Hansard, 1959-09-02

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly:- Inche Baharuddin Bin Mohamed Ariff (Anson) - for two weeks from 26th August, 1959. Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill) - for four months from 29th August, 1959. Mr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin) - for five weeks from 22nd August, 1959.

I have received a message from His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara dated the 18th August, 1959, informing me that His Excellency, in accordance with the provisions of section 55 (1) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, had that day assented to the following Bills:-

2.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to report to the Assembly on certain aspects of our financial position. When we assumed office, we made a detailed investigation of the finances of the country. The Government has reported that a deficit of $14 million has to be disposed of. The sum itself is not very large but what was of greater import is that for some time past current expenditure had been financed out of the reserves of the country. This points to a basic imbalance between revenue and expenditure which needs looking into. The General Revenue balance now stands at about three months' revenue. It is therefore a matter of common prudence that the revenue balance shall not be permitted to go much below this limit unless new sources of liquidity are readily available. It has therefore been necessary to take a number of steps some of which have been severe in character. The Government has frozen all vacancies arising in the establishment without making a distinction as to the reasons for such vacancies, whether they arise from retirement or resignation, or whether they are newly created posts. Special Expenditure has also been frozen so that a careful scrutiny can be made to weed out items which are not absolutely necessary. A Cabinet committee was formed, consisting of the Prime Minister as Chairman, and the Deputy Prime Minister and myself as the other members. We have gone through applications from Ministries and departments and have set up the most stringent standards. Recently all Ministers have been asked to scrutinise the state of the vote and to report on what economies are possible. This whole process of freezing and vetting of expenditure constitutes a major operation. As a result, substantial economies have been effected and the total amount of reduction has reached the figure of $25.7 million. Of this, $20.1 million were reductions in the Ordinary Estimates and $5.6 million were savings in the Development Estimates. This is a considerable achievement and has been made possible through the co-operation of all departments of Government. I wish to pay a special tribute to senior Treasury officials who have had to put in long and punishing hours of work in the course of this exercise. I also want to acknowledge the full-hearted support of my colleagues in this economy drive. My colleagues and I work as a team and it is because we work as a team that it has been possible to reduce the estimated expenditure by this substantial amount. It will be idle to pretend, however, that the slashes in the economy drive of this magnitude can be brought out painlessly. Everyone is aware of the pained reaction to the cuts in variable allowances. Because of the freeze on vacancies, many Ministries have to work short-handed and this means that everyone works harder. Then many of the schemes which have been entered in the Estimates after years of tussle with the Treasury have now to be jettisoned or at least postponed. The operation has not been a painless one but it is necessary, in the interest of financial solvency, that one sets one's face sternly against the cries of anguish coming from the stricken. I am now in the happy position to report to the Assembly that, as a result of our exertions, the finances of the Government have now attained a healthier state. Before I present the facts and figures, there is one point to which I wish to draw attention. And this is that not only had authorised expenditure exceeded estimated revenue by a substantial amount when we took office but there were signs that certain items of revenue had not been keeping up with the estimated levels. In particular, the tobacco revenue has declined very seriously as compared with the amount estimated. This has increased both the difficulties of balancing the Budget and the urgency to do so. I show in summary form how the finances of the Government now stand. The figures are given in Table 1* which have been distributed to Members. *Appendix I, cols. 629-30. APPENDIX I(Cols 0629-0630) Details of the reductions by Ministers and sub-divisions of expenditure are shown in Table 2+. +Appendix II, cols. 629-30. APPENDIX II(Cols 0629-0630) The general position is that we are now faced with a small deficit of $2.9 million. This is a comparatively small sum. It is likely that we shall end the year on an even keel. There may be need for additional expenditure in respect of claims already submitted by Ministries and which are under examination. As against this, it is possible that we may tap new sources of revenue. As stated in the policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, this Government will not consider revenue increases until all possible economy measures have first been applied. We have now reached this stage and are free to consider proposals to increase revenue. When I said before that we shall probably "balance" the Budget, I used the word in reference to the accounting practice adopted in the past. It had been the practice for some time to finance part of the development by depleting reserve funds. In 1959, this practice has continued in the Estimates. Members will note in Section B 3 (iv) in the first Table that $18.5 million is to be transferred from the General Revenue balance to the Development Budget. As I said earlier, we should not allow the General Revenue balance to fall much below its present level and it will therefore be necessary to finance part of the Development Expenditure by loans. The Government has already announced its intention to float two loans of different maturities. In this assessment of the financial position of the country, I must therefore make some reference to the state of the public debt and the accumulation of funds which the Government and various statutory bodies under its direction hold locally and abroad. So far as the Government is concerned, the public debt has been very small. This has its virtues. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that there is no merit in not borrowing money from the public if this means retarding essential development schemes and services which are necessary to the growth of the economy. More especially where public savings are available, it is foolish to deny these sound opportunities for investment in this country - investments which would promote further expansion in various sectors of the economy. So far as this Government itself is concerned, the position is that the total public debt stands at $115 million. Of this, sinking funds have been accumulated which amount to about $75 million. There is therefore a net public debt of $40 million or some $25 per head of population. There are very few governments which have a public debt as low as this. Further, we must take into account the various reserve funds which the Government has accumulated in the various funds and the loans advanced to statutory bodies. These latter total some $190 million of which $172 million are still outstanding. The Government itself emerges as an overall creditor. To assess the financial standing of the country as a whole, it is necessary to take into account not only the resources of the central government but those of the statutory bodies. I give the total investments held in funds under the control of the central government and its statutory bodies. The details appear in Table 3** which has been distributed to Members. ** Appendix III, cols. 631-2. APPENDIX III(Cols 0631-0632) The total value of all these funds comes to $417.6 million. Of this, $144.6 million are accumulated in local investments. The balance of $273 million is invested abroad. The breakdown of the overseas investments of Government and statutory bodies is illuminating and the figures are given in Table 4++. The picture which emerges is an extraordinary one. While we in Singapore have always ++ Appendix IV, cols. 631-2. APPENDIX IV(Cols 0631-0632) cried aloud for the entry of foreign capital, we have been unaware that we have enormous sums of money invested abroad for the development of countries most of which are far wealthier than us. If we take into account private Singapore investments abroad, the value of our total foreign investments will be even much greater. The latest estimate in respect of banks, places the net assets of Singapore banks held in foreign countries at $325 million. In addition, we have taken into account investments abroad by insurance firms operating in Singapore. There are also foreign investments by companies and private individuals resident in Singapore. The figures for all these are not readily available. The above account of our investments abroad does not take into consideration the currency Reserve Funds. These funds, of course, do not belong solely to Singapore. We are only one of the participating members of the agreement establishing the Currency Board, the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak, and Brunei being the other parties. The currency reserves are considerable, the latest figure being $1,110 million. All these are invested abroad. The future of the Currency Agreement is under discussion between the participating countries, and I do not wish to say more about this. I am not saying that there is any need to take precipitate action to withdraw these funds abroad for investment in Singapore. There are advantages in holding investments abroad. From the Government point of View, funds invested in London have the great advantage of liquidity. No doubt similar considerations have led to investment of bank balances in London. These bank balances are primarily used as a Reserve Balance in the financing of our foreign trade, and, as such, serve a valuable purpose. Considering that Singapore's imports and exports totalled $6,880 million in 1958, there is no ground for believing that these bank balances held abroad are excessive. I make this brief review of Singapore's overseas balances in order to underline two points. The first is that, as a great trading centre, we are a part of the world economy, and have important financial and economic links in many parts of the world. Our continued prosperity depends on strengthening these links, and if we disrupt these links, we do so at our own peril. The second point is that we have invested large sums abroad. In return, there has been a substantial investment of foreign capital in our country, though the totals have not been reliably computed. It is almost certain that after taking these into account, we emerge very much on the credit side. Since the end of World War II, it has become fashionable among the modern industrial nations of the world to speak of the need to assist under-developed regions, especially by way of capital investment. But in Singapore the relationship is exactly the reverse of what has now come to be accepted as normal. I do hope that when we have occasion to ask for loans from abroad, we shall not be treated as poor relatives in quest for assistance, for our moral position in this is surely very strong.

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

2.50 p.m.

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.

2.51 p.m.

Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959 (Paper Cmd. (New Series) 14 of 1959). No notices of amendments have been received.

Question, "That the sum of $4,000,000 for Head 22 stand part of the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959", put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $4,000,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure for the public services shown in the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959 contained in Paper Cmd. (New Series) 14 of 1959", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported.

2.53 p.m.

Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959 (Paper Cmd. (New Series) 15 of 1959). No notices of amendments have been received. I therefore propose to take the heads of expenditure en bloc. They appear in the summary* at Schedule A on the last page of the Paper. *Schedule A

Head Title $ 4 Legislature 31,100 14 Information Services 435,053 20 Legal/State Advocate-General's Chambers 5,900 25 Contributions and Charitable Allowances 75,155 28 Estate Duty and Stamp Offices 10,844 30 Ministry of Commerce and Industry 45,927 47 Library, Raffles National 12,993 DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES D2 Judicial 35,000 D11 Defence Services 29,563 D43 Land and District Offices 1,000,000 D46 Education 573,023 D61 Public Works, Non-Recurrent (General) 1,076,341 D62 Colonial Development and Welfare Schemes 29,104 Total to be voted 3,360,003 Question, "That the sums stated for the heads stated in the summary of totals contained in Paper Cmd. (New Series) 15 of 1959 stand part of the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959", put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $3,360,003 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Third Supplementary Estimatees of Expenditure for 1959 contained in Paper Cmd. (New Series) 15 of 1959", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported.

2.55 p.m.

Fourth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959 (Paper Cmd. (New Series) 18 of 1959). There are amendments. The first is on Head 7, Chief Minister/Prime Minister, in the name of the Member for Farrer Park, in relation to subhead 1, item (33). This amendment, I have indicated to honourable Members, is in respect of an item similar to items under Heads 61 and 62. Therefore, for convenience, discussion on the first amendment may range over the other two amendments, in which event there will be no further debate when the other two amendments are reached. I trust that is clear. Head 7 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (33) of subhead 1 therein. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for making it possible for me to speak on the other heads of expenditure; it will save the House considerable time if I speak on all the three amendments at the same time. Mr Speaker, Sir, soon after the present Government was returned to power and soon after the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues had taken office, one of the first statements that he made was that it was the desire of the Government to cut down Government expenditure and that it would be right and proper in those circumstances that the Ministers themselves should suffer the first cut. That was very laudable, and the Government proceeded to do it, thereby giving an indication to the public that the cost of ministerial Government certainly was going to be reduced. Let us, therefore, examine that statement in the light of events that have happened subsequently. We now find that requests are being made for Political Secretaries. Beyond Political Secretaries, Parliamentary Secretaries have also been appointed to Ministries, where previously Assistant Ministers had not existed. I venture to suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the total costs of the Ministers together with their Parliamentary Secretaries and Political Secretaries - such as we know them - perhaps exceed the total cost of what the Ministers and the Assistant Ministers had previously drawn - when I say "previously drawn", Mr Speaker, I mean by Ministers and Assistant Ministers in the previous Government. This appointment of Political Secretary is something which certainly is not known to the Constitution of Singapore. Therefore, it would be interesting to find out what this appointment is. Firstly, are these posts civil service posts? That is the first question, and I would like it answered. If they are civil service posts, have these appointments already been made? If so, by whom? If they are not civil service posts, and if these appointments have already been made, who are the holders of these posts and whether these holders are members of the P.A.P. and have been given these posts merely because they have been useful to the Party in bringing them to power? And lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know whether there are only three Political Secretaries attached to the three Ministries set out here, namely Head 7 Chief Minister/Prime Minister Subhead 1 item (33) Personal Secretary (Political). Head 61 Ministry of Culture Subhead 1 item (3) Personal Secretary (Political), one ($1,400); one ($1,100). For the Minister for Culture, not one, Mr Speaker, Sir, but two Political Secretaries. Under - Head 62 Ministry of National Development Subhead 1 item (3) Personal Secretary (Political). I do not know whether there are other Personal Secretaries (Political) attached to the other Ministries, but these are the only posts which the House is aware of in these Estimates. 3.00 p.m. Another curious feature of the Personal Secretary (Political) is that, as described here, the Prime Minister carries a Personal Secretary (Political), the Minister for National Development also carries a Personal Secretary (Political), whereas the Minister for Culture carries two, one Personal Secretary (Political) at $1,400 a month, and a second Personal Secretary (Political) at $1,100 a month. If they are given the value for the posts, I suppose the gentleman who is holding the post at $1,400 must be holding the more valuable post. Perhaps the House could be told why it is necessary, if at all it is necessary, to have Political Secretaries, that the Minister for Culture should have two Personal Secretaries, and one at a rate which exceeds all the other Personal Secretaries by $300 a month.

The Question is "That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (33) of subhead 1 therein." As indicated, the debate may range over Head 61, subhead 1, item (3) , Personal Secretary (Political), $17,500, in respect of which an amendment appears in the Supplement to the Order Paper in the name of the Member for Farrer Park: That the sum to be allocated for Head 61 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1. Similarly with regard to Head 62, subhead 1, item (3).

Mr Speaker, I must congratulate the Member for Farrer Park for his ingenuity in calculating the costs of the present Ministries as against those of the previous Government, and coming to the brilliant conclusion that we are costing the people more. I have to disillusion him, because he forgot to include in the previous Government the officials, of which there were three, who were colleagues of the present Member for Geylang Serai. If you look under the Heads, "Chief Secretary", "Attorney-General", all under the Ministerial side, and the cost of the linen and the crockery and all the rest of it, you will find that it comes to much more than what we are costing now. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity to clarify the appointment of Personal Secretaries (Political). Each Minister, to assist him in the discharge of his responsibilities, has a Parliamentary Secretary, a Permanent Secretary and a Personal Secretary (Political). As has already been pointed out, the Minister for Culture, according to Cmd. Paper 18 of 1959 is carrying two Political Secretaries. I congratulate the Member for Farrer Park for his assiduous study of this Paper and for having anticipated an amendment which will be moved by the Minister for Culture to clarify the designation of one of those two posts. In fact, there is only one Personal Secretary (Political). The other, at $1,400, is not a Personal Secretary (Political). I shall not anticipate what my colleague will be saying when he moves the amendment. May I first delineate briefly the duties of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Personal Secretary (Political)? Everybody knows what the Permanent Secretary is supposed to do. His duties are set out in the Constitution itself. The Parliamentary Secretary, as the term designates, carries the burden of the Minister's parliamentary duties, and to the extent that the Minister designates or delegates, he carries the burden of the Minister's ministerial duties. The Personal Secretary (Political) has no administrative duties. He has no direct access to the Civil Service. He is a personal appointment of the Minister, and his role is really that of the Minister's closest confidant on the political implications of the moves, plans and policies of the various Ministries. May I say that there have been three appointments, and that there will be three more in the near future. Ultimately, all the appointments will be filled. First, my own personal appointment. He is Mr Jek. The second is Mr Woodhull whose appointment is Personal Secretary (Political) to the Minister for Health. The third is Mr Rahim Ishak, who is Personal Secretary (Political) to the Minister for Culture. They are, Mr Speaker, Sir, our political chiefs of staff, so to speak, political backroom boys, the people who have the aptitude, the skill and touch in these matters which are of invaluable assistance, I hope, to all Ministers, to avoid the unnecessary faux pas which would otherwise fall their way if the presentation and implementation of policies were left entirely to the Civil Service. It follows, therefore, that they are all political appointments. I am unable to enlighten the Member on the actual procedure on these appointments. I shall leave that to my Minister for Finance, who is more acquainted with establishment matters. What it amounts to is this. This is the Minister's Personal Secretary (Political). It says what it means. May I say to the House that one of the problems which this Government faces - and I have said this on many previous occasions - is not only the carrying out of our plans and policies, but also the manner and method of presentation of these policies to the people of Singapore. Mr Jek was a former newspaper man on a Chinese newspaper. He also went to gaol for some time in 1957/1958 for alleged subversive activities. He was released, presumably because the Government discovered that the allegation of subversive activities was unfounded. He is not the type of person whom we would want to give a job to for the sake of rewarding him. If the last Government had a fraction of the skill and devotion to duty, the political know-how that these types of persons have, they would not have come such miserable croppers as they did. These are open political appointments, and I venture to suggest that succeeding governments will find that this is a sound and healthy practice. Mr Speaker, let me just refer you to one instance of the kind of difficulties those people extricate us from. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that we were making arrangements for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to deliver the first speech to this Assembly in Malay. The permanent staff was there, the skilled translators in the former P.R.O. and those you had prudently recruited beforehand. It was a difficult first task - 18 pages of translation were almost unintelligible. But Mr Rahim Ishak, who I hope will continue to give the Minister for Culture the political touch, was in the space of 24 hours able to reduce what was an unintelligible verbatim translation into one which I hope Malay Members on the other side will agree was a coherent and smooth passage from the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in the national language. He was able to do that because, amongst other things, he used to be the leader writer in the Utusan Melayu.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to draw the attention of the House to Head 61, subhead 1, item (3) which now reads "Personal Secretary (Political), one ($1,400); one ($1,100)." I am sorry if I have slightly confused the Member for Farrer Park, but I think he will have a better understanding of what all this is about if I say that this does not reflect the staffing position quite accurately. It should now read, "Publicity Liaison Secretary (Political) ($1,400), and Personal Secretary (Political) ($1,100)". The purpose of this new designation is to indicate more precisely the functions of one of the Secretaries. The post of Publicity Liaison Secretary (Political) is also an appointment personal to the Minister, but it involves duties and functions which are in some respects different from those of Personal Secretary (Political). When the Supplementary Estimates were submitted, the post of Publicity Liaison Secretary (Political) was then designated as Personal Secretary (Political), because at that time it was not possible to define precisely the functions of many of the officials in the Ministry. As you know, Sir, the Ministry of Culture is a new Ministry. It has to be put together from scratch, and it is still today in the process of creation. It is therefore not possible to predict in detail what responsibility would fall on what officer and what function they would be required to perform. After all, Mr Speaker, there are many Government departments which have been in existence for nearly a century, and there are officials who are still not quite sure where they fit in, and what their precise tasks are. Therefore, when the Ministry of Culture, which is only about three months old, occasionally gives new designations to one officer, I do not think the Member for Farrer Park should see anything more sinister in it. 3.15 p.m. Now that the Ministry of Culture is more or less complete, the need for what I have termed a Publicity Liaison Secretary (Political) has become more apparent. His functions are those imposed by the very nature and structure of the Ministry of Culture. As you know, Sir, my Ministry is in charge of a variety of publicity services - radio, information, posters, films, publications and a public address system under which field officers go out every day to broadcast necessary and vital information to the public. This wide variety of publicity services have not only to be fed with suitable materials but it is also necessary that they function as a co-ordinated unit. It will therefore be one of the functions of the Publicity Liaison Secretary to see that there is such co-ordination. As to why my Ministry requires two appointments which are personal to the Minister, here again they are imposed by the very character, functions and structure of the Ministry of Culture. This Ministry is concerned with shaping people's ideas and mental attitudes. To quote from the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, one of the functions of this Ministry will be to create "a sense of national identity among the various races in Malaya" and "to instil in our people of all races the will to be a nation". This, therefore, involves not only taking into account such things as sentiments, attitudes and reactions of people in general but also the attitudes, sentiments and reactions of the various cultural and racial groups in this country. Therefore, Sir, in the case of my Ministry, the bricks and mortar with which this Ministry works are of finer material than may be the case with some other Ministries. In a multi-racial society like ours, it is necessary for this Ministry to have people who can advise it on the political, social and cultural reactions of the various races and communities in Singapore. Therefore, one of these posts requires someone with a knowledge not only of the Chinese language but also of Chinese trends, thought and reactions and also a knowledge of (on the purely technical side) publicity methods and organisation. The other post requires someone with a knowledge of the Malay language and Malay thought, reactions and attitudes. In view of this, I feel, Sir, that there is every justification for having two political secretaries because they will guide this Ministry which deals mainly with ideas, attitudes and sentiments, to gauge accurately reactions to Government measures or Government programmes on the part of these communities. I am quite sure that if, as the Prime Minister mentioned earlier, the previous Government had a little bit more foresight in this matter and not felt its own pulse and mistaken it for the pulse of public opinion, it would not be where it is today.

I want to make one point in further elucidation which I had taken for granted, when I first stood up to speak on this motion. It is this: that every act of the Government is in fact being interpreted in four different worlds and, very often, with four different results: the Chinese-speaking world, the Malay-speaking world, the Indian-speaking world and the English-speaking world. And we have as yet no Minister who is educated to straddle all these four worlds. Quite a number of my Ministers are ambidextrous, who have been educated in more than one world. The appointment of political secretaries is to make up this deficiency. I am English-educated. Sometimes, an act which to the English-educated temper and reaction may sound reasonable, correct and proper, may require some amendments in order that it can be equally welcomed by the Chinese-educated world. Hence the appointment of my political secretary who is a man well conversant with the Chinese world. In the case of the Minister for Health, he is Malay-educated and his appointment is to compensate for his lack of touch of the English-speaking world with which he has a great deal to do in his Ministry. My colleague the Minister for Culture has said, a new Malayan culture will be built basically around the Malay language and it was essential that he should have someone who has the right understanding of the reaction and the susceptibilities and the sentiments, the whole political and philosophical outlook of the Malay people. This is a factor which we must all remember. If a government wishes to govern effectively with the support of the people, then that is a government whose every action must be judged as successful not only in one world, but in four worlds. I hope that distributed among the eight Ministries there will be enough political talent to keep us in touch with all possible susceptibilities, moods and tempers of all the worlds that we have to face in our multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-cultural society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all I welcome the Prime Minister's statement that these Personal Secretaries (Political) will have no direct access to the permanent Civil Service. I am much obliged to him for making that statement quite categorically without any qualifications. The statement, as I understand it, Mr Speaker, Sir, means this. That in so far as the Civil Service is concerned, the Political Secretaries will not interfere, and that any interference with the civil servants will be from the Minister through his Permanent Secretary. Sir, I think it will be a sad day for Singapore if the Political Secretaries take over the departments rather than the Permanent Secretaries, who are directly responsible to the Minister himself. One must always keep in mind that these are political appointments and, as such, they must inevitably be given to persons who are high in the esteem of the Party in power and who possibly helped to put that Party in power. That is what strikes me as being dangerous about these appointments, Mr Speaker, Sir. I sympathise with the Prime Minister and the difficulties of his Government in a multi-racial society. I appreciate his statement that what may seem right to the English-speaking groups may not seem so right to the Chinese-speaking groups, and so with the Tamil-speaking groups and the Malay-speaking groups. Perhaps if the former Government, as he says, Sir, were as alive to it as his own Government is, they might not have been where they are today. There may be something in that too, Mr Speaker, Sir. But, the point of the statement of the Prime Minister is this. His proud boast to this House and to everyone outside is this. That his Party is deeply rooted in the masses of the people, his Ministers, his Parliamentary Secretaries, his Assemblymen, they are all deeply, inevitably and inextricably rooted in the masses. If that proud boast is true, Mr Speaker, Sir, what is the point in all these appointments? Each Minister, as I understand it, has his own Parliamentary Secretary. May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the way in which he has made these appointments of Parliamentary Secretary? Where he has an English-educated Minister, he has very thoughtfully put a Parliamentary Secretary whose education is derived not through English. A very sensible and, if I may be permitted to say so, a very good idea. He has therefore distributed throughout his Ministries persons who deeply understand the English-speaking groups, the Chinese-speaking groups, the Indian-speaking groups and the Malay-speaking groups. Now, if he has among his own Ministers and his Parliamentary Secretaries, 16 persons to understand the four trends in Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I again ask the Prime Minister what is the necessity for making these political appointments, unless it is to distribute largesse to people who have put him in power?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are nowhere near the American spoils system yet, but I would suggest to the Member that if it is largesse that we wish to distribute, there are much more convenient and less conspicuous ways of distributing it among the victors. I would like to suggest to him that when we say our Party-we are, basically, modest men by nature and we do not say each individual is rooted in the masses-we mean that collectively as a Party, we are rooted in every section, every sector, every stream of opinion and thought of this society. All the appointments are, of course, appointments made from those who are very close to the Party. I have not the slightest compunction in persisting in saying that my Party is rooted in the people. Each and everyone of the political secretaries, when they are appointed and those who have already been appointed, is rooted in the people. Why should we have more talent at our disposal? Why not? We have got the talent and we intend to use it. If the Member for Farrer Park and his old colleagues who have now disappeared from the political scene, had won in the 1955 general elections (I heard a great deal of their plans when they were planning to get into office then) they would have had nothing else other than they themselves. They have no talent and no background to fall back on. We have a broad stratum of skill, ability and talent and we intend to utilise it to the best of our ability and the maximum benefit of the people of Singapore. 3.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no doubt the Prime Minister is interested in the people of Singapore just as I am and just as every decent citizen in Singapore must be, but what the Opposition is not satisfied with is this. These appointments are not primarily made for the benefit of the people of Singapore but for the benefit of the People's Action Party, so that during these five years, a line of propaganda will be let out on the people of Singapore which will enable the Party to come back at the end of five years. An hon. Member: Hooray!

Order.

If that equates to the interest of the people of Singapore, certainly the Prime Minister is right, but there are quite a few people in Singapore who say that it does not equate in the way that the Prime Minister would like to equate it to. Therefore, if the main underlying motive in these appointments is to bring the P.A.P. back into power at the next elections, why do the P.A.P. not pay for them themselves? Nobody will then question these back-room boys working hard for the P.A.P. Nobody is saying that they should not have these persons appointed at the behest of the P.A.P. But what is being queried here today, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this. These posts have to be paid for out of public funds and public funds are not yet P.A.P. funds. Now, the point raised by the Minister for Culture, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that by a dexterous change of name, the P.A.P. Government seeks to make a rose into something else. He said that the first post is not Personal Secretary (Political) but Publicity Liaison Officer (Political). As I understood it from the Prime Minister, the purpose of these appointments was to keep the Government in touch with the people. This does not seem to be very different from Publicity Liaison Officer (Political). It seems to mean the same thing to me. I do not know how the Minister for Culture seeks to draw a distinction between these two appointments. The post of Personal Secretary (Political) is exactly the same as the post which, in his Ministry, is going to carry $1,400 a month. Another point that the Minister for Culture impliedly made is that one post is to contact the Chinese masses and the other post is to contact the Malay-speaking group. I hope I have not misunderstood him but that was the impression I got when he was speaking. If it is publicity and putting over the policy of the Government to the people of Singapore that is the vital purpose of this appointment, probably the other Ministries also need two Personal Secretaries (Political): one to get at the Chinese masses and the other to get at the Malay-speaking group. I still feel, Mr Speaker, Sir, that these appointments are not for the benefit of the people of Singapore but are largely intended for the benefit of the Party in power.

Mr Speaker, may I just make this observation? It is the business of every government to see that it governs in such a way that it is returned to power at the end of its mandate, and the fact is that there is nothing improper in this purpose. It is the whole business of a government to govern in such a way that at the end of its term of office, the people say, "Yes, we shall have more of it. We entrust our fate to you for another term of office." And the fact that our Personal Secretaries (Political) are, I hope, going to assist this Government in achieving that aim does not disqualify them from being paid openly out of the funds of the Government, because they are assisting the Government, not the Party.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Member for Farrer Park drew attention to the anomaly existing between the salaries of three Personal Secretaries and that of the fourth, I thought that he was in the running for appointment as the Secretary to any possible trade union or as a Personal Secretary (Political) should it be formed. But I am afraid that the Member for Farrer Park has brought into consideration different standards of judgment in assessing the value of these appointments. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that in 1955 when the first election under the Rendel Constitution took place there was a Party contesting the election and it was called the Progressive Party of which the Member for Farrer Park was a distinguished member. Now, this Progressive Party, which has transformed itself into different names and under different guises, found it necessary to acquire experts to give them political advice and they duly appointed an English woman who was formerly a member of the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party - I forgot which.

The Liberal-National.

The result was that the Progressive Party came a hideous cropper and, true to form, changed its name. Mr Speaker, when we consider this whole problem of why our standards are more exacting than the standards to which the Member for Farrer Park has been accustomed, I can assure you that a great deal of what he has said on the subject is not only irrelevant but, if listened to by any government in this country, would lead it rapidly to its ruin.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to the Member for Farrer Park, I think that I should let loose our Personal Secretaries (Political) on him, because I am quite sure that after half an hour he will understand why we need Personal Secretaries (Political) to help us in our work. He also claimed that my Ministry has merely changed the name of one Personal Secretary into Publicity Liaison Secretary (Political) in order to make the whole thing smell a little bit sweeter. In view of the fact that the new designation involved four words, I will expect the Member for Farrer Park to be a bit more scared. Because Publicity Liaison Secretary (Political) takes four words and the original Personal Secretary are only two words, he is a bit more suspicious and sees sinister meaning behind each of the words. But I think I have explained quite clearly that the Publicity Liaison Secretary (Political) is involved in certain technical functions connected with publicity, that is, radio, information, posters, films, and so on. At the same time, it is essential that whatever information is put over at any one time should be properly co-ordinated, unlike the previous Government which used to speak with different voices. We are interested in seeing that at least we speak with one voice and that whatever we put over is properly co-ordinated, instead of one section of the publicity unit conflicting with another section of our publicity unit. Sir, it is a skilled technical function, to be able to co-ordinate radio, information, posters, films, and so on, and that is why one of the Secretaries is called a Publicity Liaison Secretary (Political). The job is more responsible and the officer therefore is entitled to a slightly higher remuneration than the other Secretary whose functions do not involve any technical tasks connected with the co-ordination of publicity services.

Sir, I would lice to assure the Minister for Culture that I now understand why this gentleman with more technical qualifications and holding a more complicated designation is drawing $300 more a month than the other officer who is just a trained man. As for the statement of the Minister for Finance, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think he has entirely supported my point, if I may say so with respect, when he said that when the Progressive Party made an appointment, that was paid out of the Progressive Party funds, not out of Government funds. That is what I am suggesting the Minister for Finance should do: pay for it out of party funds and not out of Government funds. 3.45 p.m. Question put, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (33) of subhead 1 therein".

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 6; Noes, 39; Abstentions, Nil; Absent, 6. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Haji Jumat. Bani, S. T. Ahmad Jabri bin Buang bin Omar Junid. Mohammad Akib. Byrne, K. M. Koh, C. H. Chan Chee Seng. Mohd. Ali bin Chan Choy Siong, Alwi. Miss. Rajah, A. P. Chan Sun Wing. Seow Peck Leng, Chor Yeok Eng. Mrs. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Goh Chew Chua. Goh Keng Swee. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Kandasamy. G. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Siew Choh. Lee Teck Him. Leong Keng Seng. Lim Cheng Lock. Lin You Eng. Lingam, S. V. Low Por Tuck. Abstentions. Mammen, John. Nil Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ng Teng Kian. Ong Chang Sam. Ong Pang Boon Rajaratnam, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Tan Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan. Teo Hock Guan. Absent. Toh Chin Chye. Baharuddin bin Wee Toon Boon. Mohamed Ariff. Wong Soon Fong. Lim Yew Hock. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Ong Eng Guan. Yong Nyuk Lin. Ramaswamy, S. Tee Kim Leng. Thio Chan Bee. Question on the amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (36) of subhead 1 therein. Mr Chairman, Sir, this concerns the Information Officer for Singapore in the United Kingdom. Recently there appeared a report in the Press to the effect that this Information Officer had been recalled from the United Kingdom. In view of that, Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like some explanation as to why it is necessary that this vote should be provided for in the Estimates.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the answer is quite simple. When you recall an officer from a certain post, or if you are to transfer him from one post to another, you do not delete that post purely for that reason. There may be occasions in the future where a more suitable person may appear and be appointed to that post.

Sir, do I understand that the vote is kept alive with a view to a future appointment?

Yes.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am satisfied and may I have the amendment withdrawn? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allotted for Head 7 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 14 therein. Mr Chairman, Sir, this concerns the sum of $12,000 provided for in the Estimates for Language Training Facilities for Assemblymen. It has been kept a very quiet, and deep secret. Although I am an Assemblyman, I know nothing about it. Perhaps the Minister might like to explain what I am supposed to do, and for what.

There is no enigma about this. It means what it says - Language Training Facilities for Assemblymen. All of us know that there are four languages used in this Assembly, and that nobody in this Assembly speaks all four languages. It has, therefore, been considered proper that facilities should be provided for every Assemblyman, if he so desires, to equip himself with knowledge, to read, write and speak any one of the four languages in this Assembly. I have explained just now the difficulties of presenting Government policies and Government programmes to a multi-racial, multi-lingual society. Apart from the hope to overcome the difficulties by building up a composite leadership which contains all the skills and all the talents from each of the different educational worlds, there is the other hope that every one of the Members will try to straddle more than one world. Some of the Members on the Government side of the House who have been co-opted into the various Select Committees are unable to follow the proceedings as expeditiously as they otherwise would, if they understood a certain amount of English, and if they were able to read a certain amount of the Minutes without having to get it translated for them. At the same time I suggest that perhaps Members on the Opposition side will join some of the Members on the Government side, who are English-speaking, in trying to master the national language. On the Government side, Sir, we hope that before three years you will be able to join us in a debate in the Malay language. And if the Members from the S.P.A. - these three who obviously do not seem to be in need of any moral rearmament, appearing to be sufficiently sturdy to withstand the misfortunes that have befallen their colleagues - could make the effort, perhaps even they might survive, as the appendix survives in the human being. Rules and regulations are being framed. The only reason why the Member for Farrer Park has not heard about them is because of the difficulty of trying to formulate rules. I have the rules and regulations for the civil service to use as a model. To make sure that the facilities are being properly used and not wasted - e.g. when the teacher comes he finds the pupils absent, and the State loses funds - there will be periodic tests to see that progress is being made. In the examinations next year, I even hope to follow the civil service procedure and give a bonus where a bonus is due. The difficulty is to find a uniform examination, because the standards of the 51 Members of this Assembly vary. One never knows whether it is fair to ask an aging, balding man to do as much work as a vigorous, young, stalwart-looking trade unionist. But I assure Members on the Opposition side that this is intended for the benefit of the people of Singapore, because if they have leaders who understand not just one sector but two or three, or may be even four sectors of the population, then so much the better for the people.

One slight correction. There are 52 Members in the Assembly.

I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, Sir, I hope that the 52nd Member will also take advantage of this facility that I am asking for.

That is why the Speaker has spoken!

Mr Chairman, Sir, with the permission of the House, I would like to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $123,028 for Head 7 ordered to stand part of the Fourth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959. Head 61 -

There is an amendment standing in the name of the Member for Farrer Park: That the sum to be allotted for Head 61 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1. Does the Member wish to move simpliciter?

Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not wish to move, as Head 61 has been dealt with in the discussion on item (33) of subhead 1 of Head 7.

Very well. The sum of $52,300 for Head 61 ordered to stand part of the Fourth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959. Head 62 -

Does the Member for Farrer Park wish to move the amendment standing in his name on the Order Paper Supplement: That the sum to be allotted for Head 62 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1.

Similarly, Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not wish to move.

Very well. The sum of $44,450 for Head 62 ordered to stand part of the Fourth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959.

Now for the heads of expenditure undisposed of. They appear in Schedule B at page 6 of the Paper, other than Heads 7, 61 and 62. I propose to take those heads of expenditure* en bloc. *Following are the heads of expenditure:- Head Title $ 12 Film Censorship 31,906 20 Legal/State Advocate-General's Chambers 36,494 22 Treasury/Ministry of Finances 697,455 24 Pensions, Retired Allowances, Gratuities, etc 299,520 53 Social Welfare 1,370,000 D46 Education 259,510 D61 Public Works, Non-Recurrent (General) 110,000 D62 Colonial Development and Welfare Schemes 217,621

Question, "That the sums stated for the heads stated in the summary of totals contained in Schedule B of Paper Cmd. (New Series) 18 of 1959, other than for Heads 7, 61 and 62 already disposed of, stand part of the Fourth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959", put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $3,242,284 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Fourth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959 contained in Paper Cmd. (New Series) 18 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, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolutions. Resolutions read.

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

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

Order for Second Reading read. 4.01 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation to proceed with the Bill. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, the changes in our constitutional position have rendered necessary a number of changes in our financial practice, and this Bill is one of a series of legislative measures setting out in detail and simplifying the procedure to be adopted. The purpose of the present Bill is to provide by law for the authorisation and control of all capital expenditure under one process, the approval of a Development Budget by estimates laid before the Assembly of expenditure to be paid out of a Development Fund. The Bill is a simple one, and I do not think I need to enlarge on the Explanatory Statement. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule - Question proposed, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."

On a point of explanation, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder if the Minister would be good enough to explain. In paragraph 1 of the Schedule, it says, in the third line, "replacement of other capital assets (including vehicles, vessels, aircraft)" etc. I was always under the impression, Mr Speaker, Sir, that replacement of vehicles and things like that would be provided for out of other funds rather than out of loan moneys, like a depreciation fund.

That is true as a general practice. When vehicles and other types of transport equipment need replacement, they do appear in the ordinary estimates under Other Charges Special Expenditure. But there may be development projects in furtherance of a scheme where it would be necessary to incur such expenditure.

Question put, and agreed to. The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment: read the Third time and passed.

Order for Third Reading read. 4.10 p.m.

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

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

Order for Second Reading read. 4.11 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The amendments, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the Criminal Procedure Code proposed by this Bill may conveniently be dealt with under four heads. Firstly, this Bill seeks to increase the jurisdiction and powers of the Criminal District and Magistrate's Courts. It will enable a Criminal District Court to deal with all offences which are punishable with a fine only or with a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven years, and also with certain offences punishable with a heavier Sentence which are made punishable by a Criminal District Court in Schedule A to the Code, and also power is given to a Criminal District Court with the consent of the Public Prosecutor and the accused to deal with all cases other than those punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The powers of the Criminal District Court are increased to enable it to impose imprisonment not exceeding three years, or a fine not exceeding $5,000, or to pass a sentence of caning up to 12 strokes, and to impose sentences of corrective training and preventive detention. In appropriate cases, as when an accused person has previous convictions, the Criminal District Court may pass sentences of imprisonment up to seven years. Similarly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court has been increased to enable it to deal with all offences which are punishable with a fine only or with a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years. The Magistrate's Court is also given power to impose sentences of imprisonment not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding $2,000 and caning up to six strokes, and in appropriate cases, as when an accused person has previous convictions, it can award the full punishment for an offence triable by it. These provisions generally follow the provisions of the Federation Criminal Procedure Code and the Courts Ordinance relating to the powers of the Sessions Court and the Magistrate's Court. It is further considered, Mr Speaker, that these provisions will enable a large number of cases, which are at present tried in the High Court, to be tried in the Criminal District Court, and they will result not only in a saving of time of the High Court, but also, by reason of the fact that it will not be necessary to hold preliminary inquiries, it will result in the saving of time of the Magistrate's Court. Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill seeks to make admissible caution statements to the Police. The Police in Singapore have complained for a long time that the results of their work are restricted by the provisions which forbid statements recorded by them, even if taken in compliance with the Judges' Rules in England, which provide safeguards against statements extorted by force or threats, to be given in evidence in the Court. In Hongkong and Sarawak, the English practice in this respect is followed, and although in the earlier stages the Police investigators there made the mistake of relying on obtaining a confession to prove a case, the practice has, I am glad to say, since worked very well. The experience in Hongkong has shown that Police investigators can learn, by training and experience, the proper use of the Judges' Rules, and that the possible abuses of the admissibility of caution statements in evidence can be avoided. The statements and confessions can be challenged in Court on the ground that they were improperly taken, and the Court can always rule out such evidence if the rules are not observed. It is proposed, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the statements made to police officers be made admissible in Court subject to the safeguards as imposed in England. The amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code which will effect this is set out in clause 15 of the Bill. A consequential amendment will also have to be made in the Evidence Ordinance. In England and Hongkong, there are no restrictions in regard to the rank of police officer to whom the statements are made, and such caution statements made to any police officer are admissible in evidence. It is proposed, however, that, as a start in Singapore, only statements to police officers not below the rank of Inspector will be admissible in evidence. The term "Inspector" has been defined to include a cadet inspector, but the effect will be that statements made to the ordinary police constables or corporals or sergeants will not be admissible in evidence. The Government realises that there is a risk in the admission of caution statements, and it is felt that it would be better to confine the admissibility of such statements to those made to police officers of and above the rank of Inspector who are, on the whole, better educated and, therefore, more likely to understand the principles and application of the Judges' Rules. Hitherto in Singapore where caution statements to police officers have been made admissible in evidence as, for example, under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, only statements made to police officers of and above the rank of Inspector are made admissible. If and when it appears that the higher ranks of the Police Force have learned the proper use of the Judges' Rules, and are able to direct and guide the lower ranks of the Police, consideration will likewise then be given to removing the restriction in regard to the rank of the police officers to whom the statements are made. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is recognised that the greatest care would have to be taken to avoid encouraging an attitude of mind among police officers which tended to rely on confessions to the detriment of other available evidence in support of the prosecution. Control or supervision would remain in the hands of senior officers who are fully aware that it would be detrimental to the Force and prosecutions in Court if confessions were sought to be adduced in evidence in circumstances where the voluntary nature was in doubt. It is appreciated that there may be difficulties over language barriers; for instance, if the accused speaks only a Chinese dialect and the constable who arrests him speaks only Malay. These difficulties are not likely to disappear for many years and it will always be for the Court to decide in any individual case whether the circumstances justify the evidence to be admitted or not. Mr Speaker, Sir, the third amendment proposed by the Bill relates to trial by jury. It is proposed that following the practice in the Federation of Malaya, trial by jury be normally only required in cases where the punishment authorised by law is death. In all other cases of trial in the High Court, the trial will be by a Judge alone. This will appear to be a fundamental change in the law and Opposition Members may shed tears over the passing of the English institution of trial by jury. Even in England, Mr Speaker, Sir, the institution of trial by jury has not escaped criticism from such legal authorities as Dr Glanville Williams. In the independent State of the Federation of Malaya, a committee was appointed to consider the matter and this committee recommended the introduction of trial by jury only in capital cases. The proposed amendments will undoubtedly speed up trials in the High Court. Although it might be said that the proposals imply a distrust of the jury system, they undoubtedly show that the Government has full confidence in the ability and competence of our Judges to deal with such matters. Following the provisions in the Federation, power is given in the law to the Chief Justice, with the approval of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, to order that the trial of all offences or of any particular type of offences before the High Court shall be by jury. If it should therefore appear desirable in the future to extend trial by jury to other than capital cases this can be done after consultation between the Chief Justice, the Cabinet and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I should like, Mr Speaker, Sir, in this connection, to quote the following summary of the recommendations of the Law Commission of India which was set up in 1955, under the chairmanship of the Attorney-General of India. This is what the Commission has to say on the jury system in India:- "The jury system is time consuming and expensive. It is difficult to find jurors of the right type and such jurors as are generally available are easily approachable and can be moved by extra judicial consideration. The system which has had a long trial in India has been a failure and therefore should be abolished." Mr Speaker, Sir, at the committee stage of this Bill, I propose to introduce the insertion of two new clauses in the Bill to provide that where, in a trial by jury of a person charged with a capital offence, the jury returns a verdict of not guilty and the accused is discharged, the Judge may convict the accused of a minor offence or some other offence if he is satisfied from the facts that the accused is guilty of such offence. This amendment will have the effect of confining the jury's verdict only to the capital charge for which the accused is tried. Fourthly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill makes a number of minor amendments to improve the system of criminal procedure. Provision is made for the service of summonses to witnesses issued in the Federation. Power is given to the Court, in sentencing an accused person, to take account of outstanding offences against him. The power authorising police officers to conduct investigations is extended to enable suitable officers even below the rank of corporal to be so empowered. The word "caning" is substituted for the word "whipping". The offence of cheating is made a seizable offence, and the offences of causing grievous hurt, voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon, and voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon are made non-compoundable. A police officer conducting an investigation into a seizable case is empowered to search the house of an arrested person, and power is also given to a police officer not below the rank of inspector to search a house where he suspects the person is being confined. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.21 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to alter a number of things which have long been established as part and parcel of our system of criminal justice. Sir, on the first point mentioned by the Hon. Minister for Labour and Law, that the Bill seeks to give wider powers to the District Court and the Police Court, I have nothing to say, except that where the District Courts and the Police Courts are given powers which are now exercisable by the High Court, it follows that the District Courts and the Police Courts should be strengthened. There seems to be a tendency in the District Courts and the lower courts for a weakening rather than a strengthening of these Courts. In the context of what is happening in the lower courts at South Bridge Road, I view with some alarm the giving of extended and extensive powers to the lower courts. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, everything being equal, I would myself say that taking away some of the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court and passing it over to the lower courts (that is, the District Court and Police Court) is a good thing in itself. The other important point which the Bill deals with is trial by jury. The Minister for Law has cited Mr Glanville Williams as a person who disagrees with the jury system. He is no doubt an eminent lecturer and, like all lecturers and theorists, he has his ideas and views of what the criminal law should be and how it should develop. But, if I may say so, Mr Speaker, Sir, the consensus of opinion among practising barristers in the United Kingdom is that trial by jury is a system which should not be scoffed at and disposed of lightly, as it is intended to do here this afternoon. The system of trial by jury has been in force in Singapore since criminal law was enforced under the Criminal Procedure Code. Our code, Mr Speaker, is derived from the Indian Code and, although the Indian Code did not permit a number of things which we have followed, it instituted the system of trial by jury in the High Court. The quotation by the Hon. Minister for Labour and Law of a statement by the chairman of the 1955 Commission, or Committee, investigating the criminal law in India may perhaps be true in the light of events that have taken place in India. It could well be that the jurors are easily accessible there and possibly it is a matter of public knowledge that jurors are easily accessible. Possibly in India, the system of trial by jury is held in public contempt. And when a system of criminal law is held in public contempt then, of course, it must be changed because, in order to uphold the rule of law, it is vital that the processes whereby the rule of law is upheld should be held high in the esteem of the public. It could well be that in India trial by jury is discredited. But Mr Speaker, Sir, with respect, I have not heard it said in Singapore that the system of trial by jury is disadvantageous to the public. There has been no suggestion that our jurors here could be tampered with or could be reached. Sometimes it is said that the jury has brought in a wrong verdict. But that, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a matter of opinion. Whether they, the jury, have brought in a wrong verdict or not is a matter of opinion. Crown counsel invariably thinks that the wrong verdict has been brought in when an acquittal is awarded by the jury. And, similarly, counsel for the accused usually thinks that a wrong verdict has been brought in when his client has been found guilty. But those are matters of opinion. Trial by jury, Mr Speaker, Sir, has this advantage, that it distributes the responsibility for conviction on a number of persons. The prosecutor presents his case as best he can objectively. The defence counsel defends his client as permitted to him by the ethics of his profession and according to law. The judge merely sums up the facts as have been adduced before him. The jury takes the responsibility for convicting on the facts placed before them. The responsibility for conviction is equally distributed between three or four separate groups of persons. It has been a system which has not been found lacking. As far as I know, Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been no complaint that the system of criminal law in Singapore is failing merely because trial by jury is being employed. Where a system has been found to be effective and working within reason, then one should not change that system for the sake of merely changing it. One must have adequate reasons for changing it either in the light of developments or of conditions that exist in Singapore itself. Then, Mr Speaker, Sir, the last point on which I wish to touch is this complete departure from our conception of the admission of evidence in our Courts. It is not without reason that the Indian Criminal Procedure Code says that any statement made by any person who subsequently becomes an accused person, particularly if that statement is made to a police officer, should be inadmissible. Now the Indian Criminal Procedure Code was drawn up by eminent jurists from England and they devised a system of law which was suitable to the needs of the country having regard to the ability of that country to work that particular system of law. Now, in a multi-racial society such as we have in Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is an unwise step to change the existing provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which disentitle the police to allow statements of accused persons to be put in evidence against the accused. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore, police investigations do not solve all crimes brought to the notice of the police. The majority of cases in Singapore are solved through information given to the police by outsiders whose names are not revealed or brought out in court, or through work done by detectives at the lower levels. It is public knowledge, Mr Speaker, Sir, that these detectives are recruited on the basis of `Set a thief to catch a thief.' That is public knowledge. They do not exactly come from the law-abiding classes. Most of the detectives have been recruited from groups of persons who themselves have once indulged in criminal activities or have been in very close contact with those who have indulged or are indulging in such activities. It is through these two means that crime in Singapore is mostly solved. I venture to suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in the circumstances here it would be highly unwise to bring in an amendment of this nature. The section as drafted is very wide and gives powers to the police to bring in any statement brought to the knowledge of a police officer, whether that statement has been interpreted to him by any police officer or any person concerned or not in the arrest. Now it is a fundamental principle of the law as we now know it, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in any translation which seeks to lay the blame on the accused, the translator should not be a person who should be interested in the arrest or in the furnishing of information which brings about the arrest. That is a fundamental principle of the law recognised by the courts of law here. Now, that is sound common sense, Mr Speaker, Sir, because where everything depends upon the interpretation then if a person is interested in the arrest of a culprit it is not improbable that the interpretation might be slightly tinged in favour of bringing about a conviction against the accused person. I do not say that it will happen in all cases but the risk, Mr Speaker, is so great that it would be highly unwise - nay, dangerous - to bring about this amendment at the present stage. I dare say in Hongkong it is possible because in Hongkong everybody speaks Cantonese. The population speak Cantonese, the police speak Cantonese from the lowest to the top whereas in Singapore the composition of the population is such that some speak Cantonese, others speak Hokkien, others speak Teochew, some speak Tamil, some speak Malayalam, some speak Mandarin, some speak Malay, and so on. And it would be highly dangerous in a society which uses several languages to let in as evidence this statement where the police inspector himself would not be the person who hears the statement direct and comprehends it direct from the person making the statement; but the police inspector would have to comprehend it through an interpreter who, the section says, could be a person interested in the arrest of that person. A very dangerous situation indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir! I am fully aware, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the police have for a number of years - this is not the first time that the police have made representations; they have made representations for the last 20 to 30 years - to bring about such an amendment because if this amendment is brought about it will be easier for them to secure convictions. It is well known, Mr Speaker, that when the prosecution presents a case in the court and when a confession is sought to be put in evidence, in 99 cases out of 100, you will find that the confession is the only evidence that links the accused to the crime with which he is charged. It could not be a coincidence that in 99 cases out of 100, in cases where confessions are produced, there is no other link of evidence connecting the accused to the crime. This amendment, Mr Speaker, will make the position even worse than what it now is. In a confession the person confessing has to be taken before a magistrate who, after certain questions put to the accused and satisfying himself that the statement is not only voluntary but volunteered, then records a statement from the accused. But here the statement would be made by an accused person to an inspector, either to him directly or in his hearing. It takes it even further. It need not be made to the inspector. All that need be done is that it should be made in his hearing; then a person interested in the arrest could translate it to the inspector. In these circumstances, it would appear that the statement would be admissible in evidence. Members might say, "If he is guilty, why should his statement not be put in?" Certainly, if he is guilty, he should be convicted. But the great difficulty about these matters, Mr Speaker, Sir, as we all know, is to sift the truth from the untruth, and in a system of criminal justice, not only must justice be done but it must be seen to be done. Mr Speaker, Sir, if this Bill is carried through, the inference might well be that justice is not seemingly being done. 4.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not here early enough to know whether the Member for Farrer Park prefaced his remarks by saying that he had the concurrence of the majority of the Bar in expressing the views that he did. I learned from the Minister for Labour and Law that the Bar Committee have been consulted and they have not expressed any views on the matter up to date. The business of the administration of justice is to do justice according to the law. Where according to the law justice is being flouted and not being done, then it is the business of the legislature to see that the law is changed. I was early enough to listen to the objections of the hon. Member to two different points. He is in favour of retaining jury trials for all criminal matters. But he is against the change in admitting evidence made by an accused person to a police officer after arrest. In the first case, he asked, "Why change a system which nobody has found anything wrong with?" Let me state quite simply that it is common knowledge at the Bar that the law as it is - not only unfortunately in jury cases but also in other than jury cases - becomes a game at which the skill and the agility of the lawyer, plus the obstacles put by the legislature on the prosecution, should, if the lawyer is sufficiently skilful, and his client is sufficiently intelligent, enable the lawyer to get his client off. That is not the business of the administration of law. It is to do justice and to see that right is upheld and wrong is punished. Let me tell the hon. Member that there is one basic defect in jury trials in Malaya which makes it fundamentally quite different from what jury trials are supposed to be. In England from whence this concept first arose, the theory is that if you are accused by the State of having committed an act which entitles the State to punish you, you should be found guilty by your peers. If you are a noble lord, then your peers are the members of the House of Lords. If you are an ordinary commoner, then you will have 12 common jurymen sitting to hear the evidence and decide for or against your innocence. Now, unless we are to introduce multilingualism on a quite unprecedented scale, nobody is ever tried by his peers in this country. He is tried by the English-educated if you have a jury trial. If you are tried by a special jury, you are tried by an English-educated elite. And - the Member for Farrer Park knows this as well as I do - every time the box containing the list of jurors is taken out, the first question you ask the Registrar is, "Is this a special jury or a common jury?" Everybody knows that if you get a special jury, the chances of getting a conviction increases. Let us be reasonably honest about all this. A jury trial is a foreign implantation which works reasonably well, but it requires a very high degree of skill both from the Bar and the Bench. It requires also a state of affairs which can only exist in an ordered and settled state of society where everybody is prepared to come up and say, "I saw A stab B," and he feels that it is his duty to tell the world that he witnessed the scene. Is justice being thwarted? I say `Yes', on pure technicalities. Every member of the Bar knew that a certain person in the famous Green Bus murder case took a tin of petrol, threw it into an air-conditioned room, lit it, the whole room went on fire and five persons died. The case went on trial. The jury had not the slightest doubt as to the guilt of the accused and, they convicted him unanimously. Unfortunately, in the course of his summing - up to the jury - these are all technicalities of the law - the Judge did not put to the jury the possibility that there was the chance that the accused person might have done it in self-defence. Therefore, there was an acquittal and the Government ordered a new trial on other charges - as there were five murders, therefore four other murders had still to be tried. When the accused went before a second Judge, the Judge said, "Is it not a pity that a man should be persecuted twice in this way?" And the Attorney-General, for reasons which must have weighed very heavily on his mind, but which I am unable to see could possibly have existed, withdrew the prosecution, and a man who undoubtedly, according to seven jurymen, committed murder was let off free. I say that if we continue to pay attention and respect to forms and not to the substance of the rule of law, then we shall collapse, because the law will be held in utter contempt. A law that is unable to punish the guilty, because it has got itself involved in the intricacies which our experts have not yet mastered, is a law which is unsuitable. Nobody, certainly not the two practising Members on the other side of this House, would suggest that our Judges cannot make up their minds on facts as well as the jurymen can. I do not think they will make that allegation. If they are wise, I do not think they will even mention it. I suggest let us get on with the business of seeing that justice is done. Now, I have to defend the preservation of jury trials for murder - we are not dispensing with it in the case of murder. It is because the Federation had decided to move in that direction and have jury trials for murder. This is one of those things that have happened. We have to move closer - so we line up with their law. Having elected to defend this, an English importation - the Member says, "Keep it, it is good." He then says, "Let us not have an English practice," namely, a policeman giving evidence. According to the practice in England, every policeman can give evidence on what the accused person has said. But the Member for Farrer Park does not want that, because that will help a conviction. So he is not interested in English practice; he assiduously avoids the whole argument. He talked about Indian practice, and how wise the Indians were in preventing their policemen from giving evidence, but how unwise they were in getting rid of the juries. Let us not have it both ways. Every person knows when an accused person's defences are down and that is at the time when he is caught in the act. Before he has had time to think out a clever defence - that his grandmother was ill on the blank day of blank, but the policeman thought he saw him there, and he produced the grandmother, grand-uncle, and two great grandchildren who said that he was at such and such an unnumbered attap hut in an unknown village. We could have gone the whole hog and said, "Let us accept the practice for the whole of the police force." But because we appreciate the difficulties in a multi-lingual society and the fact that, in some cases, as the Member for Farrer Park has alleged, in the past there was this practice of employing a thief to catch a thief, we have therefore restricted the scope of the new provisions to police inspectors and above. Nobody, let alone the two honourable and learned Members of the Bar on the other side, would suggest that the English-educated, who are good enough to be inspectors, would go into Court and perjure. This is a step in the right direction. If we are able quickly to set the police force right and get out the thieves who were employed to catch the thieves, we shall be happy to come back to this House, after these new provisions have been successfully put into operation, to report that we have a better police force, that no more thieves are employed to catch thieves, and we will ask for the extension of these provisions to the whole of the police force. 4.49 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to the forensic ability displayed by my colleague and leader here, I think there is very little for me to say in reply. I would, however, like to make this point: that the Member for Farrer Park seems to be confused as to what this Bill really sets out to do. He has accepted the position that it would be reasonable and necessary to increase the jurisdiction of the Lower Courts. That being so, Mr Speaker, I suggest that less and less of criminal cases, other than capital cases, will be finding their way into the High Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think that the Government as such has expressed any adverse dislike of the jury system as is practised here. It is not the intention that the jury system be abolished in this territory. The Government is proceeding to follow, not what is the practice in India where there has been a recommendation that the jury system be abolished, but rather the practice in the Federation of Malaya where the jury system is retained for capital cases only. We have written into this law certain safeguards. If it is found desirable to extend trial by jury to other than capital cases, there is provision in our law for this to be done. On the recommendation of the Chief Justice, and with the consent of the Government, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara can so agree. As to the question of caution statements, I must say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Government also has been able to resist pressure from the local police who have sought to make all caution statements made to police officers to be admissible in evidence. However, we are trying to give the new system a fair trial. We are not proposing that caution statements made to all police officers should be admissible. We are restricting these caution statements only to officers of and above the rank of police inspector. We will see how the new system works. If it works well, I have no doubt that it will be able to develop, as do other systems. If precedents elsewhere are a good guide, I have no doubt that the police here will be able to discharge their duties in as satisfactory a manner as the police in England, Hongkong, and Sarawak. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think that there is cause for us to be in any way alarmed at the improvements that the Government is seeking to introduce into our system of administering the criminal law.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection. -[Mr A. P. Rajah].

Is it a convenient time to suspend?

Yes.

I then do suspend. I will take the Chair again at half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.56 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The reason for this Bill is partly due to the attainment of the Federation of Malaya to a sovereign independent status. The Registration of Criminals Ordinance requires the Registrar of Criminals to maintain a register of, inter alia, persons convicted of any offences committed within any scheduled territory and persons ordered to be banished, expelled or deported from Singapore or from any Colony, protectorate or protected state for the time being included in the Third Schedule of the Ordinance. The two places at present included in the Third Schedule of the Ordinance are the Federation of Malaya and the State of Brunei. Singapore, the Federation of Malaya and the State of Brunei together form the principal registration area under this Ordinance. Both this Government and the Government of the Federation of Malaya have agreed that Singapore and the Federation of Malaya only will form the principal registration area under the Ordinance. At the same time, it is thought desirable to remove Brunei from the principal registration area and to treat that territory in the same way as North Borneo and Sarawak, that is, as part of the British possessions, protectorates and protected states outside the principal registration area, in respect of which the same registrable particulars of criminals may be recorded with the approval of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara under section 5 of the Ordinance. Clause 2 of the Bill gives effect to these intentions by deleting the definition of "scheduled territories", and amending the definition of "principal registration area" to include only Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. The opportunity has also been taken in clause 2 to make a consequential amendment to the definition of "registrable particulars", due to the inclusion in the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill, which was before the Assembly today, of a provision to take into account outstanding offences in sentencing an accused person. The Government of the Federation of Malaya has also agreed to the continuation of the system of a single Criminal Records Office located in Kuala Lumpur. As the Registrar of Criminals would almost certainly, under the present arrangements, be a Federation officer, it is therefore necessary that this Government's statutory powers under section 3 of the Registration of Criminals Ordinance to appoint a Registrar of Criminals should be amended to provide for the appointment of a Federation officer to be the Registrar of Criminals. Clause 3 of the Bill, therefore, enables the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, with the concurrence of the Government of the Federation of Malaya, to appoint a Federation officer to be a Registrar of Criminals or an Assistant Registrar for the purposes of this Ordinance. Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 9 of the Registration of Criminals Ordinance to empower the Police to take, in addition to finger-print impressions, the photograph of a convicted person where such a photograph has not already been taken under the provisions of that Ordinance. Clauses 5 and 6 introduce amendments which are merely consequential to the amendments introduced in clause 2 of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 5.42 p.m.

Mr (Deputy) Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr (Deputy) Speaker, Sir, this Bill is rendered necessary in view of clause 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill. It seeks to make caution statements by accused persons to police officers admissible in evidence. If that clause is enacted as law, Mr (Deputy) Speaker, Sir, it will be necessary for sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Ordinance to be repealed, as these sections exclude confessions by accused persons to police officers. I beg to move. Question proposed. 5.44 p.m.

Mr (Deputy) Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to speak on this at any length except to say that, in view of the fact that the Evidence (Amendment) Bill is dependent on the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill passing through in all its aspects, I shall, at the proper time, move that it be committed to a Select Committee.

Mr (Deputy) Speaker, I have already moved the Second Reading of this Bill, and in view of the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill has been sent to Select Committee, I would also move that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

Order. If there are no other Members who wish to speak on this Bill, I shall put the Question to the House, and when the Question is agreed to, I shall then ask for a motion from Mr Rajah or Mr Byrne.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection.- [Mr A. P. Rajah].

Order for Second Reading read. 5.50 p.m.

Mr (Deputy) Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill, Mr (Deputy) Speaker, Sir, seeks to substitute the word "caning" for the word "whipping" used in the Penal Code. The word "whipping" is not correct as the whip is not in fact used. Corporal punishment is inflicted with a cane and therefore "cane" would appear to be more correct than "whip". Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 5.55 p.m.

Mr (Deputy) Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill which seeks to amend the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955, is a further manifestation of the determination of the present Government in taking strong positive action for the good and well-being of the people as a whole to fight gangsterism and thuggery relentlessly and vigorously, and to adopt more drastic measures if necessary to break the back of the secret society menace which has plagued this land of ours for some time now and terrorised the law-abiding people in this island. I am confident that the Bill, drastic as it may be but drastic only against evil-doers who flout the rule of law and order and seek to continue the present state of lawlessness, will meet with the wholehearted support of all law-abiding members of the community. In fact, I believe that public opinion demands that more drastic measures be taken by the Government to maintain peace and order in the face of the prevalent abnormal crime situation. Since the new Government came into power, we have taken several measures against gangster haunts and their sources of income. We have closed down pin-tables and juke-box premises which were the haunts of gangsters and thugs. We have dissolved societies which are purely gambling dens under the protection of secret society members. We have not hesitated to go for the really big shots as recent events have shown. The special police squads have struck fear into the hearts of these gangsters, a number of whom had met with death. We will go on waging an unrelenting campaign against them. There is no place for relaxation of efforts and vigilance. The additional powers asked for in this Bill are part of this campaign. Sir, before I come to the details of this Bill, I would like to stress that it is because of the present state of gang lawlessness that the Government is seeking these additional and exceptional powers contained in the Bill. This Government, like any democratic Government, does not wish to lightly deprive the individual of his liberty by executive action, nor for that matter for a longer time than is absolutely necessary. But when we are dealing with unruly and unprincipled thugs and gangsters and because of the terrorism they have spread, the ordinary process of law is inadequate to deal with the crimes and misdeeds committed by them. Special powers such as those contained in this Bill are therefore necessary. In adopting these measures the Government is conscious that they provide but temporary remedies and that in dealing with these secret societies, account has to be taken of the social and economic causes which have contributed to the growth of gangsterism and lawlessness. Increased unemployment, slum conditions, lack of purposefulness in directing the energies of the young, lack of recreational facilities, constant exposure to yellow culture, undesirable literature and - films all these have caused secret societies to flourish and have lured youth to their ranks by the glitter of sensationalism and easy money. As the House is aware, the Government has taken a strong line in the banning of undesirable publications and in tightening the censorship of films. Some of the causes can only be tackled by long-term measures and their solution cannot be achieved quickly. But the Government has already taken action on these permanent remedies. For example, the provision of better housing, more open spaces, more recreational facilities, community centres, schools, etc, and the encouragement of industries, the full impact of which can only be felt in the years to come. Coming now to the details of the Bill, the main provisions are (1) to extend the life of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance which expires in October this year for another five years; (2) to give the Minister alternative powers either to impose detention orders on persons associated with activities of a criminal nature or to order that they be placed under police supervision; (3) to extend the period of detention made by the Minister from six months as at present to one year; (4) to impose special restrictions on those persons placed under police supervision and special penalties on them for breaking the restrictions or for being convicted of specified offences; and (5) to issue special identity cards to those subject to police supervision under this Ordinance. The life of the principal Ordinance will lapse on 20th October, 1959, and clause 2 of the Bill extends its life for another five years. In view of the intention that the maximum initial period of supervision should be three years with the Yang di-Pertuan Negara being empowered to extend this period if he thinks fit - it is only logical that the life of the Ordinance should be extended for at least five years instead of extending it for another year and then introducing further amending Bills to extend its life from year to year. The potential threat of violence is still with us and we still have need for the continuance of this Ordinance. Furthermore, the knowledge that the Ordinance will be in force for another five years will be a deterrent to both present and potential gangsters and, I hope, will also make them seriously consider the advantages of reforming themselves. Clause 7 is a clause which empowers the Minister either to order the detention of persons associated with activities of a criminal nature in the interests of public safety, peace, and good order for a period up to one year or to make an order directing that they be placed under police supervision for a period not exceeding three years. The extension of the period of detention order by the Minister from six months to one year is aimed at the real hard-core criminal leaders and fighters who must be removed out of commission for an effective period of time. On the other hand, there are many gangsters including some who are already detained, who are really misled and misguided persons, often teenagers, who are not all lost to the society of decent people and who should be given a second chance to redeem themselves and go straight. This class of gangsters could be put under police supervision instead of being detained. They would be released and returned to the intimate circle of their relatives and friends. They would be subject to restrictions but they could lead comparatively normal lives and participate in remunerative employment. They will not be bothered so long as they do not break the restrictions imposed on them or commit certain specified crimes of violence for which the penalty is deterrent prison sentences. Clause 9 replaces the existing procedure of persons under detention orders being released on suspension orders and provides for the Minister to make orders for police supervision in respect of persons who are already detained under detention orders, or under detention orders the validity of which has expired. I can give the assurance that the orders under these two clauses will be made with the greatest care and examination. I must also point out that the powers conferred on the Minister by clauses 7 and 9 would still, as in the principal Ordinance, be subject to the consent of the Public Prosecutor being obtained and subject to confirmation by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara after consideration of reports from the Advisory Committee appointed under section 51 of the Ordinance. The Minister therefore does not act completely on his own. There are these important safeguards which I have just mentioned. Clause 10 makes persons directed to be under police supervision subject to other disabilities and provisions intended to make it easier to control their activities and to prevent or to deter them from committing crimes. If they break the restrictions imposed on them under these police supervision orders or if they consort with other persons subject to similar supervision orders without permission, or if they are found loitering in public places or are found at places where breaches of the peace have been committed, or are found in the company of two or more persons subject to supervision without being able to account for themselves satisfactorily, they are liable on conviction to be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years and not less than one year. Also, if such persons are convicted of any of the offences included in the Third Schedule to the Ordinance, they will become liable to double the maximum term of imprisonment imposed therefor and will also be liable to caning. Sir, we are not alone in imposing these special restrictions on specified offences for they are taken from the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance recently enacted in the Federation of Malaya. This clause also provides for the taking of photographs and finger impressions of such persons. Clause 11 makes corresponding provision for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to extend the validity of detention orders for periods not exceeding one year at any one time to be in line with the initial period of up to one year for these detention orders. The existing provision that no detention order shall extend beyond two years still remains. The clause also empowers the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to extend the period of supervision orders from time to time. As in the case of detention orders under the principal Ordinance, he may also refer any supervision order for further consideration by an Advisory Committee. Clause 14 gives the Minister powers to make rules providing, inter alia, for the issue of special identity cards to all persons subject to supervision orders. This is desirable for purposes of their easier identification by the police and the control of their movements and activities. It is not the intention, however, to issue identity cards of a conspicuous nature like having a big X endorsed on them, or having a different colour from the ordinary cards. They will be made easily identifiable by the police without making them too obvious. This is desirable because it is felt that persons subject to police supervision under this Ordinance should not be hampered by a public branding from obtaining and succeeding in legitimate employment. Two other clauses which should perhaps be mentioned are clause 6 which now gives the Minister the power to amend, add to or vary any of the Schedules in the Ordinance, and clause 12 which now empowers the Minister to make appointments to the Advisory Committee. The opportunity has also been taken of incorporating in the Bill a number of formal amendments, for example, the substitution of the words "Governor in Council" by "Yang di-Pertuan Negara", and "Chief Secretary" by "Minister". A few amendments either for clarification or of a purely drafting nature are also incorporated, for example, the renumbering of Schedules due to the fact that the First to the Fifth Schedules in the Ordinance have been repealed by Ordinance 34 of 1959 dated 26th March, 1959. Sir, these then are the aims and objects of this Bill. The additional powers and measures asked for are drastic but, as i stressed earlier on, we are dealing with unruly and unprincipled thugs and gangsters who have no regard for the rule of law. The present Government is determined to end the present state of gang lawlessness and I am sure, with this end in view, the Bill will commend itself to the House and to the law-abiding public of Singapore. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 6.15 p.m.

Mr (Deputy) Speaker, Sir, I would like to congratulate the Government on this Bill to amend the principal Ordinance. But there is one aspect of this Bill which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. This Bill has been enacted in order that the public safety, peace and good order in Singapore might be preserved, and there is no doubt that there are elements in the country doing their best to upset public safety, peace and good order. In this connection, too, Sir, and in respect of the point I wish to make, I wish to bring to the attention of the House the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance which is also an Ordinance designed to secure public safety, possibly at a different level, but nevertheless to secure public safety. In the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, Mr (Deputy) Speaker, there is provision for an appeals tribunal to which any person, who is detained under the provisions of that Ordinance, could appeal. Now, the appeals tribunal comprises a High Court Judge and two District Judges, and to this appeals tribunal any person who has been detained under the provisions of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance could put in an appeal. The appeal is heard in camera, but the appeal is heard, and the detained person has opportunities of making his defence before that tribunal. In other words, Mr (Deputy) Speaker, he himself might be able to say something or adduce some evidence which has not reached the ears or the eyes of the Minister in charge. There is no doubt that when the safety of the State is being threatened, the executive must be given sufficient powers to combat that evil. But the greater the powers that are given to combat that evil, Mr (Deputy) Speaker, I venture to suggest that there must be corresponding provisions which will enable persons who possibly should not have been accused - maybe one in a hundred; but even in that exceptional case that person should be given the opportunity of presenting his case with a view to determining whether or not his detention has been right. Now, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance makes provision for that. In this Ordinance, Mr (Deputy) Speaker, Sir, there is an Advisory Committee which has the powers of a Court; it can subpoena and administer oaths and take evidence. But there is no provision in this Ordinance which gives the right to a person who has been detained to prefer an appeal to this Advisory Committee. The Ordinance merely says that his case may be submitted to the Advisory Committee. It is not obligatory but permissive; the Minister or some other person in charge may submit his case to the Advisory Committee. As far as I have been able to ascertain, Mr (Deputy) Speaker, Sir, the position now is that this Advisory Committee is only given papers which the Minister himself has seen. Now, where the Minister himself has seen the papers and satisfied himself on the advice of the Public Prosecutor, it stands to reason that the Advisory Committee itself must also be satisfied. After these safeguards, it is hardly likely that the Advisory Committee could come to any other conclusion. But what I would be interested to see, Mr (Deputy) Speaker, Sir, is for the person detained to be enabled to bring as of right to this Advisory Committee evidence which has not been placed before the Minister himself. In order to do this, I think some provision should be made in the Bill which will enable this detained person to make his appeal in the same way that the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance enables persons detained under its provisions to make the appeal. But for that observation, Sir, I am entirely in support of the Bill. 6.21 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr (Deputy) Speaker, Sir, I heartily support this Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment No. 2) Bill. This amending Bill is to eradicate the misdeeds of the previous Government, whose attitude was based on partial changes. Mr (Deputy) Speaker, Sir, in the light of the written language contained in this Bill, it seems that this Bill is drastic and harsh. But if we examine it and take into consideration the threat to a person's safety under the wave of gangsterism, then this amending Bill is not drastic and harsh enough. The new Government has its responsibility to the people, and it has to bear in mind the interests of the masses of the people. In order to ensure security in this country, we have to enact proper laws, and if we cannot do so, then we will be just like the previous Government. Because of this, therefore, this amending Bill is decisive. We must be decisive and provide in this Bill means to check the activities of gangsterism. The amending Bill is a good prescription. It is `tasty' to us, and to those who are aware of the implications of this amendment, they will know that it is to their own interests. We must know what is gangsterism. We must know their origin. Since the 18th century, Chinese immigrants have poured into this country from every corner of China. From the inflow of immigrants into Malaya and Singapore, there came the Ang Bin Hoay. This Ang Bin Hoay was established in Singapore, and its purpose was to overthrow the Manchurian Government and reinstate the Ming Dynasty in China. But because of changes in the society, this Ang Bin Hoay dissolved itself into many small gangster groups. We must not under-rate the activities of this organisation. It has its own traditions and its own merits. If we can witness a ceremony of these gangsters and can look into some of the regulations of this organisation, we can then easily find that they strongly uphold their unity and justice. From these came the theory of gangsterism. It is based on what they call justice to unite the gangster members. Their principle has been handed down since the 18th century to the present society. Although this organisation looks very simple, their influence is widespread. At the same time, because of this influence, the leadership in the ranks of the gangsters is able to continue up to the present. Now that this Government has taken office, I believe the masses of the people realise its attitude towards the gangsters. My Party, the P.A.P., stands for the principle of socialism, and this gangsterism is detrimental to socialism. We must know why these gangsters become gangsters. I believe that a gangster becomes one because he was not properly brought up when young and living in obscurity. The old social institutions contributed much to the organisation of gangsterism. We want to suppress gangsterism. We must think of an alternative to help to reform gangsters and to lead them to the road of happiness. Today we amend this Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment No. 2) Bill in order to suppress the obstinate elements of gangsterism. We must make them realise their present situation, for they are responsible for the disorderliness in the present society. On the one hand, they can kill a dog to give a lesson to the monkey. This can be said to be a lesson to the new members of the gangs. The previous Government were different from the present Government in their attitude towards gangsterism. The previous Government adopted a partial policy towards gangsterism. When certain things happened they put all these gangsters into gaol. They just put them in there for a certain period without educating them and without giving them any opportunity to reform themselves. This was the policy of the previous Government towards gangsterism. Therefore I support the new Government unconditionaly to amend the criminal law. On the one hand, we give them an opportunity to get their places in life again and, on the other hand, we make them realise that they are responsible for the state of insecurity of our present society. 6.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs

Order. I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to the correct form of address. It should be "Mr Deputy Speaker" and not "Mr Speaker."

I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my colleague and friend, the Minister for Home Affairs, has already drawn the attention of this House to the magnitude of the threat which is facing society here through organised thuggery. The situation, Mr (Deputy) Speaker, Sir, is not an ordinary situation whereby some misguided people get into criminal activity. The situation is one of real seriousness whereby the whole organisation of society is being threatened by criminals who are organised in gangs. The situation is extraordinary and, therefore, it is necessary that the Government seek extraordinary powers to deal with this very abnormal criminal situation. Mr (Deputy) Speaker, Sir, I can assure the Member for Farrer Park that we dislike the necessity for this Bill as much as he does. But if we are to be realistic, and if we are to be able to deal with the situation, it is very necessary that we get these extraordinary powers. We have also, Mr (Deputy) Speaker, Sir, seen to it that there are provisions written into this law to ensure that the powers that we seek are not in any way abused. As my colleague has already pointed out, these powers cannot be exercised by the Minister unless he first gets the consent of the Public Prosecutor, and when the detention is made by the Minister or police supervision is imposed by the Minister in pursuance of the exercise of these powers, the detainee still has further safeguards, Sir. The Bill does not in any way deprive the detainee of the right to make representations before the Advisory Committee (which is the Committee which advises the Minister on all matters appertaining to detentions), so that, Mr (Deputy) Speaker, Sir, I would like again to point out to the Member for Farrer Park that in all these things one has to be realistic. In a situation fraught with danger, it is essential that we seek these extraordinary powers.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Ong Pang Boon]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr DEPUTY Speaker in the Chair] 6.37 p.m. Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 -

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 2, line 34, to leave out "any" and insert "such". The Minister resumed his seat.

Would the Minister care to make an explanation on the amendment?

It is only a drafting error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 -

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move an amendment to clause 10. In page 5, line 19, after "time", to insert "is found". This is an omission. Amendment agreed to. Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 11 to 16 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments.

6.45 p.m.

Third Reading, what day?

Now. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time." I wish to take this opportunity to reply to some of the remarks made by the Member for Farrer Park just now. The Member for Farrer Park is an advocate and solicitor, and I presume he is aware of the Criminal Law Advisory Committee Rules, 1958. The rules enable the Advisory Committee to carry out a full enquiry. There is provision under rule 4, subsection (1) , and rule 5 subsections (1) and (2) of the Criminal Law Advisory Committee Rules, 1958, for a person detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, to be notified of the date, time and place when the Advisory Committee will consider the grounds upon which his detention order has been made and he may then appear personally to make representations or have his representations made by his advocate and solicitor, or, in place of oral representations, have his representations made in writing. There is, therefore, provision for a detained person to appeal to the Advisory Committee, which is an outside and impartial body, consisting of three members of the public, one of whom, the chairman, is a member of the Bar. The Advisory Committee takes into consideration not the police papers and documents alone, but also hears the representations of the detained person and the representations of any of his witnesses. Further, there are several checks and counter-checks when the police statements and grounds for detention are considered by the Minister for the prosecution, the Advisory Committee, and finally the Cabinet. So, I can assure the Members of the House that in exercising the powers contained in this Ordinance we shall exercise every care and consideration. As I have pointed out earlier, this is an abnormal situation and therefore we require extraordinary powers to deal with the situation.

I second the motion.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 6.51 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the main purpose of this Bill is to effect a simplification and, I hope, an improvement in the law relating to the limitation of actions. The present law in Singapore is based on the Indian law, which was passed in 1877 in India and was introduced into the former Straits Settlements in 1896. The Indian Act and the whole law is extremely complicated. It lists over 100 different kinds of actions and provides varying periods of limitation, varying from one year up to 60 years. Many of the variations are extremely arbitrary and the Indian courts have varied in their interpretation of the Act. The complication of the laws has given rise to the need for bulky commentaries. In an introduction to one of these commentaries, Mr Justice Walsh said: "Was it necessary in order to prevent a man from sleeping over his rights to devise 183 methods of defeating him, or is it to be that in order to appreciate the right interpretation of these 183 methods, a lawyer should be forced to investigate no less than 8,000 reported decisions?"

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Federation, a committee was set up in 1950 to consider the law relating to limitations. This committee recommended the adoption of the English law of limitations as contained in the Limitation Act of 1939. As a result, the Federation, in 1953, enacted the Limitation Ordinance. The Singapore Bar Committee has also considered the matter and has recommended that legislation on the lines of the English Limitation Act, 1939, and the Federation Limitation Ordinance, 1953, be enacted in Singapore. The broad principle of the Bill is simple. It makes the limitation period for nearly all actions six years. The principle exceptions to this rule are: 1. In the case of actions on judgments; 2. Actions to recover land; and 3. Actions to recover money secured on a mortgage or charge of land or personal property. The period of limitation proposed is 12 years. In the case of actions to recover a penalty or forfeiture under any written law (not being a criminal fine) and actions arising out of certain revenue matters, the period of limitation proposed is one year. The Explanatory Statement to the Bill, Sir, sets out in some detail the principal provisions of the Bill, and I do not propose to repeat what is stated there. I commend the Bill as one which will help to make this particular branch of the law simpler and one which can be clearly understood not only by lawyers but by the public at large. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Byrne]. Bill considered in Committee. 6.55 p.m. Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, to leave out lines 1 to 11 inclusive. The reason for this, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that this sub-clause is the exact duplication of clause 14 of the Bill, and is therefore unnecessary. Amendment agreed to. Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 11 to 17 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 18 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, line 39, to leave out "At" and insert "Subject to the provisions of section 12 of this Ordinance at". This is necessary, Sir, because clause 18 is related to clause 12 (2) and it would be necessary to make a reference to clause 12 (2) in clause 18. Amendment agreed to. Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 19 to 36 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

7.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the remaining items of business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the remaining items of business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 7.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That at its rising today this Assembly do stand adjourned to Tuesday, 22nd September, 1959.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising today this Assembly do stand adjourned to Tuesday, 22nd September, 1959.

Order for Second Reading read. 7.02 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation in regard to this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is, as stated in its long title, "to make provision for the regulation of moneylending". The Explanatory Statement to the Bill deals with its provisions in detail and I need only refer to some of the salient features of the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Bill, moneylenders will be required to take out licences annually from the Registrar of Moneylenders. A loan by an unlicensed moneylender will be unenforceable. To qualify for a licence, the moneylender must satisfy the Registrar that he is resident in Singapore, is of good character, is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, that he has not been disqualified from holding a licence and that he has not, after the coming into operation of the Ordinance, lent money to a person under 18 years of age. In the case of a company or firm, the manager must so satisfy the Registrar. The licence would show the moneylender's true name, his business name and the address at which he is authorised to carry on business. A list of licensed moneylenders will be published in the Government Gazette. A moneylender who is refused a licence may appeal to the Minister, whose decision shall be final. A court is authorised to suspend or forfeit the licence of any person convicted by it of an offence under the Ordinance and to disqualify any such person from obtaining a fresh licence. When lending money, moneylenders are required to have a written memorandum in the English language signed by the borrower containing all the terms of the contract, particularly the date, the principal and the rate of interest. At the Committee stage of this Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose to move an amendment to provide that the memorandum shall, where there is more than one borrower, state the amount paid to each of the borrowers and the amount payable by each of the borrowers or sureties. A copy of the memorandum must be given to the borrower. Where the loan is for $100 or more, payment of the loan is required to be made by crossed cheque, crossed postal order or crossed money order. The purpose of this provision is to protect the borrower from acknowledging the receipt of a greater sum than that actually received by him, and it will also incidentally help the moneylender in proving the amount of the money lent, the burden of which is placed on him under the Bill. The moneylender is required to state his licence number on the note or memorandum, including promissory notes, setting out the terms of the loan, and he is also required to hand a copy of such notes or memoranda to the Commissioner of Stamps, who is then required to forward them to the Comptroller of Income Tax. Every moneylender is required to keep, in permanent books, regular accounts of each loan, and also prescribed books of accounts including a cash book. The Registrar may inspect the books under conditions of secrecy and the moneylender is required to submit quarterly statements of his cash and loan accounts. The court is authorised to reopen moneylending transactions and to give the debtor relief where the interest is excessive and the transaction harsh and unconscionable, so that we may get into a situation where some moneylenders may appear as defendants in our courts, and the courts will be able to order these moneylenders to refund part of their unjust earnings to those whom they have hitherto held in thrall. A debtor, Sir, may apply to the court for relief at any time and not merely when proceedings have already been instituted against him by the moneylender. Where the interest exceeds 18 per cent per annum on unsecured loans or 12 per cent per annum on secured loans, such interest shall be presumed until the contrary is proved to be excessive and the transaction harsh and unconscionable. Moneylenders are not allowed to charge for expenses other than stamp duties, fees payable by law and legal costs incidental to the loan, and cannot receive interest under the guise of expenses. Borrowers who have paid such illegal charges are allowed to recover them. The borrower is allowed to repay any money lent or interest thereon by cheque, money order or postal order, and where a cheque, money order or postal order has been posted to the moneylender at his authorised address, the presumption arises that the amount stated in the cheque, money order or postal order has been paid to the moneylender. Where borrowers do not understand English, the note must be attested by an advocate and solicitor, or magistrate or other responsible person who shall explain the note to the borrower and certify that this has been done. The money must be paid over in the presence of the attestor. Moneylenders who make any note or memorandum, or who take a security for their loan, a promissory note or other contract for the repayment of money, in which the principal or rate of interest is not fully stated or is left blank shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding $500 and, in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, imprisonment of not more than six months or a fine of not more than $1,000 or both. Co-operative societies, bankers, pawnbrokers and certain corporations and societies and all those who only lend money doing so merely in the course of and for the purpose of any business not having as its primary object the lending of money, are excluded from the definition of "moneylender" and are therefore not affected by the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government does not pretend that this Bill will put a stop to the malpractices that are carried on by certain very unscrupulous moneylenders in Singapore but it seeks to serve notice on all those who are taking part in those malpractices that as and when reports are made to us and if the public is able to show that there are loopholes in this Ordinance through which moneylenders can escape, I can assure them all that we shall do our utmost to see that further legislation is introduced to put a complete stop to these malpractices. Question proposed. 7.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that the Minister for Labour and Law assured us that if malpractices are found in the future, further legislation will be enforced. In rising to support this Bill, I would like to make a few comments. This Bill is laudable for the fact that it protects the poor from the clutches of unscrupulous moneylenders. This Bill, in my opinion, should be implemented as soon as possible to ease the hardship of those already victimised and to prevent those who, because of financial difficulties, may be victimised in the future. However, I do hope that Government will give a thought to the seemingly unavoidable loopholes in the Moneylenders Bill which the moneylenders will find, as the Minister himself had said. The Government's fight will not be only against the moneylenders but also against those who abet the moneylenders. Strange as it may seem, the very people whom this Bill is supposed to protect are the worst offenders. To mention one example, clause 16 (2) reads as follows "... no security given by the borrower or by any such agent as aforesaid in respect of any such contract shall if the amount of the loan is one hundred dollars or above be enforceable unless the money lent was given to the borrower or his agent in the form of a crossed cheque or crossed postal order or crossed money order made payable to the borrower or his agent." Sir, in spite of this, nothing prevents the borrower from agreeing to return part of the amount that appears on the cheque even when the loan is in the form of a cheque. He may even be required to provide the difference between the actual loan and the amount that was signed for, before the cheque for the full amount is handed to him. Moreover, clause 16 (2) - the one I have just read - only provides for loans of not less than $100. It is the very, very poor, Sir, who need protection most, who usually take loans of less than $100, and I think that they are the ones who should be protected. The Sunday Mail of 30th August reported: "Horse-racing, character lotteries, mahjong and cards in that order caused the downfall of the thousands now in the clutches of the moneylender." Sir, it must be admitted that people who get into debt because of horse-racing, character lotteries, mahjong and cards are irresponsible people, and when irresponsible people are desperately in need of money, "reckless" is a mild term to use to describe them. They therefore will be prepared to break all rules and regulations and even abet moneylenders so long as they get the money, some in spite of the knowledge that it is detrimental to themselves; and there are some who will sign any form of contract, because they have not the slightest intention of abiding by the contract. Sir, this is a more difficult obstacle to overcome than the difficulty posed by the moneylenders themselves. I am confident that with the experts that the Government has in the Ministers and with the legal mind of a brilliant lawyer that is in our Prime Minister, it should not be impossible to find a way of overcoming this difficulty. The Government claims to have been very successful in their education campaign in literacy, language and politics. Perhaps I may be permitted to suggest that Government launches another education campaign to educate irresponsible and reckless people who do damage not only to themselves and their families, but also to innocent and deserving parties. It is the irresponsible actions of these reckless people that raise the degree of risk that moneylenders have to take. To cover this risk, moneylenders resort to all sorts of means of raising interest illegally. And the poor man who is desperately in need of money for a deserving cause, like illness in the family maybe, will have to suffer the same consequences as the reckless gambler. Bearing this in mind for a later improvement on the Bill, I support it wholeheartedly. Another point for the Government to bear in mind in connection with this Bill is that the very poor people, who have no status to support them and may find it very difficult to get loans from moneylenders, go to pawnshops with articles which they can hardly do without - sometimes as bad as their own coats or their wives' sarongs - just to tide them over a difficult period of, let us say, illness. These are the people who deserve pity and should be helped. And these are the people who are paying 24 per cent interest on a loan, sometimes 30 per cent if the loan is less than $5, as against 12 per cent as provided in the Moneylenders Bill for secured debts. Sir, I hope in the spirit of this Moneylenders Bill, the Government will consider in the near future amending the pawnbrokers' rate of interest to bring it to a fairer balance with that of the Moneylenders Bill. 7.18 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whenever we hear the word "moneylender", two communities are associated with it, even if they are good - the chettiars and the Sikhs. If we have a good Sikh friend who visits the house, people around would think that we are borrowing money. Mr Speaker, Sir, from my point of view as a worker, I would like to stress a particular point. In the trade union movement, it is usual to see pickets before an office when they are on strike to fight the employers. But on pay days, Sir, we see two kinds of picketing without placards - one with a turban and beard, and the other with a dhoti and an umbrella. Such picketing can always be seen in front of Government offices, the City Council, the Harbour Board, or any other well established offices, on any pay day at about 4 o'clock, and the pickets are waiting for borrowers to come forth from offices. And these employees when they are badly in need of money easily succumb to the grip of the moneylenders, who use nice words, and show no interest in recovering the principal loan, but simply say, "Kalau wan tidak ada wang, ta'apa. Baya bunga dahulu." [If you have no money, it does not matter. Paying interest will do.] Mr Speaker, Sir, if a man borrows $200, he might agree to pay the moneylender 12 monthly instalments of $30 each to clear the debt. And if the man is financially tight on a pay day, the moneylender would usually pay him $10 and say, "Kalau tuan ta'apa wang, ta'apa. Sim pan dahulu." [If you have no money, it does not matter. Keep it first.] This $20 is paid as interest only, and this is carried on for years, and the capital remains as it is - $200. And therefore the moneylender, in about four years, would have collected about $800 as interest with a capital of $200 still outstanding. When we talk about moneylending, there are many cultural traditions that Indians have brought to Singapore and Malaya. Among these is the money-lending culture. Of the Sikh community, Sir, if you look through the passport of a Sikh who comes to Malaya, never can you find their occupation stated as moneylender; almost all come for jobs - as jagas, or watchmen. And wherever they work, they begin lending money, and accumulate money. Sometimes they form a money-lending association, and usually we find that about 99 per cent of these Sikh moneylenders are not licensed. If they cannot find a borrower in his office, they would go straight to his home. And if he is not there, they would intimidate his wife and say, "Look here, if you are not going to pay my interest, I am going to prosecute your husband." Under the existing law, when a man is employed, he cannot do any money-lending business. But this is going on in Singapore; there are people working and also doing moneylending business. So when we combat these two types of moneylenders - the chettiar community and the Sikh community - I should say that the chettiars are more reasonable and have consideration for the borrowers' difficulties than the Sikhs. Mr Speaker, Sir, the law states that for a loan of more than $100, it should be paid by a crossed cheque and, as the hon. Member for Mountbatten has just mentioned, maybe some bargaining may be made in the signing of the documents, such as after the borrower has got the money from the bank he must pay to the moneylender whatever difference he has agreed to pay between the stated loan and actual sum received. In such a case it is up to the borrower himself to decide, once he has got the crossed cheque, whether or not he should pay the difference. One point which I am strongly in favour of in the Bill is the prohibition of moneylenders besieging places of employment or residence. As it is, these moneylenders would not allow the borrowers to sit in their offices, to go to their houses, or even to a coffeeshop to drink coffee. That is the main thing. If a man needs money, he can go as a gentleman to a licensed moneylender and sign a loan, because the moneylender has a furnished and licensed office with a notice board. So this is a very good clause. And even if the rate of interest is 18 per cent or 12 per cent, it is in line with the Federation's policy. And when this Bill is passed, most of the unlicensed moneylenders now would be unable to issue summons for past contracts. In the past, the borrowers just signed promissory notes with which the moneylenders could sue them and say, "Look, if you are not going to pay, I will summon you. So, if you cannot pay all, you had better pay the interest." Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a great relief for the workers, and it is my earnest belief that the majority of the workers support the Government on this Bill. 7.26 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wholeheartedly support this Moneylenders Bill, moved by the Minister for Labour and Law. Indeed there are still in Singapore many unscrupulous moneylenders who hold the poor people in their clutches. We know, and the general public knows too, that the moneylenders, licensed and unlicensed, are cinema attendants, godown jagas, and many other watchmen, who are also prepared to lend money to the poor people, and suck the blood of the masses. Mr Speaker, there is another point I would like to mention. I know about this matter personally. For instance, a man borrows $100, but he signs for a loan of $200. The borrower accepts the terms because of forced circumstances, or of hardship. But the moneylender has no pity or mercy for the poor or those who are in need of help. Another point, Mr Speaker. When the time for payment comes, i.e. at the end of the month - as I personally have witnessed or known - almost in every office in Singapore the moneylenders would wait in a long queue, reminiscent of the Japanese occupation when there were long queues to purchase cigarettes, with people pushing here and there. These moneylenders would queue up in that manner in order to recover money loaned to the borrowers. This, if left unchecked, will, I think, not only be detrimental to the borrowers but also to the moneylenders. It may be that the borrowers are working for a certain employer and the employer will no doubt act, with a dismissal of the employee. With the Bill moved by the Minister for Labour and Law, I believe and I am confident that this will bring about an improvement to the conditions for the benefit of both the borrower and the lender. And another factor that also strengthens the case for approval of this Bill is that it can educate those people who are in the habit of borrowing money from moneylenders, and that the moneylenders will come to realise the hardship of the borrowers and abide by these regulations. There is a certain section of the people who do not have difficulty in getting food, Mr Speaker, but nevertheless they land themselves in difficulties; not because of the force of circumstances, but because they want to attend cinema shows or purchase luxuries. And there is another section who wish to observe marriage traditions and fulfil certain obligations to their brothers or sisters and so on. Mr Speaker, I am confident that if this Bill is enforced, I am sure the moneylenders who are always lending money will realise the conditions of the people of Singapore. 7.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Mountbatten just now asked why it was that the Bill did not require loans of less than $100 to be made by way of a crossed cheque. She suggested that such an omission would defeat the very purposes of this Bill in the sense that this Bill has been designed to protect borrowers of small sums. I would remind the Member for Mount-batten that the majority of the people who are held in thrall by the moneylenders are poor people, and most of them are the people who take loans of less than $100 from unscrupulous moneylenders. It has been the practice in the past for these moneylenders who lend sums of less than $100 to these poor people to require them to sign promissory notes for larger amounts. Now, that will not be possible under this present Bill because the moneylenders will be forced to enter a sum of less than $100 on the note and cannot require them to sign for more. If he requires them to sign for more, he will have to pay them by way of a crossed cheque, and it is for that reason that loans for less than $100 are not required to be made by crossed cheques. There is the other point that the Member for Mountbatten has made. She said, and I agree with her, that this Bill itself is not likely to put a stop to fraudulent practices and other malpractices on the part of unscrupulous moneylenders. If she knows of other dodges which are being used to defeat the purposes of this Bill, I would invite her to bring these dodges to the attention of the Government. I can assure her that we will introduce, if necessary, amending legislation to put a stop to these dodges, because we are determined to see that all these malpractices are put an end to immediately.

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

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 5, line 3, after "months", to insert "or to both such fine and imprisonment". This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is to provide for the imposition of both a fine and an imprisonment in appropriate cases. Amendment agreed to. Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 9 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 16 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 10, line 31, after "principal;", to insert- "(c) the amount paid to the borrower or (where there is more than one borrower) to each of the borrowers; (d) the amount payable by the borrower or each of the borrowers and by the surety or each of the sureties;". Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment is to provide that the notes or memorandum shall, where there is more than one borrower, show the amount paid to each of the borrowers and the amount payable by each of the borrowers or sureties. Amendment agreed to.

There is a note in page 10, line 32, to leave out "(c)" and insert "(e)". This is, of course, consequential to the amendment just passed. Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 18 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 11, line 33, after "of", to insert "subsection (1) of". This amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, makes it clear that the reference in subsection (2) is to subsection (1) of the clause. Amendment agreed to. Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 19 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 21 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 14, line 5, to leave out "eight" and insert "four". In line 7, I move, Mr Speaker, Sir, -

Will the Minister please move one amendment at a time? Perhaps he would like to explain why the figure has been changed to "four".

Mr Speaker, Sir, the interest rate which may be allowed on bankruptcy is reduced to 4 per cent to fall in line with section 43 (8) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance which provides that interest shall be calculated at the rate of 4 per cent per annum. This was an omission on our part. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 14, line 7, to leave out "creditor" and insert "moneylender". Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment is made to give clarity to the section. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Byrne, the third amendment. The Minister will move simpliciter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 14, line 18, to leave out "eight" and insert "four". This is for the same reason as I have just given, Sir. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move that a new sub-clause be added. In page 14, line 20, at end, to add "(3) Where on the date of the coming into operation of this Ordinance property is vested in the Official Assignee by reason of any adjudication or vesting order or other order having the like effect, made under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Ordinance or which is the subject of a composition or scheme of arrangement approved thereunder, but where no dividend has been declared or payment by way of dividend has been made, the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall apply notwithstanding that the order vesting the property or a receiving order made in respect of it was made or the composition or scheme of arrangement was approved or any debt provable or payable in respect of it was incurred before the date of the coming into operation of this Ordinance.". Mr Speaker, Sir, a new subsection (3) is added to provide for cases where adjudication, administration or vesting orders have already been made and to give retrospective effect to the provisions of this section. Amendment agreed to.

There is a note in page 14, line 21, to leave out "(3)" and insert "(4)". This is consequential to the amendment just made. Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 7.45 p.m. Clause 22 -

There is a note in page 14, marginal note, to leave out "19" and insert "20". That will be done.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 15, line 6, to leave out "debtor" and insert "borrower or other person sued". This amendment is made, Mr Speaker, Sir, to avoid the use of the terms "debtor" and "creditor" and for the sake of clarity to refer to the "borrower" and the "moneylender". Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 15, line 6, to leave out "creditor" and insert "moneylender". This is for the sake of clarity. Amendment agreed to. Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 16, line 7, after "of" where it first occurs, to insert "a". This is to supply an omission, Sir. Amendment agreed to. Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 25 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 17, line 10, to leave out "lender" and insert "borrower". This is to correct an error. "Lender" should be "borrower". Amendment agreed to. Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 26 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 17, line 34, to leave out "that" and insert a comma. This is to improve the drafting of the clause. Amendment agreed to. Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 27 to 30 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 31 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 20, line 21, to leave out "leader" and insert "moneylender". This is for clarity. Amendment agreed to. Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 33 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 21, line 2, after "months", to insert "or to both such fine and imprisonment". This is to provide the imposition of both a fine and imprisonment in appropriate cases. Amendment agreed to. Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 35 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 21, line 36, to leave out "the" where it thirdly occurs and insert "this". This is to correct a grammatical mistake. Amendment agreed to. Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill. First to Third Schedules inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 7.52 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The objects of this Bill are simple and straightforward. The Bill is designed to indemnify those persons who, acting in good faith, dealt with property erroneously assumed to be enemy property and also to provide for the disposal of in, come derived from enemy property, and any copyright of an enemy nature infringed owing to the War. The Bill is based on the United Kingdom Enemy Property Act, 1953, and follows in the main the Federation Enemy Property Ordinance, 1959. The United Kingdom Act has three main purposes: 1. To indemnify persons who dealt with property erroneously assumed to be enemy property, provided they were acting in good faith and in purported compliance with the Trading with the Enemy legislation. Titles to such property actually sold are validated but the real owner's rights to recover the property are protected when it is still in the custodian's hands or when it was leased to an ostensible owner without payment. 2. It provides for the disposal of income from enemy property. This income is used, first, to pay interest in respect of property erroneously taken into custody. The balance of the income is paid to the exchequer. 3. It provides protection in the case of infringement of German-owned copyright for the use of German-owned patents and designs and for transactions involving reparation materials sent from Germany to the United Kingdom, where no legislative saction or authority existed for such infringement, use or transaction. The main reason why claims may arise is because of the peculiar difficulty in war time of determining what was enemy property and what was not. The definition of enemy property depended upon the residence of the owner regardless of his own nationality, because if the owner was under enemy control, his property might be available to the enemy. Consequently when owners moved between enemy and neutral countries, or companies operating in enemy territory were controlled by other companies in neutral territory, there was difficulty in determining the status of their property. The rule was adopted that property should be treated as enemy property when there was any doubt as to its true status. In these circumstances, mistakes were inevitable. While the factors leading to the passing of the United Kingdom Act are similar to those in Singapore, there are other factors to be taken into account. The most important is the fact of the Japanese occupation and the confusion cause by it, together with the considerable amount of legislation passed in Singapore to deal with its after-effects. Part I of the Bill therefore specifically includes the Custodian of Property Proclamation, the Custodian of Property (Vesting) Ordinance, and the Custodian of Property Ordinance as legislation authorising dealings with enemy property, or property which was assumed to be enemy property. The Bill will provide indemnities for dealings in such property which was in fact not enemy property. It has not been necessary to make special provision in respect of patents in industrial designs, because registers of patents and designs in Singapore are mere extensions of the English registers. Consequently, the protection afforded by the United Kingdom Enemy Property Act against claims by the owners of patents and designs, whose rights were infringed during the War, apply equally to individuals in Singapore and in the United Kingdom. The provisions of the United Kingdom Enemy Property Act relating to copyrights and disclosure of trade secrets have been included in the Bill. In the United Kingdom when property was erroneously taken into custody and later restored to the owner, interest was paid to cover the period of seizure by the Custodian. With regard to Singapore, however, it is proposed that interest should be paid only from the date of resumption of Civil Government on the 1st April, 1946, or the date when the property was taken into custody, whichever is the later. This proposal is in line with the policy adopted in connection with the moratorium. During the Occupation and until Civil Government was resumed, it was not possible to administer enemy property nor to return to owners property erroneously taken under control. Just as some of the loss caused by the Occupation was placed upon the owners as a result of the moratorium, so some of the loss in respect of property seized by the Custodian should also fall on the owners. It is proposed that interest shall be payable, following the United Kingdom precedent, only on property that was never enemy property at any time. Interest on the property of allies and others taken into custody when their countries were occupied by the enemy is not payable to the owners. The reason for this decision is that, in very many instances, the amount payable would be trivial and the work of calculating the interest for varying periods on small but numerous sums would be disproportionately costly. I should like to draw special attention to a major deviation from the United Kingdom Act. Clause 12 (2) of the Bill provides that where property is taken into custody as non-enemy property under the Custodian of Property Ordinance and the proceeds of the realisation paid into the War Damage Fund, such payment was not to be disturbed even though the true owner may be able to establish his claim to the property. Clause 12 (3) applies the same rule to property certified as enemy property under section 24 of the Custodian of Enemy Property Ordinance where the identity of the owner could not be established at the date of taking it into custody. These two clauses are necessary in order to support one of the chief aims of the Custodian of Property Ordinance, which was to set a time limit on the making of claims on property whose ownership could not be ascertained as a result of the conditions created by the occupation. While on the one hand hardship was suffered by owners unable to establish their claims within the time limit, on the other hand a substantial proportion of their number received compensation from the War Damage Fund into which had been paid proceeds realised from their property. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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

8.00 p.m. Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 8, line 18, to leave out "(2)" and insert It is a typographical error. Amendment agreed to.

There is a Note: In page 8, marginal note, to leave out "3786/39" and insert "3876/39". That will be done.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 8, line 24, after "Fund", to insert "or the general revenue of Singapore". This is obvious, Mr Speaker, Sir. There was at that time no Consolidated Fund. Amendment agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 8.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Protected Places and Areas Ordinance, 1955, was enacted to provide for the more efficient protection of goods and supplies stored in protected places and protected areas. In furtherance of this object, authorised persons are empowered by sections 4 and 5 of the Ordinance to search persons entering or seeking to enter or being in protected places and areas. It would appear, however, that authorised persons are not empowered to search vehicles or vessels which are in such places. This would mean, for instance, that while being empowered to search the driver of a vehicle, an authorised officer is not empowered to search the vehicle itself even though he may strongly suspect that it contains stolen property. The Bill therefore seeks to remove all doubts as to the power of that authorised officer to search a vehicle or vessel entering or seeking to enter or being in a protected place or area. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 8.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation in regard to this Bill, and I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, is to provide for the licensing and control of massage establishments which are defined in the Bill as- "...any premises used or represented as being or intended to be used for the reception or treatment of persons requiring massage, manicure, chiropody, light, electric, vapour or other baths or other similar treatment;". Sir, there are, as far as the police know at present. 16 massage saloons operating in Singapore. The reason why it is considered necessary to license and control such massage saloons and similar establishments is that it is known that many of these establishments provide cover for undesirable activities including prostitution. The Bill provides that no person may, after the appointed day, carry on an establishment for massage without a licence from the Licensing Officer authorising him to do so. The issue of the licence is at the discretion of the Licensing Officer, who may impose conditions for securing the proper conduct of the establishment and who may, before issuing a licence, require security to be given that the provisions of the Ordinance and the conditions of the licence shall be duly observed. An appeal from the decision of the Licensing Officer will lie to the Minister, whose decision shall be final. No licence shall be issued to any person who is under the age of 21 years or to any person who, in the opinion of the Licensing Officer, is unsuitable to hold such a licence, or in respect of any premises which the Licensing Officer considers unsuitable or which is being carried on in contravention of the Ordinance or rules made thereunder. Moreover, power is given to review the licence in cases where curative treatment is or may be administered in the establishment. Unless there is a qualified person to administer such treatment, the licence may be revoked by the Licensing Officer who is required to give the grounds of the revocation, and appeal from such revocation lies to the Minister. Power is given to enter and inspect premises and to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Ordinance. The provisions of the Bill will not be applicable to any hospital, infirmary, institution, nursing home or other establishment maintained by the Government or any local authority, or to other establishments notified to be hospitals by the Minister, or to any hairdresser who gives face or scalp massage or manicure treatment to female customers only or in full view of all customers. Power is given to the Minister to exempt any premises from the provisions of the Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 8.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, like most things that will forever look for the line of least resistance, so we see so many massage establishments mushrooming all over Singapore. Those who read Chinese newspapers no doubt will see daily advertisements which show pretty faces and also tell prospective clients where to go for a pleasant massage. But in medical practice, Sir, massage is a form of treatment advocated for the loosening of stiff joints and tired muscles [Laughter] and helping - excuse me, Sir - to promote a free blood flow [Laughter] to the affected parts, thus increasing [Laughter] - sorry, Sir - the outflow of waste products and generally stimulating the activity of the human body. But of course the snag is that there are many parts of the body [Laughter]-

Order. I think probably the Member for Queenstown is anticipating a pleasant massage after this sitting!

I am sorry, Sir,I shall try to control my emotions. I was saying, Sir, the snag is that there are many parts of the body which can be stimulated, and by the wrong people. And with such people closely associated with yellow culture and the practice of yellow arts, the good curative action of massage has been grossly misused. Because of this, I heartily support this Bill which is consonant with the Government's anti-yellow campaign. Bona fide masseurs should have no reason to fear this Bill and they should thank Government for this action against irregular trespass. 8.16 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, once again I rise to support a Bill moved by the Minister for Labour and Law, this time concerning the licensing of masseurs. When I was assigned by the Minister for Labour to serve in the Labour Ministry, I received complaints from the public who stated that in Singapore there are many unlicensed massage establishments which employ beautiful virgin girls who are without the necessary qualifications. As conditions exist at the present time, the aim and objective of such an establishment is not to apply massage; but the object is sinister, that is, to make it a place of prostitution; because Mr Speaker, as a masseur, one must be qualified - one must know, for instance, enough about blood circulation. If there is a pain in the neck but the massage is applied to the leg, then something must be wrong somewhere. Sir, the Government is making an effort to eradicate yellow culture, whether it is in the form of dances, cinema shows, etc. And in the case of massage establishments, we should also tighten or impose stronger legislation and investigate this matter so that the malpractices which occur at the present moment will be stopped. That is all I wish to say.

Mr Byrne, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have anything to say in reply.

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

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 3, lines 4 and 5, to leave out "in which any massage or any" and insert "for massage in which any curative massage or". This amendment, Mr Speaker, is necessary to make it clear that technical qualifications would only be required where curative treatment is administered or likely to be administered in an establishment for massage. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 9, to leave out "which is being" and insert "for massage which is being or is likely to be". This amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, is to give power to the licensing officer to refuse a licence where the establishment is likely to be carried on in contravention of the Ordinance or the rules stated thereunder. Amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 6 to 13 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 8.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, provides in section 121 (2) (d) that any reference to the Attorney-General in any written law shall be construed as a reference to the State Advocate-General if the subject in relation to which the reference is made concerns the powers conferred on the State Advocate-General by the Order in Council, and in any other case as a reference to the Minister for the time being charged with the responsibility for that subject. The powers that are conferred on the State Advocate-General by the Order in Council are those relating to the initiation, conduct and discontinuance of criminal proceedings. In these matters the powers of the former Attorney-General have been formally transferred to the State Advocate-General by the Singapore (Constitution) Modification of Laws (No. 2) Order, 1959, which were made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (4) of section 121 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council. Of the remaining powers and functions of the former Attorney-General, some relate to his ministerial responsibility for certain Government departments, and these powers and functions have been taken over by me as Minister for Labour and Law. There are, however, certain powers and functions relating to the conduct of civil proceedings and to professional matters relating to advocates and solicitors, which can be more appropriately performed by the State Advocate-General. To take a few examples - proceedings under the Crown Suits Ordinance were formerly brought in in the name of the Attorney-General, and similarly suits against the Government were instituted in the name of the Attorney-General as defendant. It is considered that such proceedings should be conducted in the name of the State Advocate-General as plaintiff or defendant. The Attorney-General was formerly a Member of the Rules Committee constituted under the Courts Ordinance, and it is considered that it would be more appropriate for the State Advocate-General, rather than the Minister, to take his place. Lastly, petitions under the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance and the Divorce Ordinance were required to be served on the Attorney-General, who could appear on the hearing of the petition. Here, too, it is proposed that the State Advocate-General should take over the powers and functions of the former Attorney-General. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 8.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill, Sir, is to facilitate the enforcement of maintenance orders. Under the present law, if a person neglects to comply with an order of maintenance made by a Court under the Married Women and Children (Maintenance) Ordinance, the Court is given power to direct the amount to be levied in the manner provided for levying fines imposed by the Magistrate's Court, or to sentence the person to imprisonment, which may extend to one month for each month's allowance remaining unpaid. The Criminal Procedure Code thus provides for a fine to be levied by distress and sale of the property belonging to the offender. But this provision has remained a dead letter as the Criminal District and Magistrate's Courts have no facilities and no officials to levy such distress. The effect is that a person who refused to comply with a maintenance order can only be sent to prison, and in fact, in the period 1st of January, 1958, to 30th of June, 1959, 26 persons were so sentenced to imprisonment by the Court. In the case of a maintenance order made by the Shariah Court, the position under the present law is that where a person neglects to comply with an order of the Shariah Court, the Shariah Court itself can do nothing. The aggrieved wife would in such a case have to go to the District Court to seek enforcement of the order of the Shariah Court. This Bill seeks to give power to the Court, including the Shariah Court, to make an attachment of earnings order, to make it mandatory on an employer to deduct the amount of the maintenance allowance from the wages or other periodical payments made to the person liable to pay the maintenance, and to pay such sums into the Court. The definition of "earnings" is comprehensive, and, in short, this legislation will make it easier for wives and children to obtain maintenance due to them. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 8.36 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have paid special attention to this Bill before it is passed. We have come across certain women who have complained to us that they have been neglected by their husbands. They want to seek employment, but the present employment problem is very serious. It is very difficult for them to find employment. Even if they can find employment there is nobody to look after their children at home. In view of all these difficulties and inconveniences, we have therefore decided to pass this Maintenance Bill. The passing of this Bill is of great significance. On this point, I give my full support to this Bill. 8.37 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the Bill moved by the Minister for Labour and Law. We, as the Government, should introduce this Bill because this is one of the methods to protect women and children who have hitherto been victimised by their own husbands and fathers for the simple reason that their parents have neglected them. Although at the moment the Court has power to order the fathers to pay maintenance for their wives and children whom they have deserted, some of them have failed to comply with the orders as instructed by the Court. Therefore, we as the Government have made provision in this Bill so that employers are obliged to deduct the wages of the husbands of these women. Now, the Court will know the wages the husbands are drawing, and not as in the past, where in certain cases false information was given. This serves a good purpose. If this Bill is put into operation, every employer will have to pay the maintenance money due by his employee direct to the wife or the children by way of deduction from his wages. This is good. This will ensure protection and safeguard for the wife and the children. Otherwise, how could the wives look after the welfare of their children? They will be helpless and will not be able to find the means of livelihood to support themselves and their children. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support this Bill. 8.39 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Maintenance Bill moved by the Minister for Labour and Law. Concerning this problem of maintenance, we can analyse the present social institution. Men and women should be put on an equal footing both in employment and in life. We can reflect for a while that in the 140 years of colonialism in this country, women have been oppressed. Therefore, whether in family life or in employment, they have lost their opportunity. When women are oppressed in the family, and forced by their husbands to get a divorce, an order from the Court for maintenance is not in the interest of the women but in the interest of the children. The order for maintenance is made with a view to looking after the interest of the children and not of the women themselves. Their problem is decided by the Court. But we have seen that the husbands who are ordered by the Court to pay maintenance have avoided their responsibilities. We cannot allow this condition to go on. The Government in its Five-Year Plan has stated that it will see to it that women are put on an equal footing with men. But during the transition period, we have to think of ways and means to maintain their legal position. Under the present circumstances, they are victimised by those persons who are avoiding their legal responsibility towards their family. Therefore, I think that the passing of this Bill today is very proper, and will solve the maintenance problem.

Mr Byrne, in reply?

Mr Speaker, there is no reply.

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

8.42 p.m. Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 24, to leave out "employees" and insert "employers". This is an obvious mistake, Sir. Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 5, line 36, to leave out "following" and insert "falling". This mistake also is obvious, Sir. Amendment agreed to. Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

8.45 p.m.

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

I second the motion. Question proposed.

8.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer you to "The Tasks Ahead", Part 1, page 12, second paragraph, where the Minister for Culture says: "Of the inevitability of a Malayan nation, we are convinced. Our concern is with how this Malayan is to be brought into being - whether it is to be brought about painlessly and smoothly or whether it must be attended by tragedy and suffering, bitter communal conflicts and inter-racial carnage." Sir, there is no reason why it cannot be brought into being painlessly and smoothly, especially when a Malayan culture and a Malayan nation has already been brought into being a hundred years ago. But instead of receiving encouragement, there was an attempt in the early 20th century to annihilate it. But the attempt was not entirely successful, for there still exists in Singapore a people called Peranakans. The Peranakans, Sir, include all the people, regardless of their race, born in Singapore, and of all social standing, from all walks of life, who do not claim allegiance to the land of their forefathers, but claim Singapore as their motherland and their homeland. There are Chinese, Malay, Boyanese, Eurasian, Indian and Arab Peranakans. As a matter of fact, two nights ago I met some Arabs. They were too proud to call themselves Peranakans. These non-communal Peranakans from the different social strata are indeed the sons of the soil and have to some degree been successful in developing a Malayan language, custom, tradition and culture. They are the people who, having adapted themselves and risen to meet the needs of Singapore at a time when the value of English education was scarcely recognised, and realising that the prosperity of a colonially governed Singapore depended on the ability of the people to be able to read, speak and write the language of the ruling race, worked hard to equip themselves with those qualifications, while the others were busy over their trading to make money to send abroad to their homeland. Did these wealth-seekers who reaped Singapore's harvests just to send them abroad, help to build Singapore? No. It is the Peranakans who, though comprising several races, for various reasons, some because of intermarriage, have decided to make Singapore their homeland. It is these people who have rolled up their sleeves, Sir, and formed the backbone of the civil service - the civil service, which has brought Singapore to what it is today. It is to the multi-racial Peranakans that we owe the present prosperity of Singapore, not to those traders who, far from caring to equip themselves with the necessary fundamentals for the building of a Singapore or Malayan nation or culture, were draining this island of its wealth. Here is a report on the status of women in South-East Asia, published under the joint auspices of U.N.E.S.C.O. and the Asian Relations Organisation. It says The Prime Minister rose -

Point of order?

Sir, on a point of information.

Point of information. If the hon. Lady will give way.

At the end of my speech, Sir.

The hon. Lady will give way at the end of her speech.

When the tent has folded up!

Order.

"A further major division exists between the China-born whose ties (kin, cultural, and probably economic) with the home country remain very strong and the Straits-born - the Malayan Chinese - whose speech, custom and outlook have been more or less deeply conditioned by the South-East Asian environment." Sir, the strength of the ties of the immigrants with their home countries can be seen when they refused to allow their children to learn either the language of the governing race or the national language of the island, which is Malay, and insisted on their being educated in the language and culture of their home country. This patriotism to one's homeland surely could not have helped towards the building of Singapore or a Malayan nation. Contrary to this attitude, the Peranakans, be they of Malay, Chinese, Indian or Eurasian origin, owing no allegiance to any other country except the land of their birth - Singapore - went about identifying themselves as the sons of the soil, with the result that a Malayan nation and culture was slowly and unconsciously brought into being during the 100-odd years of Singapore's development. Did the Peranakans receive any encouragement in this nation building? No. The English schools knowingly or unknowingly were helping to kill it. In the early 20th century, pupils of English schools were discouraged from speaking their mother tongue. In some schools (I happened to be in one of them) the pupils were even fined if they spoke in the vernacular. And when they talked of their customs, traditions and superstitions especially, they were looked upon as queer and even made to look silly. Eventually, these students learnt to accept the fact that the only language or culture worth being proud of is the Western language and culture. It is noteworthy then that in spite of this, they have not, as the Prime Minister remarked in his speech at the Union of Journalists luncheon, "taken to the English set of values and ideals". When the Prime Minister said "the English-educated are divided, almost emasculated as a result of deculturalisation", I am sure he was not referring to the Peranakans, because, in my opinion, all is not yet lost with the Peranakans. There are still traces and remnants of this Malayan culture, although outmoded and ignored today. Those who are jealous of the privileges that the Peranakans have earned through their foresight, their loyalty to Singapore and the trouble they have taken to equip themselves for the position they now hold may deny that there was such a Malayan nation and culture. But even those jealous people cannot deny that the people who have in the course of over 100 years developed a language, literature, drama, songs and dances, traditions, customs, costumes, hair styles, cuisine, games and religion of their own, have the right to claim that they have founded a Malayan nation and culture. Let us examine these claims one by one. Let us first take up their claim on language.

Order. I think the hon. Member for Mountbatten will agree that she is probably referring to her notes a bit too much. There is a Standing Order which says that a Member shall not read his speech.

Sorry, Sir! The people of Kelantan and Trengganu speak a dialect different from that spoken in Johore or Singapore. The Hokkien in Penang is different from the Hokkien in Singapore. Therefore, there is no reason why the Peranakans in Singapore should not be allowed to speak the dialect of Malay that they now have in Singapore. If Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese and all the different Chinese dialects can be spoken without prejudice to Mandarin being the national language, then why cannot these different states-

Mandarin is not the national language.

No, it is the national Chinese language. Why cannot the different states of Malaya, Singapore as well, have their own dialects in Malay - each state speaking its own Malay without prejudice to the "Bahasa" Malay being the national literary Malayan language? After all, this Malay that the Peranakans speak has been generally accepted by many races. Many races are speaking it. In fact, the Chinese understand it better than the real Malay. The Prime Minister also thought it a strange thing that the English-educated Chinese from Malaya should find more in common with the English-educated non-Chinese in Malaya than with the English-educated Chinese from other countries. For me, I do not think there is anything strange in that. I feel that it is further proof of their loyalty to Singapore and their sense of a Malayan nation. With regard to literature, legends from China have been translated into this Peranakan Malay. Bibles and hymns are also translated in this Malay. The pantun Peranakan is still very popular in Singapore amongst the Peranakans, especially among the Chinese Peranakans, and their poems and proverbs are also translated in the Peranakan Malay. Many of these proverbs and poems can be traced back to Malay literature; a few are of Chinese origin. As for songs and dances, we have already been told recently by an expert from Radio Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, that the kronchong was of Chinese and Indonesian origin and the ronggeng, which is very popular among Chinese and Eurasian Peranakans, has a Portuguese origin. Though in a very amateurish fashion, the Peranakans have attempted a small operetta called the "Chik Siti". It is very amateurish, I admit. But it is a nucleus to start with and a foundation to build up. The Peranakan songs were very popular once upon a time. In fact, I believe there is a club in Singapore which tries to keep this culture alive. They meet regularly and they get together to sing these songs so as to keep them alive. Such efforts to keep the culture of their forefathers alive should, I think, receive encouragement. As for the drama, again I suppose the plays are of an amateurish fashion. Yes! But the Peranakans do have their Wayang Peranakan which is very popular amongst not only Chinese Peranakans but also amongst very many races. I am sure the Government would do well and would be doing a service to Malayan culture if they were to try and raise the standard of what has been going on rather than look down upon it with contempt, as the Colonial Singapore was inclined to do. Their customs and hair styles here are a classic example of the Peranakans selecting the best from the different races and making it a Singapore fashion. The sarong is of Malay origin; the long dress, not that of today [I am talking of what we call the old fashioned dress which is of Sumatra origin and the head-dress] is a copy of one of the Chinese hair styles. These have made such an attractive combination that years ago not only Chinese Peranakans but Eurasian and Indian women also wore these costumes. In fact, even today we find Eurasian and Indian and also some Chinese women wearing them - very few, but there are still some. And the strange thing is, whereas in everyday wear the dress is of Malayan origin, the headdress is of Chinese origin, in the bridal trousseau, the grander and richer Chinese bridal costume has been adopted, and the hair style which is partly of Malayan and partly Indonesian origin with a touch of the Siamese in the jewellery worn on the hair has been selected to go with the grand Chinese costume of the bride. As for customs, here again is something which is very peculiar and unique amongst the Chinese Peranakans, or as they sometimes term themselves, "Singaporeans". To quote one example, in a wedding, besides the real parents, the bridal couple have to have ceremonial parents. The bride has to have a ceremonial mother who has to be a Chinese Singaporean or a Chinese Peranakan woman, but the bridegroom has to have a ceremonial father who preferably has to be a Malay or at least dressed in Malay traditional costume. This is out of date now. Very few people marry in this fashion now but it was the fashion some time ago. As I said, the customs and traditions of these Peranakans have been looked down upon as something queer and not something to be proud about. Sir, I have not related all this just to entertain the hon. Members of the House or the gallery- An hon. Member: You want to revive it!

- but I have made an attempt to show that the synthetising of cultures and customs which the Minister for Culture hopes to foster had already begun to take shape over a hundred years ago, and that it is ideal to build on this foundation. Sir, it is already very late and if I were to describe some of the Peranakan dishes, they might make us feel hungry. So let it suffice for me to say that the Peranakan cuisine, though obviously a conglomeration of Malayan, Indonesian, Indian and Chinese cuisine, is unique in taste and flavour. As for religion, here again the non-communal spirit can be seen. Every ninth month of the year, the Chinese Peranakans especially - there are some Eurasians and some Indians too - go to Kusu Island and worship the kramat. Now, opposite the building that houses the kramat is the building that houses what is called the "Tua Peh Kong" [Laughter]. I do not know why there is so much laughter about what has been done for so many years. After all, we should respect the customs of the people of those times, especially those of our forefathers. The main fact is that they are non-communal and they worship in a building housing a Malay kramat and also the Chinese Tua Peh Kong. This is an example of the non-communal spirit that existed. Sir, in the Straits Times, the Prime Minister, referring to the English-educated, said: "In the past, said Mr Lee, they have been most favourably placed and treated in colonial Malaya. The British not unnaturally preferred to deal with people who could speak their language and who understood their manners and mannerisms. Therefore the English educated have risen to the highest positions both in Government service and in their professions." Sir, this is further proof of the intelligence of those people at that time, who knew what they needed to get to those positions. Those were the days of the colonial government no doubt, not the self-governing Singapore. The requirements then were different from the requirements today. Nevertheless, I am confident, Sir, that if the English-educated multi-racial Peranakans were given justice, a fair deal and a chance, there is no doubt that they will again rise to the occasion and adapt themselves to the present situation and co-operate with Government in the social revolution, as the Prime Minister wanted them to do. The possibility of this has been manifested by the remarks of the Prime Minister of Malaya, Tengku Abdul Rahman, which made headlines in the Sunday Mail of 30th August. It says: "ENGLISH-EDUCATED PRAISED BY TENGKU" They helped me greatly in my job as Premier and never gave any trouble. I am sure I can rely on them and with their help and moral support we can achieve our aim." Sir, there is very little difference between the English-educated in Malaya and the English-educated in Singapore, and I am sure if the English-educated in Malaya could be so helpful to the Prime Minister there, the English educated here can be just as helpful to our Prime Minister if they were given a chance. Much depends on the Prime Ministers themselves! In the Straits Times of 21st August, the Ministry of Culture was quoted as saying: "As far as the P.A.P. Government is concerned, it will try as far as it is within its power to see that a Malayan culture and a Malayan nation emerge peacefully."

Order. I do not know whether the hon. Lady hopes to have a reply from the Ministerial Benches, because if she does, I might remind her that there are only six minutes left.

Sir, a Malayan nation and a Malayan culture have already emerged peacefully. So peaceful was the emergence that it has not been noticed by many. It is now up to the Hon. Minister for Culture to revitalise and nurse it to maturity. Even the Deputy Prime Minister advocates the use of what is already in existence as a basis, for he was reported in the Straits Times of 23rd August as saying: "It is important that if we wish to make Malay a popular national language in the shortest possible time then we should use what is already in existence as a basis." We have a basis to work on, Sir, It depends on whether we want to use it. And again in "The Tasks Ahead", page 12, the Minister for Culture says- An hon. Member: Bible!

Sir, I think the Government should be proud that their book has been used so much by the opposition. The fact that even the Opposition makes use of this book shows that it is useful [Interruption].

Order.

He says: "The biggest obstacle in the way of a Malayan nation today is communalism." And he goes on to say: "Perhaps the major role of the present generation of politicians will be to stamp out communal fires before they spread." I agree with him entirely, Sir. But may I add that stopping communal wars is not sufficient. I hope Government will not tolerate any attempt at promoting class war, for it is more destructive and dangerous than communal war. If a communal war should break out in Singapore, we have religious leaders and community leaders to whom the masses will listen, but should a class war break out, there are no recognised class leaders who will be able to influence the masses. If the classes who are not English-educated have had a raw deal in the past due to - to use the phrase of the Prime Minister - "the historical situation", let us pull our weight together and lift them out of this deplorable situation without embittering them against the others. This is the safest, surest and quickest method of achieving the goal of a Malayan nation and a Malayan culture. Sir, I do hope that what I have said will be taken in the right spirit. I have no intention at all to criticise the Government for the sake of criticism. I firmly believe that the only way an Opposition of 8 against 43 can serve the public is to behave in a sincere, constructive and responsible mariner, giving credit where credit is due and offering constructive criticisms if we feel that they are in the paramount interest of the people. I fully realise that we can never hope to out-vote the Government and my only hope is that Government will reciprocate our sincere, constructive and responsible behaviour with a fair and reasonable attitude, taking our bouquets as our sincere compliments and our criticisms as our honest opinion. Government need not necessarily concur with our opinions but they should give credit to the fact that there can be another school of thought and that the Opposition although representing the minority, democracy demands that we be given our chance to express our views which should be given due consideration. I have no doubt that if the Opposition behaves in a constructive and responsible manner, it would embarrass any democratic government to ignore or treat it with contempt.

Order. I was just wondering how that ties in with Malayan culture. We have 1� minutes left.

I have finished, Sir, I just wanted to make it clear that I am not making all these remarks in the spirit of criticising the Government. The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Prime Minister, you have just one and a half minutes.

Mr Speaker, Sir,I am quite sure the hon. Lady from Mountbatten can hardly expect me to reply in one and a half minutes. But I have just about enough time to say to her that I do not think peranakan is what we like to be. I opened up the Malay-English dictionary by R. O. Winstedt, who is supposed to be quite an authority on these matters. I took this dictionary from the C.P.A. Room, although I must confess I am not quite sure whether the notice in the C.P.A. Room means "Do not remove any book from the room" or "Do not remove it from the building". I hope it is "Do not remove it from the building". It says here - on page 4 - "peranakan" means "foreigners but locally born", "Jawi peranakan is Muslim Tamils born in Malaya often with a Malay mother." I do not know about the latter, but I certainly object to anybody - and I have already objected to the Member for Kampong Kembangan - calling us bangsa asing. Bangsa asing or peranakan - that is not a matter which this Government accepts with equanimity. We are Raayat Malaya. For the convenience of ladies like the Member for Mountbatten who teaches English in an English school, we are the people of Malaya, called Malayan. The Question having been proposed at fourteen minutes to Nine o'clock p.m. and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Nine o'clock p.m. to Tuesday, 22nd September, 1959. APPENDIX I(Cols 0629-0630) APPENDIX II(Cols 0629-0630) APPENDIX III(Cols 0631-0632) APPENDIX IV(Cols 0631-0632)