people. What our Chairman said was true, and we carried it out. But when we faced the Singapore Legislative Assembly elections, we felt that it was time we told the people of the actions taken by the previous Government, actions which were incorrect and detrimental to the interests of the people, especially the poor people and those of the lower income brackets. That was why we asked our Members to walk out of the City Council. We brought them out so that we could better ascertain if we had the confidence of the people. We have all seen for ourselves how happy the people of Singapore were, and we know the sort of confidence they have in the P.A.P. That is why we have 43 Members of the P.A.P. as representatives, representatives of the people of Singapore and the new Government - the Government of the people and for the people. I was surprised to watch the antics of the Member for Cairnhill. Why, here today, his acrobatics were very like those of a tiger.

Order. I think the hon. Member has been guilty of using a certain expression - "animal" expression, shall we say - with reference to the Member for Cairnhill. I do not think it is right to call any Member of this House an animal of any nature.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I did not say that he was a tiger. I merely said that he behaved like one, and if it was an unparliamentary remark, I would gladly withdraw it. I merely likened him to a tiger. Mr Speaker, Sir, to come back to my point. The Opposition have not much ground to oppose the Government. However much they try to say that we are behaving like dictators, I feel that the Government today will carry out its duties justly and to the best interest of the people of Singapore without distinction of race, creed and colour. If we wish to practise parliamentary democracy, we cannot agree with the point that we are representatives of a particular group of people, because this Assembly is a forum for us to discuss affairs affecting the people of Singapore.

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

Mr Speaker, tomorrow at 2.30 p.m.

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