Hansard, 1960-01-14

Order for Second Reading read. 2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Under the existing law, persons who commit theft of motor vehicles or bicycles, or parts of these vehicles, are only charged with simple theft for which the maximum penalty for the first offence is three years' imprisonment or a fine or both; but in practice, such a heavy penalty is seldom imposed. At the present time, thefts of motor vehicles, including motorcycles and of bicycles are quite common in Singapore. Although action has been taken by the Police to endeavour to reduce the number of such thefts, and in spite of the number of arrests, these thefts remain at a high level. It is considered that the present penalties are inadequate to act as a deterrent in these rather abnormal conditions The Bill now before the House, therefore, seeks to enhance the punishment for the theft of motor vehicles which include motorcycles, and of bicycles or parts thereof, to a maximum of seven years' imprisonment. It also prescribes that the minimum sentence for the theft of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part shall be one year, and for the theft of a bicycle or bicycle part shall be three months' imprisonment. In all cases, provision is made for the imposition of a fine as well. Clause 4 (1) of the Bill enhances the penalty for those who are found guilty of receiving or retaining motor vehicles, bicycles or parts thereof, which are proved to be stolen property, and prescribes a maximum term of imprisonment of five years with a minimum term of six months and provides for the imposition of a fine as well. Similarly, clause 4 (2) of the Bill imposes the same penalty on those who are found guilty of voluntarily assisting in concealing or disposing of motor vehicles or bicycles or parts thereof, which are proved to be stolen property. The provisions of this section are necessary to ensure that not only the thieves shall be adequately punished when detected, but also those who encourage such thefts by providing facilities for the disposal of stolen property. Clause 5 of the Bill empowers the District Court to impose the full enhanced punishments for offences committed under this Ordinance. It is of interest to note that similar legislation was enacted in 1946 when thefts of vehicles, bicycles and spare parts thereof were exceedingly prevalent in Singapore. This legislation had a salutary effect, but was allowed to lapse in 1948 when the situation became more normal. The present Bill is to be in force for one year in the first instance, but provision is made for its extension from time to time by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Such extension would depend on whether circumstances prevailing at the time warrant it. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill does not seek to create a new offence in the sense that it will give the Police something, new in respect of which they could charge an offending person. There are sufficient provisions, Mr Speaker, Sir, in, our penal system whereby people who will contravene the provisions of this Bill can be brought to book. There is the Penal Code offence of theft, receiving stolen property, and of assisting in the concealing or disposing of stolen property which meets the offences set out in this Bill. What this Bill proposes to do, Mr Speaker, Sir, is to increase the punishment in the hope that that increased punishment would reduce the crimes. There is a statement on page 3 which says: "This Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure." Might I suggest to the Minister who is moving this Bill that if his Government does not propose to incur extra financial expenditure in enforcing this Bill, when it becomes law, this law will remain redundant and quite useless. Sir, may I with respect again say that the difficulty is not that our laws do not provide the remedies - they do - but that the Police are not able to arrest the thieves, however much the punishment might be: for 10 years, for 15 years, or it might be a sentence for life. Before the sentences can be imposed, the thieves have to be caught! That is where our system is about to break down. The Police think that if the punishments are increased, they have half solved the crime. In 1947, Mr Speaker, Sir, it was necessary to bring in a special law to deal with this peculiar situation then. In that year, Sir, you might remember there was a very great shortage of transport, and it was a common occurrence for people to lose their bicycles or motorcars every day. As far as I know, this is not a very prevalent occurrence at the moment. In fact, what the police are trying to do is to cut down on the number of vehicles on the roads as much as possible. To suggest that it is necessary to bring in this Bill because the theft of vehicles is so prevalent, is not a proposition which I can accept. I would suggest to the people who enforce the law that it is not increased punishments that will stop the theft of vehicles, but the catching of the thieves that is going to stop it. 2.41 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in a situation where there is evidence that there is an increase in offences such as the theft of bicycles, motorcars and parts belonging to these vehicles, and also the offence of dishonest retention and purchase of such articles which are the subject of thefts, the Member for Farrer Park will appreciate that it is necessary for the Government to take determined action to suppress this sort of crime. If he will look at sub-clause (2) of clause 1 of this Bill, he will see that it is proposed that: "This Ordinance shall continue in operation for a period of one year from the date of commencement:" subject to extensions from time to time as the Yang di-Pertuan Negara may think fit by notification in the Gazette. Clearly this Bill is designed to meet an emergency situation. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Farrer Park has also failed to look at the penal provisions of this Bill. He will see that the punishment for theft of a motor vehicle has been increased from three years to seven years, and also that a minimum penalty is prescribed-a penalty of not less than one year in the case of the theft of motor vehicles, a minimum penalty of not less than six months in the case of dishonest retention of a motor vehicle, and a minimum penalty of not less than three months in the case of the theft of a bicycle. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this is not the first time that the Government has found it necessary to have such powers. You will remember that not so long ago, the Minister for National Development came to this House and asked for special powers to deal with the case of attap houses which had been appearing everywhere in our City. I am told that there were venturesome people who even attempted to build homes on the public roads of Singapore, and something had to be done to stop that. Previous Governments had tried to deal with that situation-nothing happened. They continued to build these homes. The moment we sought and obtained those powers in this Assembly, Mr Speaker, Sir, that situation has completely stopped. It is because we have got the, powers to deal with that situation. If we allow the situation to drift, then one day the Member for Farrer Park will come here and say, "Does the Government not know that the situations get ting from bad to worse? What is the Government doing about it? I have also lost my motorcar! What is the Government going to do about it?" Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the Member for Farrer Park that when this Bill is passed, he will have the security of his motor vehicle for so long as this Bill appears in the Statute Book.

I have only a bicycle!

Mr Ong Pang Boon, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the most important provision in this Bill, apart from the enhanced penalty, is the imposition of a minimum sentence on the thieves concerned. It is only too common that when the Police arrest a person who has committed the theft of a motorcar or a bicycle, he is always allowed bail and after a lapse of several months, he is only fined $25 or $50 in the end. That, I am sure, Mr Speaker, Sir, will not have any deterrent effect on the person who has committed such an offence. In the past, criminals could depend on pin- tables and juke-boxes for their income, but with the closure of this form of activity, more and more of them have resorted to thefts of motor vehicles or bicycles, and it is necessary that enhanced punishment be introduced and also provision for a minimum sentence.

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.

2.48 p.m. Clause 1-

There is an alteration: In page 1, line 5, to leave out "1959" and insert "1960". That will be done. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The House is already aware of the steps which the Government proposes to take to enhance the penalties for theft of motor vehicles and bicycles and the spare parts thereof. Such stolen property is known to be frequently disposed of by sale to second-hand dealers who may or may not be aware that the property they buy has been unlawfully acquired. The Second-Hand Dealers Ordinance already makes provision in section 10 for second-hand dealers to record full particulars of all goods bought by them, including the date of the purchase and, the name and address of the vendor, and all goods sold by them. Provided that such particulars are properly recorded, the task of the Police in tracing the disposal of stolen property and the identity of the person disposing it is considerably eased. If, however, there is laxity or deliberate falsification in completing these records, the Police are severely handicapped in their task. The present Bill is designed to enhance the penalties for failing to comply with the provisions of section 10 of the Second-Hand Dealers Ordinance in respect of motor vehicles, motor vehicle parts, bicycles and bicycle parts. The present penalties amount to a fine not exceeding $100 for the first offence, and to a fine not exceeding $500 or to imprisonment not exceeding three months for a second and any subsequent offence. The new penalties introduced by the present Bill provide for imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years and not less than six months, together with the liability to a fine whether it be for the first, the second or any subsequent offence. I would stress that those second-hand dealers who conduct their business legally and who do not seek to trade knowingly in stolen property need have nothing to fear from the provisions of this Bill. The Police will, however, proceed with the utmost vigour against any such persons who are found to be knowingly assisting thieves by disposing of the proceeds of their criminal activities. The opportunity is being taken also to increase the sentence of imprisonment which may be imposed for a second offence under section 10 in respect of stolen property other than motor vehicles, bicycles and spare parts thereof. In this case, the maximum sentence of imprisonment is to be increased from three months to six months, which is considered a more adequate deterrent to any person who shows signs of being a habitual receiver of such property. 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.

2.55 p.m. Clause 1-

Here again there is a typographical emendation. "1959" will now read "1960". That will be done. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.58 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I have the recommendation of His Excellency the Yang di Pertuan Negara to proceed with the Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill. The Printing Presses Ordinance, Chapter 226 of the Revised Laws of Singapore, as it now stands, provides for the regulation of printing presses and of the printing and publication of newspapers in Singapore. The Undesirable Publications Ordinance, Chapter 124, provides for the examination and, if necessary, detention or prohibition of importation, sale or circulation of publications published abroad. The Bill now before this House seeks, to regulate the distribution in Singapore of newspapers printed in the Federation, of Malaya, without invoking the machinery of detention and prohibition used to prevent the sale and circulation in this State of undesirable publications imported into Malaya from abroad. The Bill duplicates almost exactly the statutory provisions by which the Government of the Federation of Malaya regulates the sale and circulation in the Federation of newspapers printed in Singapore. When this Bill becomes law, therefore, the Government will have the means to control the printing and publication of newspapers in Singapore, the sale and circulation in Singapore of newspapers printed in the Federation, and the importation, sale and circulation of all publications from abroad. Clause 3 of the Bill now before the House would require the proprietor of any newspaper, as defined in the Printing Presses Ordinance, which is printed, in the Federation of Malaya but which he wishes to distribute in Singapore, to obtain annually from the Ministry of Home Affairs a permit before he may lawfully do so. It also requires that every such newspaper granted a permit should bear the names and addresses of the printer and publisher and an address within Singapore for the service of any notice or legal process. The provisions in the main Ordinance with regard to the making of declarations before the Registrar of the Supreme Court by printers, publishers and proprietors of newspapers with regard to their names and addresses and any changes thereof are also made applicable in respect of the grant of permits under this amending Bill. There is also provision for appeal to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara against the decision of the Minister. The Bill now makes it an offence to publish, sell or circulate in Singapore, newspapers printed in the Federation of Malaya, but not permitted to circulate in Singapore, and also to possess for the purpose of their publication, sale or circulation copies of any newspaper, printed either in Singapore or in the Federation of Malaya, but not permitted either to be printed and published or to be distributed in Singapore. In the Committee stage, I shall be moving an amendment to the new section 7B (1) in clause 3 of the Bill to make it an offence also to publish, sell or circulate any paper printed in Singapore but without a permit under this Ordinance. The opportunity is also taken to confer on the Police, Customs and Postal authorities powers of search for and detention of illegal newspapers which they have reason to believe are contained in packages, articles or premises. Sir, as can be seen, the main purpose of this Bill is to place Federation newspapers in exactly the same position as newspapers published in Singapore. I am sure nobody will quarrel with that intention. The Bill does not threaten the freedom of the Press, which this Government as a democratic Government will respect and maintain. 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.

3.05 p.m. Clause 1 -

Of course, "1959" should read "1960". Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, lines 22 and 23, to leave out "contrary to the provisions of subsection (1) of section 7A" and insert "the printing,. publication, sale or distribution of which is unlawful under any of the provisions". As I have explained earlier, Mr Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to make it an offence also to publish, sell or circulate any paper printed in Singapore but without a permit under this Ordinance.

On a point of information, Sir.

Yes.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know from the Minister whether the newspaper - which can be referred to as a magazine - by the name of Malaya Merdeka, which is the organ of U.M.N.O., printed in Malaya but is on sale in Singapore, comes under the provisions of clause 3 (1).

Is the Member referring to the new section 7B (1)?

I am referring to the new section 7A on pages 1 and 2 of the Bill, "Permit required for sale and distribution in Singapore of newspapers printed or published in Malaya."

The hon. Member is too previous. He will have to wait until I propose the Question on the clause. We are now on an amendment in page 3, lines 22 and 23. We will first deal with all the amendments, and after they have all been disposed of, I will propose the Question on the clause and then the Member could raise his point. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 30, to leave out "the said" and insert "this". This is a drafting amendment. Amendment agreed to.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to page 4, line 14. Ought not "Custom Officer" to read "Customs Officer"? Mr Ong Pang Boon indicated assent.

It is a typographical error. That will be corrected. "Custom Officer" will now read "Customs Officer". Question proposed, "That clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, concerning the new section 7A, I would like to have clarification from the Minister on the matter of newspapers printed in the Federation of Malaya. Does the U.M.N.O. organ printed in the Federation come within the scope of the definition of "newspaper"? Or will it be affected by this Bill?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is `Yes'. Even the official organ of the P.A.P. "Petir" has to apply for a permit under this Bill and when "Petir" goes across the Causeway into the Federation, it has to get a permit from the Federation.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Societies Ordinance is an ancient and venerable piece of legislation, but like many ancient and venerable things, after 50 years of life, it has become outdated and it has become necessary to eliminate its weaknesses which have been found in the light of experience, and to strengthen the Ordinance to deal with undesirable and shady societies, especially those which are used as haunts for secret society gangsters, or gambling clubs, often under the protection of secret societies, or clubs run for other forms of vice or formed for the purpose of subverting or swindling the public. The House is aware of the action taken by my Ministry to dissolve quite a number of societies which were being used for unlawful gaming purposes and contrary to the aims and objects of the societies. It is obvious that the Societies Ordinance must be revised and made more effective as a weapon against the corrupting influence of social vice and against activities which are detrimental to the growth of a new and healthy society. The opportunity has also been taken in the Bill to tidy up a number of anomalies in the old Ordinance, which would make it neater, more effective and more consistent in the working of a number of its provisions. There is nothing suspicious or sinister in the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill redefines "society", and the principal effect of this change of definition is to require Freemason Lodges and political associations to register, since there are no good grounds for excluding them from the general requirements imposed on societies. Leaving the Masonic Lodges outside the provisions of this Ordinance would be an anomaly. The Government has no ulterior motive in requiring political associations to register, since the Government already has the power to require a political association to register by declining to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to declare it to be a political association. In this respect, it is of interest to note that the Singapore Branch of the Malayan Chinese Association, the Partai Rakyat, the Pan Malayan Islamic Party and the Katong Residents' Association are already registered societies, whilst the Party I belong to, the People's Action Party, has been exempted from registration since its foundation. On the other hand, the Singapore Labour Front, the U.M.N.O., the Liberal-Socialist Party, the Malayan Indian Congress, the Workers' Party, the Citizens' Party, the Malay Union, and the Singapore People's Alliance have been declared to be political associations. By requiring political parties to register, the Government is only aiming at uniformity, and is doing what is already in force in the Federation. The clause also removes the distinction, unnecessary in the view of the Government, between "registered" and "exempted" societies and all will now have to be registered. There is, in fact, very little practical difference between registered and exempted societies. The Registrar already has the power under the Ordinance to order any exempted society to furnish him with such information as he sees fit to require. It has been the practice for the Registrar to decline to register a society if he is not satisfied that the society's rules provide properly for the running and control of the society. Clause 3 of the Bill makes statutory provision for this practice and also makes it the positive duty of the Registrar to refuse registration to a society which appears to him to be likely to be used for unlawful purposes, such as gaming or for any purposes prejudicial to or incompatible with the peace, welfare or good order in Singapore, or that the application for registration does not comply with the provisions of the Ordinance, or that it is contrary to the national or public interest that it should be registered. Refusal to register on grounds of unlawful purposes or those prejudicial to peace, welfare and good order is already provided for in the Ordinance. Refusal on grounds of being contrary to the national or public interest covers cases in which, although there are good grounds for refusal, it might be undesirable (for instance, to protect sources of information) to have to show that the society in question is likely to be used specifically for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to the peace, welfare and good order in Singapore. Then again in the process of nation building, the development of a Malayan consciousness and a Malayan culture, the formation of societies which cater for purely sectional interests or which have a narrow communal bias would be discouraged as being contrary to the national interest. At the Committee stage, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be moving an amendment of which I have given notice, to allow for appeal to the Minister against the Registrar's decision. Sir, as you know, in most Ordinances where licences or permits are issued by the licensing officer or licensing authority, there is always provision for appeal to the Minister by any person aggrieved by a decision of the licensing authority. However, due to an oversight, when section 4 of the present Ordinance was deleted and redrafted in clause 3, the present provision for appeal was inadvertently left out. This is the only reason for its omission. Clause 4 is a transitional provision to allow existing societies now exempted from registration a year's time in which to apply for registration, and such societies will not be deemed to be unlawful societies until such period has elapsed. Clause 5 of the Bill makes it unlawful for societies organised outside Malaya to carry on activities in Singapore unless registered under the Societies Ordinance. This same clause and clause 11 make unlawful any society which changes its address without permission or which has one or more of the same office-bearers, or a similar name or membership, as a society previously dissolved. These provisions are aimed primarily at fly-by-night gambling clubs, many of which have been known from experience to adopt these tactics either to evade dissolution or nullify the effects of dissolution as unlawful societies. Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 10 enhance the maximum penalties for offences connected with unlawful societies, and clause 9 provides that evidence of repute shall be admissible to prove the existence of a society or that a person is a member of a society. The increased penalties should act as a more effective deterrent to would-be offenders against the provisions of this Ordinance, and the admissibility of evidence of repute would help in proving the existence of illegal societies. The organisers of such societies are usually secretive about their activities and it is therefore difficult to obtain direct evidence of the existence of such societies. Sir, in Singapore, secret societies have deteriorated from the old Triad societies into mercenary gangs of criminal hoodlums and the Societies Ordinance has not been of much help to the Police and the Criminal Courts in dealing with them. The only provision in the Ordinance which materially assists the Police and Courts to deal with the criminal members of the secret societies is that which permits the Registrar, in certain circumstances, to order a man to have his fingerprints recorded and his photograph taken. And the wording of this part of the Bill, having been drafted to assist the Registrar to obtain information about the Triad societies rather than to provide for the identification of members of an organised criminal underworld, is unsatisfactory for Singapore's present need. What is now needed is that the Police and the Courts should be assisted in criminal cases by the availability, as evidence that an accused person is a member of an unlawful society, of the opinion of an independent authority inquiring specially into the existence, membership or operations of secret societies. Clause 12 of the Bill now before the House therefore amends section 22 (4) of the Societies Ordinance to make it clear that any person ordered to have his fingerprints and photograph taken by the Registrar of Societies is, in his opinion, either a member of, or intimately connected with, an unlawful society. Sir, these then are the aims and objects of this Bill. As can be seen, it is not aimed at any legitimate, respectable or lawful body, party or association, but against undesirable and shady societies and as such will, I am confident, receive the support of this House. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.28 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Minister has said, this Ordinance is hoary with age and it is time certain of its provisions were brought out into the open and aired; but while doing it, one has also to consider the effect of the amendments upon the social life of the people of Singapore as they have been accustomed to live it over the last 100 years. The structure of the Societies Ordinance is this. Firstly, it defines any association of ten or more persons to be a society, and then it goes on specifically to exempt certain categories of persons or companies from the operation of the Ordinance. And then it says that such other societies as are not registrable under the provisions of the Ordinance shall be divided into two categories, namely, registered societies and exempted societies. So that then we have three categories: one, the non- registrable society; two, the registered society; and, three, the exempted society. With regard to the non-registrable societies, Mr Speaker, Sir, the majority of persons or companies exempted are either persons or companies who are already registered under existing Ordinances; the two sub-sections which do not come within that category of persons or companies are Freemasons and the political associations. In respect of the Freemasons and the political associations, this Bill seeks to make them come within its scope. With regard to exempted societies, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is also proposed to make them all registered societies and to give them a year within which to register. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are a number of societies particularly interested in sport, and most of them are exempted under the provisions of the Societies Ordinance. The proposal that all societies should be registered and should have a registered address and can only meet at their registered address would have very serious repercussions on the sport of the country, because most of the societies would then cease to exist and all those who are now interested in hockey and football particularly will find it very difficult to carry on their sporting activities. It is important that this should be encouraged. The other matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that new provisions with regard to registrability have been introduced into the Bill, mainly the point whether it is in the national or public interest. I do not wish to speak very much on this Bill at this stage, Mr Speaker, Sir, because I have given notice that I will move a number of amendments. My own view is that this Bill is sufficiently important, and will have sufficient repercussions on the society such as we are accustomed to in Singapore, that it needs very careful and serious consideration. At the appropriate time, it is hoped that a motion will be made to refer this Bill to a Select Committee and that the Minister will find it possible to accede to that request. 3.33 p.m.

I wish to assure Members of this House that careful consideration has been given to the provisions contained in the proposed amending Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first preface my remarks by drawing attention to this one very important fact? That it is one thing to put the law in order, but it is another thing to implement and administer its provisions in a workmanlike and practical manner. There is one cogent point which the Member for Farrer Park has brought out, namely, the difficulty which the sporting and athletic clubs will find in executing their business at the registered address. But I think he overlooks this one important provision: that illegality does not flow simply from the departure of the strict wording of the Ordinance. Illegality and the punishment of illegality by the State only comes about in cases where the State and, in this case, the State Advocate-General, who is an independent officer in respect of all prosecutions, is satisfied that there was, in fact, a criminal act. There are, at present, 1,007 exempted societies of which the People's Action Party is one. I would like briefly to categorise them. Racial and communal societies 11% Religious societies - churches, temples, mosques, societies of Christians, Buddhists, Muslims ... ... ... 10% Cultural societies - old boys' associations, alumni associations, literary societies, art and dance clubs, music and dramatic societies, education societies ... 14% Trade associations ... ... ... 14% Sports and athletic clubs ... ... 31% Social clubs ... ... ... ... 9% Welfare associations - benevolent societies, tenant and dwellers' associations ... 7% Youth organisations, including boys' and girls' clubs and youth clubs ... 2% Miscellaneous ... ... ... 2% There are, in that diverse miscellany of associations, certain groups in which we would have no governmental interest whatsoever. But I think the Members opposite, particularly those who were responsible for the last Government, would appreciate that cultural associations and sometimes even sporting associations are not often what they profess to be. It is one thing to say that one has formed an association for the advancement of the playing of the flute or the banging of the brass gong; but it is another thing to want to boost members to rehearse and practise these arts. It is invidious for the Registrar of Societies to have to pick out any particular association for special scrutiny, and to require that association to furnish more detailed particulars to ensure that, in fact, the association is observing the aims and objects with which it has been formed and is complying with the rules and regulations of its constitution. If we are to go through the rigmarole of scrutinising all the 1,007 exempted societies, and if we are to do it as thoroughly as it is required under the law and can be enforced by the law, then very shortly the Minister for Home Affairs will have to ask for a supplementary vote in order to increase the number of clerks - receiving clerks and filing clerks - votes for cabinets, card index system and so on. But if we approach this in a relatively practical way and put them all through the ordinary mill, then only those which we have reasons to believe are not complying with the lawful objects with which they have been formed are more easily brought under scrutiny and brought to book. The Member for Farrer Park has listed three categories - those registrable under various other Ordinances like the Companies Ordinance; those that will be registered or exempted; and those not registrable at all. As for the first category, I would like to anticipate the Minister for Labour and Law in saying that he is preparing legislation to bring the benevolent associations, which form a very fruitful field for all kinds of minor social swindles - mutual aid associations, medical aid associations - under Government control. They will shortly come under very special legislation which will stop the racketeering that takes place in them. Therefore, quite a number of societies now on the exempted list will be moved into that list where special registration is required. I have explained the distinction between exempted and registered societies, and why we have felt that, in view of the changed circumstances in which we have to deal with them, it is more practical to deal with them all on one basis, as registered societies. There is left only this very small and selected group called Freemasons and political societies which are completely outside the orbit of the Societies Ordinance. We know of no coherent reason why the Freemasons should have been singled out for special treatment, other than the fact that perhaps those who legislated in those days belonged to the Freemasons. We also see no reason why political societies should be discriminated by having them classified - as the Minister for Home Affairs has just indicated to the House - into three groups: those registered like the Katong Rural Dwellers Association (surely, the Registrar considers them a very dangerous group of people), those that are exempted, like the P.A.P. against whom the Registrar could from time to time elicit more information, and those taken out of the pale of the Registrar, like the S.P.A. Mr Speaker, Sir, unless the Member for Farrer Park can make out a compelling case and bring to our attention considerations which we had overlooked in the preparation of this Bill, we: intend to go through with it today. If, subsequently, in administering it there are found to be lacunae in the law, then we are quite prepared to reopen for consideration those provisions which have been found to be inadequate. But let us not forget this. First, we have to put the law into coherent and proper form. Then we have to remove discriminatory practices under the law. But above all, it is in the administration of that law that finally decides whether we will have a free and flexible society where freedom of association is one of the hallmarks of a free and tolerant society, or whether we will have a dictatorial and intolerant system. I think Members in this House will agree with me that in the present context of events there is a need to ensure that associations are formed only for lawful purposes, or if they are not beneficial, at least ensure that they are not detrimental to the State. The ingenuity of man being what it is, it is not unknown for societies to have been formed with the most laudable of objectives, whilst, in practice, they are blinds for disreputable and sometimes positively dangerous conspiracies. I would like to add that Members opposite are in no danger of being classified under the category of persons taking part in dangerous conspiracies, because we do not attribute them with sufficient capacity to carry out their evil intent. But I can assure them that before they are classified in the category of being detrimental to the welfare of the State, there will have to be much more buffoonery and stupidities than what they have enacted in the last seven months. In fact, if from time to time they disintegrate - they started with five members, now they have got four - there is no need for special legislation to look after them. We leave them alone and, by processes of nature, they disintegrate by themselves. 3.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we welcome the assurance given by the Home Minister that there is nothing suspicious or sinister in the Societies (Amendment) Bill. We also welcome the statement that the Bill is aimed at secret societies, gangsters and gambling groups trying to take protection under innocent looking societies. Unfortunately, Sir, this Bill has aroused a great deal of public comment and apprehension. In some political quarters, not in this House, there have been expressions of opinion to the effect that a Bill like this would lead to the killing of democracy and the extermination of a political Opposition. Sir, the Hon. Prime Minister did imply, however, that the moment the Opposition should become dangerous, then he would reconsider the whole position. I hope that is only a joke. We believe however, Sir, that in a democracy, the pendulum must be allowed to swing now one way, now the other. The pendulum must never be static and the pendulum can only be static if we have a one-party Government.

It will probably stop.

Because of that, Sir, and because the powers given by this amending Bill are so vast there may come a situation where, regardless of the honest intentions stated, those powers can be wrongly used. Therefore, because of that, there is this apprehension in the public mind. For that reason, Sir, we believe that this Bill is even more important and more controversial than the Pawnbrokers (Amendment) Bill. To reassure the public, therefore, this Bill should go to a Select Committee. Of course, Sir, the Government side has the power to bulldoze it through today. But we hope, as in the case of the Pawnbrokers (Amendment) Bill and the Muslims (Amendment) Bill, that they will agree to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. Sir, regarding the abolition of exempted societies, the plea is made that this is done to tidy up things and to avoid discrimination. Sir, you will remember that in the case of levying of income tax, there are different categories, because it is practical to have different categories. We have those persons who pay no income tax at all. We have those who pay lower rates and those who pay higher rates. Then we have those who are ex- empted from payment of income tax. So we see no reason why there should not be this different classification of societies for the sake of a more practical administration. For instance, if we say that, in the interests of equality and non-discrimination, visitors in the gallery should all sit here or they should all come in by the same entrance, it might be more difficult for the attendants to distinguish one from another. But we allow these things to be different because, from practical experience, we find that they are expedient and useful. Sir, under some of the amendments, it will be very difficult and discouraging for people with good intentions to want to organise societies. Some of them will get frightened. Supposing before the societies are registered, it is known that these people have made a statement in the Press that they are forming a society, could they not be regarded under this Bill as having conducted themselves illegally and be regarded as members of an unlawful society? Supposing pioneers in education were to come to Singapore intending to start a school, and that project is publicised, if their headquarters were in a foreign country, then under this Bill they would be regarded as members of an unlawful society. If this were so, then the cause of education in Singapore would have been held back by decades. Sir, the early pioneers of the different churches first came here to explore the ground to see if they could get support. It was only when they had got support that they established their schools and their missions here. Now I hope the Home Minister will clarify the situation so that it will not prevent philanthropic and charitable people from being able to come here from abroad to establish charitable and educational institutions. Then, Sir, under the provisions here, if by mistake or through some oversight, the honorary secretary of a society forgets to inform the Registrar that the society has moved its premises, there will be trouble, because that society will then be an unlawful society. When it comes to political societies, Sir, naturally there is the fear that the moment the Opposition threatens to disturb the balance of power, as it were, then, for political reasons, the Government may decide that a certain political party should not be in existence. We do not believe, however, that they will do it to those of us who are here. But there are those outside who feel that that might be done to them. The public therefore, Sir, being fair minded, have expressed their fear. So if there is a Select Committee appointed to consider this Bill, then it could receive the views of those who have such fears and ensure that there will be safeguards in the Bill. Then, Sir, it could also be interpreted that some of the provisions of this Bill will go against certain Articles in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 13 says: "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state." Under the provisions here, the Registrar has the right not to allow a society to change its address. Article 18 says: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The right includes freedom to change his religion of belief and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." And Article 20 reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association." So long as people are not disloyal to this country or engaged in criminal pursuits, I believe they should be encouraged to organise themselves into societies that would benefit the Singapore community. But too many restrictions and the threat of severe penalties will discourage good citizens from organising themselves. I do suggest, therefore, Sir, that in addition to saying that they do not have any sinister or evil intentions, but to show the people that they do not have such intentions, the Government consider it right to have a Select Committee appointed to consider the Bill. 3.55 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say that, on the whole, I am not of the opinion that this Societies (Amendment) Bill is not of benefit to the people. But, Mr Speaker, as has been suggested by other Members of the Opposition when recommending that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of receiving opinions and view-points, I know what the public feel. I myself do not like societies which are communal in outlook, as in fact they are more dangerous than those which have a provincial outlook. Mr Speaker, there may be associations or political parties which have already been registered, as I have heard just now, based on religion; and there may be organisations which have been registered, organisations which, in my opinion, are provincial in outlook and which are more dangerous than associations which are religious in outlook. So, Mr Speaker, we can say it would be wise if the suggestion already put forward could be accepted by the Government, that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Although the final decision rests with the Government, we, on our part, do not hesitate to recommend reference of the Bill to a Select Committee. As has been emphasised just now by the Government, we know that although U.M.N.O. particularly has been exempted from registration as it has been declared a political party, nevertheless, in accordance with the new rules, we must apply for registration within a period of one year. Whether U.M.N.O. will be accepted as a political party or otherwise, it will be left to the persons concerned. However, I believe our request will be agreed to. As a political body, we have no intention of upsetting the peace or the progress of the State. We feel confident that we can, in conjunction with the present Government, work towards resolving many major issues of administration or of the constitution, or of any other relevant matters which we may come up against in the future. Therefore, it is only wise that opportunities must be given for views to be aired, and to investigate and ascertain which are really the parties appearing under a cloak, so that we should not accuse at random any organisations which have been running their activities not in accordance with the law. In a democratic institution, we must give opportunities to these associations to put up their views and reports to the Select Committee. If the Government agrees with our viewpoints, then I trust that at a later date we will be informed not merely about the abolition of secret societies but also about many matters which I have already mentioned just now - matters concerning the true identities of political parties, or any other associations, as to whether certain cultural associations are truly so, or whether they are in fact practising undesirable culture from within. Such political associations or parties we must abolish, in accordance with the law which we think is fit for our society. So, Mr Speaker, I would like to stress that, on my part and as a representative of U.M.N.O., U.M.N.O. has been declared a political party by the People's Government. We are not unwilling to conduct any activities which will be to ~he benefit, peace and good order of the State, but let opportunities be given not only to the Opposition in this House but also to the public of Singapore who would like to take part in the democratic practice of promulgating the law in the true sense of the word. 4.01 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir we do not object to this Bill at all. In fact, we are at one with the Government in wanting to bring all manner of societies and associations within the scope of a comprehensive Societies Ordinance. The present Ordinance, as has been stated by the Minister for Home Affairs, is an old piece of legislation. It was brought into force, if I remember rightly, to control mainly Triad societies, but certain exemptions were given and certain classes of associations were taken out of the scope of the Societies Ordinance. The Prime Minister has said that he does not feel that it is necessary that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, but that if the Opposition could advance cogent reasons, he would be prepared to consider and might agree to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Sir, this proposed legislation is of so important a character that all points of view must be considered. While I did say earlier, and I say it again, that it is desirable that all kinds of associations and societies should be brought under limited control, so long as the freedom of association is not jeopardised, one must not overlook the fact that this proposed legislation intends to bring in all the categories of associations which have so far enjoyed exemption, as well as those societies which do not come under the operation of this Ordinance. Therefore, it is inevitable that such societies should feel considerably concerned that their activities are now going to be curtailed. As a result of the proposed amendment, they are going through the Bill with a view to informing the Government if there are certain points that require deep and serious consideration. There is one which comes to my mind on the question of political parties. Sir, under clause 4, exempted societies are given one year's time in which to make application for registration under this proposed amendment. But in the case of political associations which have been declared by the Governor-in-Council as political associations, no time has been given for them to make application for registration. So with the coming into force of, this Bill, such political parties will be non-existent unless they apply and get registered on the same day. I do not think that can be done so quickly. Another point is the question of meeting places of registered societies. As the Government knows very well, political parties generally hold meetings not only in their registered premises but in almost every little spot in Singapore.

Even in bank vaults.

Does it mean that if such meetings are held in places other than their registered premises, such a political association will become art unlawful society? There are various other points which I need not go into in detail here. I was listening quite attentively to the Prime Minister and I did agree with him when he said that it is important that all kinds of associations should be brought under one control. I was with him up to that point, and as he was going to resume his seat, I thought of getting up straightway and supporting the Government and saying that it was a good thing and should be done. But on second thoughts he felt that it was necessary to run down the Opposition - that is most typical of the Prime Minister - that we are a spent force, we are this, we are that. Sir, we are not worried what the Government thinks of us. We know what the public thinks of us [Laughter], and we also know what the public thinks of them. We can travel quite freely and go into coffee shops and into markets with the masses. Sir, we do not claim that we are the people's representatives; we do not say that we are the people's government, and yet we dare go among the people without bodyguards everywhere.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although the Members of the Opposition have not presented their case for committing this Bill to a Select Cornmittee with compelling reasons other than that mentioned by the Member for Cairnhill about the provision of time for political societies to register, however, in order to satisfy the Members of the Opposition, I have no objection to committing this Bill to a Select Committee. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

But for the information of the Member for Cairnhill, it is, in fact, my intention during the Committee stage to move an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Member for Farrer Park to allow the same period of grace for political societies to register under this Bill. As mentioned earlier in my speech, there is no intention to wipe out the Opposition parties.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.- [Tun Lim Yew Hock].

Filling of Vacancies 4.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to paragraph (1) (b) of Standing Order No. 93, appoints the following Members to fill two vacancies in the Committee of Selection : - Enche Baharuddin bin Mohd. Ariff. Mr Ong Chang Sam. Mr Speaker, the present Committee of Selection consists of you as Chairman and five other Members. Of these five Members, two come from the Opposition Benches and the other three from the Government Benches. It is stated in the Standing Order that representation in this Committee of Selection should be such that there should be proportionate representation from both sides of the House. I would like to remind the House that the ratio of Opposition Members to Government Members is approximately 1:8. With this motion that I am moving, the Government will now have five Members, and the Opposition two Members. So, I am quite sure the House will agree that the Government is generous and is acting in compliance with Standing Orders.

Over-generous! Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion. While it is true that in the present Committee of Selection, there are only three Members representing the Government. I must say here that the number was agreed to by the Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister in our discussions. There is no intention on the part of the Opposition to see that Standing Orders should not be observed. In fact, even if seven persons were wanted on the other side, we would also accept it.

Mr Deputy Prime Minister, in reply? Dr Toh Chin Chye indicated dissent.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to paragraph (1) (b) of Standing Order No. 93, appoints the following Members to fill two vacancies in the Committee of Selection:- Enche Baharuddin bin Mohd Ariff. Mr Ong Chang Sam

4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 490 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 207), resolves that the Singapore Port (Amendment) Rules, 1959, published as Notification No. S (N.S.) 190 in the Gazette Supplement No. 40 of 27th November, 1959, as contained in Paper S.L. (New Series) 29 of 1959, be approved. Sir, the Singapore Port Rules of 1957 regulate the movements of vessels and their crews while they are within the limits of our Port. It is to be expected that in a port which is as large as ours, circumstances alter from time to time and changes have to be made to introduce alterations in the provisions of our Port Rules. The last time when the Rules were amended was in 1958. Since that occasion, there has been further necessity for making amendments to the Port Rules. All parties concerned have been consulted, and these further amendments have been embodied in the Amendment Rules which are the subject of this motion. Generally and briefly, the Amendment Rules which the House is now asked to approve remove certain existing, restrictions which have been found to be unnecessary and provide for better regulation and control of vessels in port.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 490 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 207), resolves that the Singapore Port (Amendment) Rules, 1959, published as Notification No. (N.S.) 190 in the Gazette Supplement No. 40 of 27th November, 1959, as contained in Paper S.L. (New Series) 29 of 1959, be approved.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That this Assembly do now adjourn to Wednesday, 10th February, 1960.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved. That this Assembly do now adjourn to Wednesday, 10th February, 1960. Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Four o'clock p.m. to Wednesday, 10th February 1960.