Hansard, 1960-02-13

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: Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford) - 12th February, 1960. Mr Lee Khoon Choy (Bukit Panjang) Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture - from 16th February to 10th March, 1960. Mr Teo Hock Guan (Changi) - l3th February, 1960.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee.

2.31 p.m. Clause 62-

An amendment has been proposed*: * An amendment proposed by Tun Lim Yew Hock on 12th February, 1960. In page 26, to leave outlines 3 to 7 inclusive and insert "but may be represented by an advocate and solicitor if so desired.". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

There was an oblique reference yesterday by the Member for Tanglin, that perhaps Government may have infamous intentions to prevent the resuscitation of dead men. Sir, we do not require a steamroller to crack such little nuts as ex-Chief Ministers who have disgraced themselves. As a matter of fact, -

Present company excepted!

The present company always excepted. We are all honourable men here. Nothing is more likely to expose the hypocrisy of one's political convictions than continued demands on one's time for no monetary rewards. I can assure Members on the other side of the House that, whilst there may be a, lot of hard work and maybe some political kudos, there is no money in this. I can only say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that my friend and colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law, has assured me that it is his consistent experience that things are more quickly resolved, and issues are more quickly and honestly joined without garnishing, when two parties face each other across the table without the assistance of skilled advocates. It is our sincere hope that this, in fact, will continue to happen in these Courts when employers and unions are made to present their cases, in the case of the employers through their officials, and in the case of unions of employees, through the Industrial Relations Officers. For myself, I would like to add that I think it is a matter for some regret that what was once believed to be the royal road to acknowledgment as a champion of the cause of labour, should now be trodden by those who are prepared to he champions not Only for the few weeks that they may be in the Arbitration Court but for an extra period of six months prior to arbitration. I am quite sure there will be up and coming, earnest, dedicated men and women who will, in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Relations Bill when it is enacted, make the sacrifices necessary in order to qualify co be champions of labour.

Sir, before I speak on the amendment, I would be obliged to the Minister for Labour if he would inform the House what exactly is meant by "intervener" in line 40, page 25 of the Bill, in reference to these proceedings? Does it just mean anybody who intervenes, arid what interest must he have before he intervenes?

Mr Speaker, Sir, "intervene" means to intervene. Any party who can show an interest or any person, who can show an interest in the intervention, intervenes. And it will be up to the Court to decide whether to accept that interest as a legitimate intervening interest when such intervention is made.

I submit, with respect, Sir, that "intervener" probably had a meaning when "trade union" meant a trade union of employers, too. But so far as "employer" is concerned at the moment, I do not see how anybody can intervene on his behalf. Maybe an intervention could still take place with regard to a trade union of employees, but with regard to the employer, I do not see how anybody can intervene on his behalf except he himself - he is left to fight his own battle. But if an employer has been served under clause 16 by a trade union of employees, then a trade union of employers could intervene under clause 62. Now that a trade union of employers is out of the picture entirely, and the employer is left to fight his own battle, I do not see who would be foolish enough to intervene on his behalf - in a losing battle anyway.

Has this anything to do with the amendment before the House?

Yes, Sir, it will have something to do with it when I speak later.

I think the Member for Farrer Park has not envisaged a situation which very often can arise. Let us say a dispute arises between the Aerated Water Workers' Union and the Phoenix Aerated Water Company as to what would be the fair rates of pay for the workers. The decision on that would affect Fraser &Neave, and members of the union who are in Fraser & Neave. Therefore, it is quite open for another firm, also in the aerated water business, to want to intervene and say, "Whilst the Court is considering the wages and conditions of service and the state of the industry, I would like to give evidence." It is true that the award would only be binding on the immediate parties before the Court, but a party in a similar industry might want to come in and say, "Let me present my facts as I see them." In that case, the employer would be an intervener. Or vice-versa, it might be that the workers in Phoenix Aerated Water Company might belong to one trade union, and the workers in Fraser & Neave in similar occupations might belong to another, and they might want to come in and give evidence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the latest submission by the Member for Farrer Park adds considerable weight to my suggestion earlier - that the Front Benchers opposite have taken very little trouble to understand the meaning of this Bill. If the Member for Farrer Park would look at clause 61 (1), he would see that there is provision for the State Advocate-General to intervene in any dispute in the public interest. Going on to sub-clause (2), it expressly provides that: "Where the State Advocate-General has intervened in proceedings before the Court the Court may grant leave to any trade union or person to intervene in those proceedings." Surely that must have some reference to clause 62 - there is the provision of intervention in addition to what the Prime Minister has just indicated to the House.

I would point out to the Minister for Law, in regard to his interpretation of "intervener", that the "intervener" I was thinking of was the "intervener" as it appears in line 40 of page 25. However, I will come back to that. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is on the Order Paper a notice of amendment on page 26 of the Bill in respect of the definition of "officer" in so far as this particular clause is concerned. Sir, may I be allowed to dwell on that too while I address the House on this particular amendment, because it would be relevant to my submission?

Yes.

Sir, as I said yesterday, whether or not clause 62 is a fair clause depends entirely on the concept of the Bill. In the Bill as it was originally, the concept was to hold the balance evenly between the two disputing parties. In my view, clause 62 is not unreasonable in trying to shut out advocates and solicitors, because it also shuts out everybody else, so far as the union of employees was concerned. The clause says that only a person who is a full-time secretary or assistant secretary may appear for a union. That is fair enough. But after representations have been made by trade unions of employees to the Minister, the Minister now proposes to alter the definition, Mr Speaker, Sir, as appearing in page 54 of the Order Paper Supplement [12th February, 1960] -

We are now on the new Supplement.

Anyway, the proposed new paragraph reads: '(a) "officer", in relation to a trade union includes for the purposes of any proceedings before the Court a person appointed by the body, by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of the union is entrusted, to represent the trade union in those proceedings.' As I understand it, a trade union of employees could appoint anybody, other than an advocate and solicitor, to represent them under that paragraph. So that X union could appoint the secretary of Y union, or vice-versa. Or they could appoint a complete outsider who has specialised in trade union activities. So far as the trade union of employees is concerned, there are two additional weights in their favour. First, they have been given the use by Government, at government expense, of an Industrial Relations Officer, who is himself an officer trained in such matters and who would be able to plead for the trade union of employees in a manner perhaps even better than can some advocates and solicitors, because he has been trained in that particular branch of Government work or trade union work. Over and above that, there are also persons at the disposal of trade unions of employees who themselves are specialists. Mr Speaker, Sir, recently we had an instance where one Political Secretary attached to the Government was given leave of absence. He went and so ably conducted the case for a trade union of employees that they won the case. Such a person would be available to all trade unions of employees who find themselves in difficulties with their employers. Now, the balance has again been upset. So long as a trade union of employers could take up the cudgels on behalf of an employer, there were some reasons to exclude advocates and solicitors, because the trade union of employers themselves might have secretaries who were well versed in these matters, and therefore those persons would have been able to appear for the employer in question. But now that too has been shut out. An employer must stand on his own. He cannot go to a trade union of employers. So you get the position, Sir, where two weights have been added in favour of the trade union of employees, and one weight which was in favour of the trade union of employers has been taken away. It is not always true, Mr Speaker, Sir, that an employer is a very rich person. An employer might be just struggling along like an employee. There are several very small employers in Singapore- persons who run a sewing business, a tailoring business, or a little coffee-shop -and they might have employees. And the employees might have a dispute with such an employer. The employer might be an illiterate person. Though very keen and clever in his business, he might be quite incapable of presenting his case to the Arbitration Court or even before a conciliation officer. Do we not know of instances, Mr Speaker, Sir, where people who are so voluble outside dry up once you ask them to stand on their feet and talk? It is a gift to be able to talk sensibly under pressure, and not all persons can do that. So at every point, the employer is faced with a disadvantage. How then can this be weighted in his favour again? If he cannot avail himself of somebody, then who could plead his case without fear or favour? Would not that person be an advocate and solicitor? Why is he being shut out? Originally, Sir, there was some point and purpose in the Bill, because things were balanced. Only secretaries and assistant secretaries of unions could appear for the unions. But now that has been extended to cover everybody, provided he is not a paid agent or an advocate and solicitor. 2.45 p.m. According to the Minister for Labour and Law, the main objection to employing an advocate and solicitor was that it was an expensive business. Sir, if an employer wants to engage an advocate and solicitor at his expense, why should the Minister object to that? Also, why should a trade union of employees object to an employer incurring expense in order to put his case correctly? If, as the Minister says, advocates and solicitors charge high fees appearing for trade unions of employees, well, the unions are not interested in advocates and solicitors. They have got the Industrial Relations Officers, who would be doing these jobs and doing them very well, available to them. So the unions are all right. Therefore, to say that because of expense an employer should be deprived of the services of an advocate and solicitor does not somehow seem right to me. The Minister also said, Sir, that skilled and orderly presentation of a case would give a trade dispute a forensic character. I beg to defer with the Minister on that point, because a good administrator can present the facts with skill and order. He need not be an advocate, and because he is doing that, is his Ministry a place where forensic matters are being thrashed out? All that is needed is somebody to put the points succinctly and clearly to the Arbitration Court. That is what is normally expected of an advocate arid solicitor. I think another point the Minister made was that if an advocate and solicitor appeared, there would not be that informality which is so essential in the Arbitration Court. I would submit to the Minister with respect that if the Minister wanted the Court to be informal, I am sure an advocate would make it very informal. There is a further point that advocates tend to become technical. Advocates do not become technical on their own, Mr Speaker, Sir. I take it that the President of the Court would lay down rules for the guidance of the Court, and advocates and solicitors would be guided by those rules. So why then is it necessary to shut out advocates and solicitors, particularly now that an employer has been deprived of the assistance of a trade union of employers, and the employer has to stand on his own feet? If I may come to clause 62 (1) (a) again, it says: "being a trade union may be represented by an officer of the trade union;" and with the amendment; "or, in the case of a trade union of employees, by an officer of the trade union or by an Industrial Relations Officer selected by the trade union." As the Minister himself has said, a trade union must now exclude a trade union of employers, and paragraph (a) refers to a trade union of employees. And paragraph (b), Sir: "not being a trade union," - I take it this now refers to an employer "may be represented by an employee of that party" - in other words, an employer may either appear himself or get his employee to appear for him, or an intervener. Sir. "represented by an intervener" means, I take it, somebody who appears on his behalf. Who could appear on his behalf? Not a trade union of employers - they are shut out. And not the State Advocate-General. So it must be somebody for and on behalf of the employer and at his behest! If that is an intervener, I do not know whether we have got the right meaning of "intervener". The whole objection to an advocate and solicitor, in the first instance, Sir, was that he would upset the balance, because the employer would be able to employ him, but not the trade union of employees. Now that the trade union of employees has been sufficiently and adequately protected, in so far as their representation is concerned, why then should they now object to the employer seeking to get what he considers adequate representation for himself?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid, in the course of the debate, we would be teaching others! As the definition of "officer" appears in clause 62 (2) (a), you will see that representation is restricted to persons in the employment of a trade union as a full-time secretary or assistant secretary. We felt that that was unduly restrictive against the unions as far as representations before the Arbitration Court were concerned. You will see in clause 62 (1) (b) (ii) that employers can be represented by officers of their trade unions. I have mentioned this before: although an employer is not a party to the proceedings, an employer may nevertheless be a member of a trade union. For the purpose of representation, therefore, an employer can make use of the services of an officer who is employed by his trade union. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have in Singapore the experience of seeing big organisations of employers employing specialist officers as trade union experts. I do not wish to mention any names to the House, but it would sound a bell in their memory when I say that. The employers can get the services of trade unionists who sell their skill to the employers as specialists. Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of that, it was considered unduly restrictive to limit the representation on behalf of a trade union of employees to a full-time secretary or assistant secretary of a union. For that reason, we have proposed this amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park has overlooked the provisions of clause 62 (1) (b) (ii), where it is provided that all paid agents are excluded. What is a paid agent? A paid agent can be an accountant or a firm of accountants. If we allow them to advertise the fact that they are experts in trade union matters, they could then assist the employer. For that reason, we have excluded all paid agents from espousing the cause of disputants before the Arbitration Court. As the clause originally stood, you will see that it was unduly weighted in favour of the employer, and we have sought to redress that balance. That is why we have amended the definition of "officer" for the purposes of representation to give the committee of the trade union the right to appoint any person whom they consider competent to represent them before the Arbitration Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park said that the services of advocates and solicitors are also available to trade unions. Is that so? Out of the whole Bar in Singapore, I know of very, very few lawyers who are really interested in trade union work, and who will offer their services to trade unions for a nominal fee. They can be counted on your finger-tips. As against that, the employers have got the services of the whole Bar. You can see quite clearly how everything is weighted against the trade union of employees, and it is for that reason that Government has proposed a further amendment to clause 62 to provide for the appointment of conciliation officers as well as Industrial Relations Officers, whose services will be available to a trade union of employees. On balance, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government can not be charged with favouring the trade union of employees at the expense of the trade union of employers. On the question of legal representation before the Arbitration Court, I have repeatedly told this House that there is a very great difference between the functions of the Arbitration Court, which we propose to set up, and the ordinary Courts. The Courts of Arbitration are not Courts of Judicature - I have repeatedly said that. Their functions are more like those of bodies which concern themselves with delegated legislation. At a glance the process of arbitration and conciliation is not a judicial process. By conciliation, a third party tries to bring the two disputants together, and to narrow down their differences. It is only when he cannot get them to reach an agreement that the question of arbitration arises. And when the question of arbitration arises, it is proper, to our way of thinking, that there should not be a formalistic approach The training of lawyers is such that they are prone to think in terms of precedents; they tend to stand on their rights. Far from helping to bring the parties together, lawyers more often than not make them drift apart. 3.00 p.m. Our purpose right through has been an honest purpose. We have repeatedly said that, though we want both sides to accept the principle of compulsory arbitration, it is our intention that as far as possible they should try to reach agreement, and that only in the last resort, when agreement is not possible, will they submit the dispute to arbitration. That surely is reasonable. On the question of the intervener, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have indicated that the State Advocate-General can be an intervener in arbitration proceedings. There might be reasons why he should intervene. When he does, he would be looking to the public interest in that dispute. If he comes in, then we have allowed legal representation. It is not true that we have excluded all legal representation, as the Opposition Front Benchers have charged. If this clause is looked at carefully, it will be seen that we also allow legal representation when the Court is looking into the question of contempt of Court under the provisions of clause 54. In the case of ordinary disputes, where no legal problems are involved, where no question of contempt is to be looked into, and where there is no intervention by the State Advocate-General, it is right and proper that lawyers should not come in. The Prime Minister has already made the point that if lawyers are interested in this kind of work, they can give up their legal practice. If they give up their practice six months before they get themselves mixed up with these matters, praise be to them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just one little point to add, from personal experience too. The Prime Minister has said that he has been informed by his colleagues that it has been his experience that when parties are represented by advocates and solicitors, matters are not so quickly resolved and not so honestly joined. I am sure he does not mean that, because when he was representing one of the parties during my time, I paid him a tribute, since it was because of his presence that the issues were joined more quickly and more honestly. Now it seems to me that he is of the view that if he had not been there, matters might have been still more quickly and still more honestly resolved!

I am glad that the Member for Cairnhill appreciates that there are lawyers and lawyers! I can assure the Member for Farrer Park that in my personal experience - this is not hearsay - I have as yet to meet an employer who has not got a managerial staff to put his case across. The problem of an orderly and disciplined marshalling of facts, figures, and arguments arises, in most cases, with the unions. It is in the nature of things that the managerial side has always the intellectual talent to put facts, figures, and reasons logically and succinctly. In the unlikely event of an employer not being a member of a trade association or a trade union of employers, and himself being bereft of intelligence, then I say that, far from the employees' union worrying about how to get more money from him, I think they will be worrying about where they are going to get jobs when their employer's firm goes bankrupt! Amendment negatived.

We are now on Supplement No. 14. We are on clause 62. Will the Minister move formally? I think we have had a debate on this amendment already, unless any Member wishes to speak further on it.

Yes, I want to speak on the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 26, lines 9 to 11, to leave out "a person in the employment of a trade union as a full-time secretary or assistant secretary" and insert - "for the purposes of any proceedings before the Court a person appointed by the body, by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of the union is entrusted, to represent the trade union in those proceedings".

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I understand it right, the Minister said earlier in the debate on my amendment that the trade unions had objected to the limitation on a secretary or assistant secretary, and therefore, in order to widen the provisions of paragraph (a) he is tabling the amendment. But I would like to say, Sir, that the wording of the amendment throws the gate wide open. Not only does it make it an offence, but it is also not meant to meet the objection. If it is meant to meet the objection, I am sure the amendment should allow for a full-time officer, by whatever name called. He could be a clerk, a general affairs officer, or he could be anybody. But the amendment as proposed by the Minister could mean anyone, it could even mean a Political Secretary. He could even be anyone not connected with the trade union movement. I think the unions' objection is that they are being tied down to the secretary or assistant secretary. Why cannot it be a general affairs clerk? Why cannot it be an organising secretary? Why cannot it be a full-time official who does not carry the title of secretary or assistant secretary? I am sure the Government will have no objection if I amend the amendment to read, "full-time officer, by whatever name called", if that is actually the intention of the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of the amendment is to enable the trade unions to get the services of people in the trade union movement who are skilled in the presentation of arguments before an arbitral body. The Member for Cairnhill must realise that the purpose of this legislation is to set up an industrial court, and it would be necessary for the unions to obtain the services of people who are skilled in presenting their arguments before the industrial court. Now one union may not have an official who is so skilled. Surely it cannot be wrong for that union to look around for some other union which has a conciliation officer, to enable it to have an official skilled in the type of service that it wants. If you write into the clause the provision that so and so is to be full-time, will you really achieve your purpose? There is nothing to prevent any union committee from deciding that X, who is a stranger to the union, will, for the purposes of the arbitration, be employed full-time. It means nothing. It does not add anything to what you are trying to do. The mere fact that you employ a person to represent your case before the Arbitration Court suggests that he is employed full-time for that purpose. Because arbitration proceedings take a long time, they are not over in the course of one day. I know that some arbitration proceedings take as much as two or three weeks before they are concluded. We leave that latitude to the unions. Surely there is nothing wrong in that.

Did the Minister say that the union is free to employ any person to help it to negotiate? Did he use the word "employ"?

Yes, or engage if you like, or obtain the services, or what have you. What we do not want is a paid agent. A paid agent is a person who sets up business to assist parties before the Arbitration Court. We do not want a group of undesirables unconnected with the trade union movement putting up notice boards and saying that they are, for the purposes of arbitration, paid agents whose services would be at the disposal of any union which wants to employ them. That would make a farce of the whole proceedings. You can leave the unions to look after their own affairs. We are trying our best to develop a sense of responsibility. We think it unfair that those persons who are in the trade union movement should spend so much time in conciliation proceedings, and when it comes to the presentation of their case before the Arbitration Court, to see lawyers coming in on various pretexts to cash in. We are not trying to make it impossible for the employees to find persons who are skilled to assist them. All that is not our intention.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is one of the aims of both sides of the House that there should be industrial peace with justice not only for the workers but for the employers. The other aim, as given by the Hon. Prime Minister, is to establish conditions conducive to industrial expansion, so that that will lead to further employment of more workers. That really is the ultimate aim of this Bill. The intention of setting up this Arbitration Court is to create an atmosphere of confidence in this country so that employers will expand their business and there will be more opportunities for employment. If this clause is amended, then the question is, will it give the employers that confidence so that they will expand their business and employ more people? Let us regard these two groups as human beings. We sometimes take sides. If you are workers, you naturally take the side of the workers. If you are employers, you take the side of the employers. An hon. Member: Which side are you on?

Sir, I am a paid man. In this particular case, the Government in a way are employers. When they drafted the Bill - and remember, this is a Government Bill - they balanced competing interests. With the help of their expert draftsman, they produced this Bill, and, all of a sudden amendments are made which show that they have retreated from their position. 3.15 p.m.

Order. I think the Member is probably going a bit too far from the amendment before the House, which is to amend the definition of "officer" in sub-clause (2) (a). Let us not go back to the whole principle of the Bill. Let us try and confine ourselves to this particular amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to refer to the principle because this particular clause goes against that principle. By opening the door so that anybody and everybody could be brought in, it will bring into the field of trade disputes irresponsible people who might be interested in prolonging disputes, and, therefore, the object of creating an atmosphere which will promote industrial expansion would be lost. For that reason, Sir, if the Government feels that the paragraph could not be limited to a full-time secretary or assistant secretary, then it could amend it so that it could include a further class, such as their own legal officers or their own Industrial Relations Officers, without opening the gate to every Tom, Dick or Harry and every trouble-maker in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not objecting to this amendment at all. But what we fear is that the wording, as it is now, throws the gate wide open. We have already had experience of Political Secretaries being given leave to appear before a court to represent a trade union. I think what the Minister actually aims at is to see that a trade union can have any member of that trade union or a member of any other trade union of employees to come and help. If it is limited to a member of a trade union or a member of any other trade union of employees, then I think that could be understood by all. It is just that the trade union movement, as a whole, can be depended upon to come to the assistance of one union in regard to arbitration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill is referring to the intervention of Political Secretaries in trade union affairs. May I remind him that the Political Secretaries he has in mind are Political Secretaries who are also members of trade unions? When they intervened, they intervened on behalf of their respective trade unions. That is exactly what can be done under the provisions of the amendment that we propose. Amendment agreed to.

Is the Member moving his amendment? [In page 26, to leave out lines 12 to 17 inclusive.]

I am not moving, Sir. Clause 62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 63 and 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 65-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, In page 27, line 32, after "which", to insert "he knows". Mr Speaker, a person who makes a statement to an officer is punishable if his statement is false or misleading. But it does sometimes happen that the statement which he makes is, according to his knowledge and belief, not false or misleading. Therefore, I think it but fair that you only punish a man who makes a false statement knowing it to be false.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we must not try to place an undue burden on the prosecution to prove knowledge that the statement is false. Anybody who makes a statement to an official when he is inspecting premises - in this case the person who would be inspecting the premises in relation to a dispute would either be the President or a member who constitutes the Court, or a person authorised by the President - must ensure that he is careful in the statement that he makes. If he is negligent or careless, or if he does not give sufficient care and attention to his replies, I think he should be penalised. The question of knowledge and so on - that he did not know, and that he did not understand the question that was put - is one which he can very fairly put to the Court if he is charged with an offence. If the Court believes that, in fact, he did not know the question that he was asked, then it could be left to the Magistrate to acquit him. But I can see no reason why this extra burden should be placed on the prosecution, if proceedings are brought against a person for making a false statement under the provisions of this clause.

In view of the explanation, may I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 66-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 27, line 45, at end, to add- "(3) The decision of the Court upon a trade dispute or matter shall be given within two weeks after the completion of the hearing of the dispute or matter or within such extended time as in special circumstances the Court considers to be required for the proper consideration of the dispute or matter.". Mr Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to avoid as far as possible delays in giving a decision. Amendment agreed to. Clause 66, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 67 to 69 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 70-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 29, line 18, at end, to add- "Provided that where evidence is taken in private a person representing a party to the proceedings shall have the right to be present unless the Court otherwise orders.". Mr Speaker, this is to make clear that, in normal circumstances, representatives shall be present whenever evidence is taken in private. It is not to be expected that the contrary direction would be given save in very exceptional circumstances. Amendment agreed to. Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 71 to 76 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 77-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 32, line 20, at end, to add- "Provided that it shall not be an offence for an employer to require as a condition of the appointment or promotion of a person to a managerial position that that person shall not continue to be an officer or member of a particular union.". Mr Speaker, the Opposition Front Bench has charged that we have been very unfair in the amendments that we have made. They have said that we have given due regard to the representation of the unions of employees, but have paid very little attention to the representation of the employers. Mr Speaker, we are moving this amendment to clause 77 because of the representation we received from the employers. Clause 77 deals with the case where skilful employers hold out carrots in a general way before employees who seek ad vancement in their service. In the terms of clause 77, an employer is committing an offence if he says to an employee: "If you sever your connections with the union, I will in due course see to it that you are promoted to a superior post in my employment." That sort of inducement is penalised under this provision. But the employers said that under the terms of this clause, if they in fact genuinely wanted to promote anybody in their employ who is a member of a trade union to a superior post in their employment, they would still be committing an offence under this clause. That was a reasonable submission to make, and we have therefore provided in this proviso that where, in fact, an employer offers an employee a promotion, he can say to the employee that the condition of the promotion will be that he severs his connections with the union. An hon. Member: Corruption!

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not corruption. In Government service, in private employment and elsewhere, there is such a thing as management. We feel that it is quite improper, if a person wants to seek advancement to the position of management, that he should continue his association with any trade union movement, particularly in the position of a committee member of a union, because the functions of management are such that if the employer is to pay him for the services that he is to render in the position of management, it is essential that he severs his connections with the trade union to which he belongs. That is a reasonable request for the employers to make. It is for that reason that we are moving this amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 77, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 3.30 p.m. Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 79-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 33, lines 12 to 15, to leave out "not being a trade dispute as to which the President has signified his intention not to give a direction under section 28 of this Ordinance". Mr Speaker, Sir, this is consequential on our amendment to clause 28. Amendment agreed to. Clause 79, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 81-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 34, line 25, after "section", to insert "77,". The purpose of this amendment is to make it necessary for prosecutions under section 77 to be instituted with the sanction of the State Advocate-General. Amendment agreed to. Clause 81, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 82- Question proposed, "That clause 82 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is intended that the question "That the clause stand part of the Bill" be negatived. Mr Speaker, Sir, after further consideration by the Government, it was found that the provisions of this clause would cause embarrassment to the trade unions of employees. I was very concerned to see in the memorandum of the employers that they urged the Government that not only should the officers who incited the go-slow or the work-to-rule be punishable under the provisions of this clause, but that all those who participated in the go-slow should also be punishable. They went on to say that the Trade Disputes Ordinance should be amended so that any go-slow would be considered to he an illegal strike. Mr Speaker, Sir, we find that the amendments which have already been made to this Bill give the President of the Court of Arbitration sufficient powers to deal with situations where the provisions of awards are wilfully disregarded. In the circumstances, where a go-slow can be considered to be a breach of an award, it will be open to the President of the Court to proceed under clause 53 of the Bill. You will note, Mr Speaker, Sir, that clause 53 provides: "The Court shall have power-

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill had been described by the Opposition as a good Bill, because they were not fully aware at the time of the Second Reading that there had been proposals to negative this clause and the following clause. Sir, the Prime Minister has said that what the Government aims at achieving by this Bill is industrial stability, industrial peace and confidence. This particular clause has been inserted by the Government, and because it has been inserted, those people who have suffered the disadvantage of the go-slow policies of some trade unions in the past are relieved to learn that the Government is aware of this industrial pest in their midst and is making a genuine and honest effort to see to it that this industrial pest shall not rear its head again. I do not see any reason why this clause should be deleted when it is in regard to a breach of an award. If there has been no award, it is a different matter. The trade union can take whatever action it desires in order to achieve its aims to improve the conditions of employment of its members. But once an award has been given by the Court of Arbitration to which that trade union is a party, surely, for the confidence of the parties in the Court, it is necessary that any attempt to advise persons found by the Court not to be observing the award should be punishable. If the Government had not inserted this clause in, one could understand why they had felt that it was not necessary. But after having put it in in order to instil confidence in the public, to withdraw it at this juncture is going to shake the public's feeling of confidence in the Government's aim to achieve industrial stability and peace.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry that the confidence of the Member for Cairnhill has been badly shaken and that he was misled during the Second Reading. To my recollection, Sir, notice of these amendments was given before the Second Reading. If the Opposition leaders subsequently chose to say that, at the time when they were commenting on the principle of the Bill, they were unaware of the position of the Government, that surely is a matter for regret that they did not give the Order Paper and the Notices of Amendments to the Bill the consideration which they warranted. Sir, I do not want to go into the rather long-winded argument as to how confidence was first created and then shaken by the withdrawal of this clause. All I want to do is to explain briefly why we accepted the arguments put forward by a committee consisting of many union representatives, to delete clauses 82 and 83 One of the principles on which this Bill was based is a balance of interests and balance of responsibilities, duties and punishments. There is already sufficient power under clause 54 for the Court to see that its awards are honoured. and to impose penalties on the unions and union leaders if the terms of an award were to be flouted. Clauses 82 and 83 deal specifically only with unions of employees, because it did not occur to the human mind that employers can go-slow. Employers either lock-out or they close down altogether. Therefore, the unions argued that clauses 82 and 83 were, in effect, an extra penalty against unions for being unions. I would just like to point this out to Members on the other side - that, as drafted, clauses 54 and 55 can adequately deal with the situation where union officers are flouting the terms of an award by going slow. I am quite sure that the Member for Farrer Park, if he applies himself to the wording of clause 54 as now amended - penalties on trade union leaders for flouting an order for compliance by the Court - will see that there is sufficient scope there to ensure compliance by punishment, if compliance is, in fact, negatived by a go-slow.

But, Sir, the punishment is going to be meted out to those persons who listen to the agitator coming along and saying, "You should not do this and you should not do that." It is not the agitator only who will himself be punished, but also the persons who are foolish enough to listen to him will be punished.

Mr Speaker. Sir, the Member for Cairnhill, I think, has paid very little attention to what I have just said. I draw his attention to the provisions of clause 53. When there is evidence that an award is being disregarded, what the Court would do is to send for - in the case of a trade union of employees - the leaders of the trade union who the Court thinks are responsible for the breach of the award. It would then take evidence, and if it was satisfied that there was a wilful disregard of the award, it could make an order that the terms of the award be carried out by the union of employees. If there was a disregard of the order of the Court, then the Court could proceed to punish as in clause 54, that is, to fine and to place the leaders under a restriction. The persons who would be bound by the order of the Court would be the persons who were summoned before the Court and who were ordered by the Court specifically to carry out the terms of the award. That order clearly would not apply to the other committee members of the union who knew nothing about the matter. So I cannot see the point of what the Member for Cairnhill has just said. 3.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does not clause 82 take in the person who goes and encourages them to go slow? Clause 54 only deals with officers of the union who do not comply with the award. I think the gentleman who should be dealt with more severely is the gentleman who is outside the union but goes along and incites them to go slow.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are now delving into niceties and intricacies. I think it is by implication admitted by the Member that the powers of enforcement are there, and that is basically what we want to achieve. If by the deletion of clauses 82 and 83 we deprive the Court of the powers of enforcement, then I would say we are departing from a point of major principle. By debating whether or not we should so draft the clause as to get the man who may not have been brought before the Court, who has incited them, and who is not an officer of the union, then I say, by implication, it is admitted that there are sufficient powers in clauses 53, 54 and 55 to compel compliance. That basically is what we intended to do. The reason why clauses 82 and 83 were agreed to be deleted from the Bill was that there was no similar provision for employers because, by the nature of things, they cannot go slow but the employees can. Therefore, having to hold the scales against competing interests, we decided, since there was no competing interest on the other side which would merit similar or commensurate punishment, to delete clauses 82 and 83.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of information. As the debate has been on clause 83 as well, I would like to point out that what is mentioned in clause 83, that is, union activity in working time, really does not form part of this Bill. It has got nothing to do with collective agreements as such or the course of arbitration. That weighed considerably when a decision was made that the provisions of that clause be deleted. Mr Thio Chan Bee rose -

Is the hon. Member going to speak on clause 82 or 83?

Clause 82, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, do I understand from the Hon, the Prime Minister that clause 82 has become superfluous, because the powers are provided for in clauses 53 and 54?

The niceties of the argument which were advanced by the Member for Farrer Park should, I think, convey to the Member for Tanglin that the clauses do not exactly duplicate themselves. They are slightly distinct. Clause 82 deals specifically with situations where there is a go-slow. Clause 54 deals with general situations. Unlike clause 82, a person to be punished under clause 54 must be a member of a trade union of persons that is continuing a contravention of any provision of this Ordinance, or committing a breach of non-observance of an award. If one of the ways in which an award is being defeated is by a go-slow, then the officers who have incited the go-slow, the leaders and maybe some of the men, or the shop stewards may be called up before the Court and warned in the, first instance. Subsequently, if there is a breach, then clause 54 springs into operation and there is contempt of court, and the penalties come into being. All that I wanted to draw the attention of the Members of the House to is this, that if it is complained that by the deletion of this clause 82 we are, in fact, making awards unenforceable because the unions can flout them by going slow, then I accept the stricture that they have passed. But if it is conceded that all that we are doing is to hold the balance between unions and employers by not putting in a special provision for the-punishment of unions for going slow, when we cannot put in a similar provision for punishing employers for going slow, then I say there is no point in carrying this debate any further.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in addition to what the Prime Minister has just said, I should like to draw a distinction between the procedure in clause 82 and the procedure in clauses 53 and 54. You will see, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the punishment for go-slow is the punishment (as clause 82 stands) which is meted out by the ordinary Court - the District Court. It is our view that this sort of punishment should be handled by the Court which makes the award. But under the procedure in clauses 53 and 54, it is the Court of Arbitration which makes the award and which also supervises the execution or the carrying out of that award. If there is to be a punishment, it is but fair (if the punishment is to be meted out on a charge that the award is wilfully disregarded) that the power to inflict that punishment should be in the hands of the Court which makes the award. If you bring it before the ordinary Courts, they may not be aware of the circumstances which led to the award, and it will be unduly penalising the unions if we allow this clause to stand.

Mr Speaker. Sir, we are interested in seeing that, when the Arbitration Court makes an award, it will be enforceable on both sides and respected by both sides. Then only can we have industrial peace. Therefore, Sir, we felt very perturbed because we thought that if these provisions were negatived, then it would mean that the award would be practically unenforceable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is one thing for which Government cannot be responsible, and that is the feebleness of comprehension of those who are expected to apply themselves to these matters.

Question put, and negatived. Clause 82 accordingly disagreed to. Clause 83- Question proposed, "That clause 83 stand part of the Bill."

Does the Minister wish to add anything further?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have nothing further to add to what I have already said.

Question put, and negatived. Clause 83 accordingly disagreed to. Clauses 84 and 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 86-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 36, line 8, to leave out "two years" and insert "eighteen months". I have already explained the reason for this amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 86, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 87 and 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4-

We have a postponed clause. It is clause 4. There is an amendment moved by the Member for Farrer Park: In page 3, lines 27 and 28, to leave out "not be deemed to be a public servant but" and insert "be deemed to be a public servant and". The Question before the Assembly was, "That the words proposed to be left-out, be left out.'

I think the point which troubled the Member for Farrer Park is that the clause, as drafted, would enable the Minister to appoint a Member of this Assembly. Since he would not be deemed to be a public servant, the argument was that he might continue to be a Member of the Assembly. I had not paid sufficient attention to the formula used, but I have since inquired from the legal draftsman, and I am informed that the way in which it was drafted would make it quite clear that if a Member of this Assembly should be appointed to the post of President, then he would automatically vacate his seat as a Member of the Assembly. Further, the reason for the emphasis that he shall not be deemed to be a public servant is to take it out of the Public Service Commission. Otherwise, there would be considerable argument as to whether or not the appointment to this office is covered by the general provisions in the Constitution which require all public officers to go before the Public Service Commission.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the only point which troubled me about this clause was that anybody who is in Government service is a public officer. Anybody who is paid from the funds of the Government is a public officer. If the Prime Minister assures the House that from that point of view the President of the Court will continue to be a public officer just like the High Court Judges (High Court Judges are not public officers for the purposes of only a certain part of the Constitution, but in respect of other matters, they continue to be public officers) and if the Government say that that is the intention and that they will carry it out, then I have nothing further to add. That is the only difficulty.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park has, I think, overlooked the provisions of the Constitution, where "public service" includes "service ... after the appointed day ... under the Government of Singapore, or service as a Judge of the Supreme Court." The provisions of the Constitution lay down that all public offices must be filled through recruitment through the Public Service Commission. It is only for that purpose that the Judges of the Supreme Court are deemed not to hold public office. But they are in the public service. We have got to so provide that the President of the Arbitration Court is not deemed to be a public servant if we want to shut out the provisions of the Constitution with regard to his recruitment; because clause 3 (1) of the Bill indicates the manner of his recruitment, that is, he will be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara after consultation with the Prime Minister. To give effect to that intention, we have had to use these words, that he "shall not be deemed to be a public servant". That is all there is to it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish the Minister for Labour and Law would not try and pooh-pooh my objection, it is a very genuine objection that I am taking. According to the Constitution, a Judge is not a public servant for the purposes of Part IX of the Constitution. In every other part he is a public servant and in the public service. Section 75 of the Constitution reads: "Except for the purposes of sections 83, 84 and 85 of this Order, and except where the context otherwise requires, in the interpretation of this Part of this Order-". That is Part IX. In so far as this Part is concerned, the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court is excluded, merely because that appointment should not go to the Public Service Commission. It is only from that point of view. But as drafted in this Bill, it would appear that for all purposes he is not a public servant. Section 42 of the Constitution says: "(1) Every Member of the Assembly shall cease to be a Member at the next dissolution of the Assembly after he has been elected, or previously thereto if his seat becomes vacant under the provisions of this Order. (2) The seat of a Member shall become vacant -

What I have indicated to the Member for Farrer Park is that the legal draftsman, who is an expert in these matters, and on whom the Government must rely, has given us the assurance that the clause, as drafted, would automatically cause any Member of the Assembly to resign his seat if he were appointed. While I myself had not gone through the intricacies of the argument, I would suggest to the Member for Farrer Park that whilst we can, in the Order in Council, make an exclusion in certain parts of that Order in Council with respect to Judges, we cannot in this legislation get out of the comprehensive terms of the Order in Council unless we say that the President of the Arbitration Court is not a public servant. To leave the matter in any doubt whatsoever means that the over-riding provisions of the Constitution prevail and that the person is deemed to be a public servant, that this is a public office and it must go to the Public Service Commission. 4.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, might I suggest that that difficulty could quite easily be got over by putting in a proviso: "Provided that this appointment shall not go to the Public Service Commission", or something to that effect?

The Ordinance cannot over-ride the general terms of the Order in Council. I am advised that if there is any doubt whatsoever, that if it is deemed to be a public office and the incumbent is deemed to be a public servant, we cannot shut out the over-riding powers of the provisions of the Constitution by saying, "But, nevertheless, it shall not go to the Public Service Commission," because the Constitution overrides the Ordinance. Amendment negatived. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. New clause- The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock - "Directive "Where the Minister is of the to Com- opinion- missioner. (a) upon receiving a notification under section 18 or 20 of this Ordinance that it is unlikely that conciliation or further conciliation will assist the parties concerned to reach agreement; or (b) that the conference directed by him under section 21 of this Ordinance has failed to assist the parties concerned to reach agreement, he shall direct the Commissioner to notify the Registrar that a trade dispute exists.".

My new clause is consequent upon my amendment to paragraph (b) of clause 28, and as that paragraph has been left out, there is no purpose in moving the new clause.

Consequential amendments will be made where necessary. Schedule-

Question, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived. Schedule accordingly disagreed to. Clause 2-

We are now back to clause 2. Under the provisions of Standing Order 71(11) , which reads: "After all clauses and schedules have been gone through, any Member may, with the leave of the Chairman, move an amendment to a clause or schedule already passed, provided that the amendment is made necessary by an amendment made to any other clause or schedule." The first point that arose on clause 2 was on the definition of "trade union". The term "trade union" means "a trade union of workmen or employers registered under any written law for the time being in force relating to the registration of trade unions." I understood that the Minister wished to alter the word "workmen" to read "employees".

That is so. Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 9, to leave out "workmen" and insert "employees". Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7-

The next point that arose was on clause 7 regarding consequential amendments which have been made to other clauses. Will the Minister move formally the two amendments standing in his name?

Yes, Sir. Amendments made: In page 5, line 24, to leave out "an order made under".-[Mr Byrne]. In page 5, line 25, to leave out "56" and insert "54".-[Mr Byrne]. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments: read the Third time and passed.

Order for Committee Stage read. Bill considered in Committee.

4.07 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, line 18, at end, to add- '(b) by deleting from the definition of "trade dispute" appearing therein the word "workmen" wherever occurring and substituting therefor the word "employees"; and (c) by deleting the definition of "workmen".'. I have already given the reasons why this amendment is necessary vvhen the Industrial Relations Bill was considered. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, to leave out lines 1 and 2. This amendment is necessary because of the amendment to clause 28 (c) of the Industrial Relations Bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, to leave out lines 13 to 16 inclusive. This amendment is necessary because of the previous amendment and because of the amendment to clause 28 (c) of the Industrial Relations Bill. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, to leave out lines 28 to 31 inclusive. The reason for this is the same as that which I have given before. Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 13, to leave out "an illegal" where those words secondly occur. This is a drafting improvement. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, lines 40 and 41, to leave out "committee of management of a registered trade union" and insert "body, by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of a registered trade union is entrusted". This amendment is necessary to bring the provisions of this clause in line with the Industrial Relations Bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7- Question proposed, "That clause 7 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is intended that this clause be negatived. The Government intends, Sir, to keep the provisions of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance in force because that Ordinance provides for the procedure to be followed where a strike involves an essential service. The provisions of that Ordinance make it necessary for a trade union to give notice when it threatens to strike in a trade dispute affecting an essential service. We intend to keep that procedure, Sir.

Question put, and negatived. Clause 7 accordingly disagreed to. New Clause - 'Amendment of Section 10 of the principal section 10. Ordinance is hereby amended by deleting the word "workmen" appearing in the fourth line of subsection (1) thereof and substituting therefor the word "employees".'-[Mr Byrne]. Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to make a speech because the reason for the amendment is obvious.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill. Long Title- Amendment made: In page 1, to leave out ", and to repeal Part V of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955 (No. 26 of 1955)".- [Mr Byrne]. Bill reported with amendments: read the Third time and passed.

Order read for resumption of motion -[10th February, 1960]: "That the Bill be now read a Second time". - [Mr Low Por Tuck]. 4.16 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the aims of the Bill are, firstly, to enable private investors, commercial banks, insurance companies, investment trusts, statutory bodies and other similar financial institutions to invest their surplus funds in Treasury deposit receipts at attractive rates of interest for periods of two to five years and, secondly, the Bill will also give the Government authority to make productive use of funds so deposited for development purposes. Some of our financial institutions in Singapore, especially foreign incorporated institutions, hold a fairly high proportion of their assets overseas. For example, banking statistics for the quarter ending September, 1959, show that the net overseas assets of commercial banks in Singapore was $410.5 million, or nearly 25 per cent of the total assets of $1,693 million. These financial institutions have, in the past, been able to claim that they hold such a high proportion of their assets overseas by necessity, that there are insufficient opportunities locally to invest their surplus funds in short or medium term liquid and safe or gilt-edged securities. As stated earlier, it is the intention of the Treasury that a variety of such securities should be available to investors, whether they are looking for short term, medium or long-term investments. Treasury deposit receipts should meet these investment criteria and enable institutions to divert their surplus funds invested overseas for depositing locally in such receipts. By so doing, they are killing two birds with one stone. These receipts earn interest for the depositors and at least as an interim measure until longer-term monies are obtained, they also make available funds for the economic development of the State. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

There are two points, Mr Speaker, Sir, which strike me on this Bill. The first point, Sir, is that the Bill enables the Minister to fix the rates of interest and as you, Mr Speaker, know, once the Minister fixes the rates of interest, then this House is committed to the payment of those rates of interest under the Constitution and nobody can query their payment. In the particular circumstances of this Bill, could the Minister say whether it would be desirable to consult the House before he fixes the rates of interest or whether the nature of the transaction is such that it would be undesirable to consult the House on the fixing of the rates of interest? The second point is under clause 8 (1) of the Bill, which reads: "A Treasury Deposit shall be repaid on maturity to the holder of the Treasury Deposit Receipt...". And clause 8 (2) reads: "No Treasury Deposit shall be repaid except upon the surrender of the Treasury Deposit Receipt relating to such deposit to the Treasury for cancellation." What would happen to such a receipt if it were lost? Supposing the holder of a receipt makes a statutory declaration that he has lost it, would it be possible for him to get payment? Or if the receipt is lost for good, does it mean to say that the holder of that receipt will not get payment from Government even though the Government is satisfied that there has been a genuine loss?

I think probably those two points could, with convenience, be dealt with in Committee. The hon. Member knows that having spoken once on the Second Reading he cannot speak again. It would probably be better if the Minister would answer those points in Committee.

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 Low Por Tuck]. Bill considered in Committee.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 4, to leave out "one hundred" and insert "fifty". This amendment will enable investors to deposit funds in a smaller and therefore convenient unit of $50,000 rather than the original sum of $100,000, which would be too large a sum. Amendment agreed to. Further amendment made: In page 2, line 5, to leave out "one hundred" and insert "fifty".-[Mr Low Por Tuck]. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 4 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7- Question proposed, "That clause 7stand part of the Bill."

Under both the Constitution, Mr Speaker, Sir, and clause 9 of this Bill, any interest payment is a charge on the Consolidated Fund and, as you know, once an amount is charged to the Consolidated Fund, the Assembly will not be able to raise any queries on it. Therefore, any rate of interest fixed by the Minister as a charge on the Fund would have to be payable. In those circumstances, I was wondering whether the Minister would consider that the House be consulted before he fixes the rates of interest, or whether the nature of the transaction is such that it would he undesirable to consult the House.

Mr Speaker, I think there is a difference between the normal loans from the public, which are in the nature of fixed bonds redeemable at so many years, and Treasury deposits. The idea of Treasury deposits is to cash in on surplus cash, which is available for short periods - it might be six months, nine months or one year. For that reason, it is not possible, technically, to ask the House to approve the rates of interest. The Minister must have the opportunity to seize the right moment to cash in on those surplus funds at the cheapest rate of interest.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8- Question proposed, "That clause 8 stand part of the Bill."

At first sight of this clause, Sir, it would appear that anybody who has lost his Treasury deposit receipt could not be given payment so that if that receipt was, shall we say, for two years and if at the end of 12 months he had lost it and could not find it and on maturity he went to the Treasury, the Treasury official would ask, "Where is your receipt?" And he would say, "I have lost it." The Treasury official would say, "I am very sorry, but under clause 8 of the Bill, I cannot pay you." Is there any remedy for that?

Mr Speaker, if the Member for Farrer Park loses $100 in cash, I am sure the Treasury would not make any payment to him. The idea or Treasury deposits is that they should be transferable under clause 6 by endorsement and delivery. In other words, they would be more or less in the nature of currency notes.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 9 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments: read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.28 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, every country in Asia and Africa, which has recently obtained self-government, finds itself confronted with the twofold problem of finding the wherewithal to provide a formal education for its children and to eliminate illiteracy amongst the majority of its adult population. During the budget session of this Assembly, I outlined the Government's plans to deal with the first half of the problem. The Bill before the Assembly is designed to establish the machinery by which the Government hopes to implement its policies to tackle the second half of the problem. For the past few years, the running of adult education classes has been largely the work of the Singapore Council for Adult Education, a body established in 1950, which received exemption from registration under the Societies Ordinance. The Council received an annual grant from the Government, which in recent years amounted to $500,000. Its work has been satisfactory in a limited way. But as I told the Annual Conference of the Singapore Council for Adult Education held last December, private and voluntary agencies, which in the past had catered to the needs of education, health and social services of all kinds, have today given way to much wider and more extensive state enterprise in these fields, not only in Singapore, but all over the world. Clearly, state enterprise in these fields is essential if the benefits of civilisation and of knowledge are to reach the greatest number of people in the shortest possible time. The time has now come in Singapore for the State to assume full responsibility for adult education. This must be regarded as an inevitable development, if adult education in our society is to attain yet greater heights. A country engaged in the task of nation building must rally all forces which can assist in this work under one banner, so that there can be proper direction of policies and utilisation of limited resources of finance and manpower. The Bill before the Assembly is designed to set up a corporate body on which there will be strong Government representation and which will work closely with the Ministry of Education. Clause 3 of this Bill is designed to establish the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa, which will be a corporate body to promote adult education in Singapore. This Board will take over the functions, assets and property of the Singapore Council for Adult Education. Clause 4 of this Bill is designed to effect this. Discussions have taken place with the Singapore Council for Adult Education, and the Council passed the following resolution at its 38th Meeting held on 23rd December 1959: The Singapore Council for Adult Education resolves to dissolve itself on 1st March 1960, and hand over its assets to the new Statutory Board for Adult Education to be appointed in 1960. In the event of the Board not being appointed by the said date, the Council shall hand over its assets to the Ministry of Education to be held in trust by them for purposes of adult education. One property, which will pass to the new Board, will be the building known as the Cultural Centre at Fort Canning. This Centre, which has been used by the Council as its headquarters was built on State land with financial assistance from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. When transferred, the Centre will become the focal point for use in connection with adult education and for the promotion of cultural activities in Singapore. Clause 5 of the Bill sets out the constitution of the Board, which will consist of eleven members. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman are to be appointed directly by the Minister for Education, together with one other member, while three members are to be appointed on the nominations of the Minister for Culture, the Minister for Labour and Law, and the Minister for Finance. Another two members are to be appointed by the Minister for Education on the nominations of the Trades Union Congress in Singapore, and there will be three members from the tutorial staff of the Teachers' Training College, the University of Malaya and the Nanyang University respectively. The Board will therefore have strong Government representation as well as a leavening of professional opinion from the higher seats of learning; while Trades Union Congress representation will ensure that the education of workers will not be overlooked. Clause 7 sets out the powers of the Board, the most important of which are to receive fees from students and contributions from Government and other sources as well as to raise funds by lawful means. The Board is also empowered to administer these funds and to acquire and sell movable and immovable property with the approval of the Minister for Education. It is not intended that the Board should engage in any political or religious activities, but the Board will not be precluded from organising classes, talks and debates pertaining to politics or religion if this is considered desirable in the public interest. Clause 11 is to ensure this. The Bill will not involve the expenditure of additional public money, there being provision in the 1960 Estimates for half a million dollars for the promotion of adult education. It is pertinent to mention here that in the 1959 grant of half a million dollars, the Singapore Council for Adult Education were conducting 549 classes with a student enrolment of 15,947. With the absorption of these classes by Government this year, the total number of adult classes now conducted by Government is 1,088 with a student population of nearly 37,000. In other words, Government is already doing twice as much work in adult education than before on the same budget. With the creation of the new Board, it is intended that adult education will be brought to the masses not only in the City areas but to kampong folk in rural areas as well. I wish to. announce that although it was originally hoped that the bulk of literacy classes would be borne by teachers doing the extra half session work gratis, it has now been decided that with effect from Monday, 15th February, 1960, all teachers who are required to do extra half session work outside of their normal schools either in the day or in the night would be eligible for a flat $2 per session for transport and/or out-of-pocket expenses. This will work out at roughly $25 per month. As there are about 3,000 teachers involved so far, 1,000 for night sessions and 2,000 for day sessions, the total cost is estimated at $750,000 per annum. Since no provision was made for this in the 1960 Estimates, it will mean that this sum will have to come out of the Education Development Estimates, and therefore the loss of four primary schools for 1961. Needless to say, the 201 voluntary teachers from the Police Force in our adult classes will also be eligible for the allowance mentioned above. It would not be fair to leave them out of the scheme of things or for us to take advantage of their inspiring example to offer their voluntary services in teaching work which is outside the scope of their normal employment. It is worth mentioning at this stage, Sir, that undue publicity given to the so-called strain on teachers in respect of extra session work is not justified. In 1959, 1,017 teachers obtained. permission to do additional paid employment, which was then limited to six hours per week. Despite the imposition of extra session work this year, up to date we have in hand 122 applications (29 from the English stream, 38 from the Malay stream and 55 from the Chinese stream) for additional paid employment, also with the limit of six hours per week, which we are now considering. We are expecting more applications to come, which will be duly considered. The Government is confident that the establishment of the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa will bring about a co-ordination and unity of effort towards early attainment of the object of universal literacy in Singapore. May the illiterate half million, or one-third of our population, be wiped out so that suspicion and fear will be banished, and in their place will come a true understanding and appreciation of our democratic system based on adult franchise. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.43 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the history of education in Singapore and Malaya shows that private enterprise has very often played a very great part in starting endeavours in new fields of education, and that the State comes in to give encouragement and help and gradually more and more help. Naturally, Sir, as the one who pays the piper, Government wants to have more and more control. It is only natural. However, we must not forget that too much control can deaden the spirit of the individual, so that if he has a new idea he may not be able freely to express that idea to a superior officer, or even if he expresses the idea freely the officer may not be receptive enough to be willing to accept that suggestion and that idea becomes still-born. Sir, the Hon. Minister for Education himself has had experience sitting in the Council of the University as an unofficial member. He must have seen how Government official nominees were working under a great handicap, and that very often revolutionary suggestions had to come from these so-called unofficial nominees. Therefore, Sir, we felt when we read the Bill that the composition of the Board is too heavily weighted on the side of Government appointees. Even in the case of the members who represent the University of Nanyang and the University of Malaya, they are to be appointed by the Minister from among the tutorial staff of these institutions. It does not say here that the members are to be appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the University. The public will thus think that those appointed are just part of the Government rubber stamp. That, Sir, would make the Board less respectable in appearance in the eyes of the public.

4.45 p.m. We feel, Sir, that in order that the Board might have the support of all those interested in adult education and are willing to help in it, it should be so composed that at least half the members of the Board should be freely elected by outside organisations interested in the project. My suggestion would be along these lines: that the Minister for Education could appoint the first two members, and the various Ministers could appoint as stated here, one each. In the case of the Teachers' Training College, if it is regarded as a purely Government institution, of course the appointment may have to be made by the Minister. But if it is regarded as not quite a Government department, then the tutorial staff could be allowed to nominate and the Minister could appoint. But in the case of representation from the University of Malaya, the Nanyang University and the Trades Union Congress, I definitely think that nominations should come from them. Sir, I notice there is no reference made to unions, such as the Singapore Teachers' Union. I take it that it is implied that the T.U.C. representation should include a teachers' representative. But unless specified, it could well mean that in the operation of this Bill, the T.U.C. might not want to appoint teachers who are respected or who have the support of the Teachers' Union. In that case then, those representatives will not be able to give to the Board the views of the teaching body in Singapore. We believe that if adult education classes are to function properly, the teachers who have to play a most important part should have a say, a good say, in the Board. So if the Teachers' Union or any national union of teachers recognised by the teachers in Singapore is not represented, then, Sir, the Minister and the Board would not be able to hear what goes on at the ground level. Sir, I have the greatest admiration for the Minister for his great energy. I know he works long hours: but not all people can work as hard as he does. It has now come into the open that many teachers cannot stand the strain. The Chinese Schools' Conference apparently held a meeting and they wished to petition the Minister to allow them to invite donations from parents to enable them to secure the services of those unemployed teachers to teach and thereby prevent some of them from having a breakdown. Sir, this is not an exaggeration. We have lost teachers who, because they cannot stand the strain, in addition to a six-day week, of having to teach in adult education classes, have tendered their resignations. We welcome the Minister's offer to pay transport expenses to those teachers who teach in these evening classes. But we would be glad also if he could give an assurance that there should be no compulsion in the case of those teachers who are unable to bear the strain, and on medical grounds ask to be excused from performing the extra hours per week. Sir, in implementing the principle which he has stated, maybe not in this House but outside, that these 4� hours include extra-mural duties, sometimes one branch official or one official in one section, not knowing the needs of another branch, allocates to certain teachers the full quota. If these teachers are already involved in important duties in organisations like the scouts organisation, then they find they are on the horns of a dilemma. If they do the 4� hours, they have to give up their duties in the scouts organisation. If they do not do the 4� hours, they would be regarded as negligent or showing a spirit of insubordination. The result, Sir, is that in sports work in the schools these teachers have not been able to find the time. We are told that for certain sports activities, they could deduct one hour; so the head masters in one district studying the question say, "It is impossible." Let us take the case of football and ask the teacher to devote that one-hour per week to it. But the preparation and training of the students, taking them out to the match, watching them through the match, and after that again giving them tips on how they could improve themselves, take more than one hour a week. I hope the Minister will go into the details if they are asking too much, but this is one of the causes which have made many teachers feel that the burden is becoming too great for them. I would not say all of them, because there are some of us who, for the sake of the country, are willing to work all out. But there are many who definitely cannot stand the strain. If the Teachers' Union were well represented, those members on the Board could express their views and be able to plan a programme so that the teachers who do teach in these classes will be able to do so physically fit and also, you might say, emotionally at one. 4.52 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know what views to express to the Minister concerned. I do not wish to bring allegations. However, I am prepared to be accused. If we study this Bill, in my opinion, it can be said to be discriminatory. The composition of members of the Board provided in this Bill is not reasonable. However, I hope there will be an opportunity for the Minister for Education to reconsider this point, which I think, is very important. I believe this is not the way to bring about unity or to achieve the building of one nation, one language, one State, because in the provisions of this Bill there are bound to be slip-ups or oversights. The Malay Education Council has not been mentioned anywhere in the Bill at all, if we want to educate half a million of our population who are illiterate, I believe that a representative of the Malay Education Council should sit on the Board. He can express his views and work together with other members of the Board. There is in the Bill opportunity given to the Trades Union Congress representation, but the opportunity is denied to the Malay Education Council. Apart from this, Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome what has been announced by the Minister for Education this afternoon that a fee of $2 per session will be paid to those who work extra hours, and also to members of the Police Force who have volunteered to teach in night classes. It is proper that the fees be paid to them, because of all the trouble they take. However, I hope that the Minister for Education would consider such payments retrospective to the time the extra sessions began. It will then show the definite stand of the Ministry of Education. I neither wish to support the previous-Government nor pay tribute to the present Government, but I feel that it is-not surprising that being a self-governing State, we should all work and achieve results two-fold. I hope the Ministry of Education or the Board will work even harder than those in the past. But I do not mean to say that I do not agree with the work that has been carried out by Government. We should adopt the motto "Talk less, work more". Therefore, I do not expect that full results will be achieved, but it must nevertheless be achieved in the true sense of the word. In view of what I have said, I plead with the Minister for Education to give an opportunity to the Malay Education Council to be represented on the Board. That is all, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It is now a convenient time to suspend. I therefore suspend the Assembly. The debate will be resumed at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 5.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as from the 1st of March 1960, the Singapore Council for Adult Education will cease to exist, and a statutory board will be set up to take over the assets and property and the functions of the Council consequently. While realising the fact that the achievements of the Council for Adult Education cannot and should not be measured with a yardstick with what similar organisations have done elsewhere in their work, it is necessary to state that the scope and extent of its functions have been limited. It is a fact, as has been stressed by those responsible for adult education hereto, that lack of funds had prevented the Council and other voluntary organisations from making the literacy campaign large and wide to extend to all organisations and institutions for the masses, to provide adequate facilities and conditions for the requirements and furtherance of knowledge of the educationally under-privileged. This has been one of the factors, and perhaps the most important factor. But apart from this, lack of self-sacrifice for the organising and teaching of literary classes has also contributed to the limitation. Aided by an indifferent Government with an incompetent Minister whose interest lay elsewhere, perhaps far, far away in the tin mines of Perak, this made matters much worse. The Council, gathering from its final report, had roughly on the 30th September, 1959, just over 560 basic literacy classes. They were known as basic education classes with student strength of about 15,000. In any case, not more than 17,000. Sir, in an island of one and a half million people, where roughly about 50 per cent are adults, it is evident that this student strength does not represent even a sizeable proportion. These figures are what were officially known to the Council and they therefore appear in the records. But it has been clearly known to people who have been associated with adult classes, in their organisation and function, that in numerous cases the strength of the classes was not what it was recorded to be. For example, if the teacher had about 10 regular students in his class, his register had been found to show an average attendance of about 30 students. I do not say that that was the case with all teachers in all adult education classes. But there have been cases. The significance of this is clear. If - and we know that - teachers were paid $7.50 per hour, and they taught a class with a minimum number of students as stipulated by the Council or its affiliate organisations, it became imperative that they, at least on paper, had to maintain a class above the minimum strength required, otherwise they would have to lose their $7.50 as their class might be dissolved. To further elaborate on this, I must say that when the Ad hoc Committee on Adult Education appointed by the Ministry took over the management of the S.C.A. night classes, it was found in quite a few cases that the student strength was far below what it was officially recorded to be. Sir, there is no need for me to explain in great detail why it is necessary for the Government to take over and unify the running of the literacy classes, because I am sure that the Government, particularly the Ministry of Education, has expounded on this. It will suffice if I say that if we are seriously to put into effect the drive for mass education and mass literacy, then it is absolutely necessary that the planning, the organisation and the implementation of these classes must not and should not be entirely left in the hands of voluntary organisations. This does not mean that the Government does not recognise the valuable work that has been initiated and done by such organisations. What I do mean is that, in addition to unifying the system of teaching adults, it is necessary to have the whole machinery of the State fully backing the objectives. Just now, when the hon. Member for Tanglin was speaking, I gathered the impression that he was afraid that if the Government is to take over the running of these classes, it may limit the scope of spreading literacy, and tie the hands of people who are responsible for the management of the literacy classes. But, Sir, I think to the contrary. If you want the night classes to be effective, if you want our campaign to provide facilities sincerely and honestly to the bulk of the people who are educationally under-privileged, then it is an absolute must that the Government throw its weight behind anybody. instead of the Government just supporting the Council of Adult Education, I think it is imperative that the Government should seek to do what it is seeking to do by this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps this is the appropriate moment to examine the popular conception of adult education here in Singapore with that of adult education organisations in other parts of the world, and to examine the existing conception of adult education with the objectives of a Party that is dedicated to the cause of the masses. In Singapore, Sir, our adult education has actually meant, at least so far, providing facilities for basic education.

Order. The hon. Member gives the distinct impression that he is reading his speech. I know that he is not. But the impression he is creating in my mind and perhaps in the minds of other hon. Members is that he is reading his speech. Perhaps he could refrain from lifting up his file, which makes it appear that he is reading.

As a matter of fact, Sir, I was not reading. As I was saying, in Singapore, at least up to now, adult education has meant the teaching of languages - basic education. If one goes around to the various centres, one will find the teaching of A, B, C in the various languages. One will find men and women learning to speak, learning to write and learning to read the various languages. But in other parts of the world, things are quite different. In countries like India and Indonesia, for instance, besides what is popularly known as workers' education, they have mass literacy classes spreading far and wide; they extend to all the institutions of the masses - to the farms and to the slums. Workers' education as such is perhaps not as wide as it is in those countries, which I am about to name. In countries, which are highly industrialised and developed, like those in Europe, the term "workers' education" has a historical distinction. Whatever workers' education is interpreted to be, it has often been debated, and it has been a point that is still in dispute. Various countries have got various interpretations for the meaning of "workers' education". It is not possible to define in one way or another what actually workers' education is. But what I do intend to point out is this. Quite apart from just teaching the A, B, C of the various languages, in countries like Denmark, in Scandinavia and other countries in Europe, workers' education has meant providing facilities for professional training. They provide facilities to enable the workers to attend work in their own organisations, and to be able to carry out effective functions in organisations like the trade unions and other societies. But I am not here to elaborate on what workers' education is. I am not suggesting that in Singapore we should disregard the literacy classes, and start teaching technical subjects to workers in classes organised by the trade unions and by the Government. But what I do say is that a start must be made in this direction, as a start has already been made: in countries like India and Indonesia. In Singapore, as I have said, it is true that basic education classes are necessary for the time being, because without basic literacy, you could not provide technical education to improve the professional knowledge of the workers. Sir, education is first and foremost the transmission and acquisition of language. It should be our purpose to enable students to acquire comparatively complete knowledge and not incomplete knowledge. The education must provide an all-round development and be the medium of producing fully developed human beings. Facilities and conditions must be provided for the educationally under-privileged in Singapore with this in mind. Just because adults are grown-ups. I think we should not disregard this fundamental requirement. It is also necessary to state that if and when the Board is instituted and starts functioning, the success of the literacy campaign will not entirely depend on the Board. To a very large extent, the voluntary organisations, the cultural bodies, the various associations will have to play their part in contributing to the substance of the drive. Especially in the initial stages, the devotion and dedication of the teachers will be a must. Sir, until recently, teachers of adult classes, as I have said earlier, received $7.50 per hour, and more often than not, the incentive for teaching adult classes had been the lucrative conditions that prevailed. Under the present circumstances, it is extremely necessary that teachers should come forward with a national consciousness and self-sacrificing attitude in trying to aid the Government to make this campaign for mass literacy a success, and to help their brethren by providing and teaching languages and the rest in order to achieve the ultimate objectives of the campaign. Education is the most important factor for the true transformation of a society, and therefore, at this stage in Singapore, it is completely a necessity that there should be every force turned and united to bring about a revival of our greater values and our educational values. I would end by saying this. Although the teachers may be missing the $7.50 very badly, it must be brought to their minds that what is at stake is the national interest - an interest far above the financial interests of the teachers as a whole. 5.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate the Government's effort to improve and unify the system of adult education. However, the community's contribution towards the promotion and improvement of adult education in the country is valuable, and that is why my colleague, the Member for Tanglin, has advocated that the Board should not be too heavy on the Government side, but should be as representative as possible. For example, it is all very well for the Government authorities to work out a formula on the number of hours of teachers' work. But as I have always tried to impress upon the Minister for Education, it is the implementation and the practice of it that is the most important, because in practice, it is not always what it appears to be on paper. I will give one example. A teacher who is supposed to do an extra hour in the afternoon actually does two hours, if not more because it takes half an hour to go and half an hour to come back. Therefore, it takes two hours of his time, and sometimes one hour of travel takes more out of him than one hour's teaching, especially if there is a traffic jam. The reason why we want the Board to be representative is that people who have gone through the mill are the best people to draw up this formula. The Minister has indicated just now that the publicity given concerning the strain on the teachers caused by the imposition of these extra hours is grossly exaggerated. He has quoted as proof of this the number of teachers that were doing extra paid jobs last year and this year. It must be pointed out, however, that in the instances quoted, it was open to the teachers to choose, and it was the teachers who can stand the strain who applied for the extra hours of work. Not everybody is capable of the same amount of work. There are some who are full of energy and for whom the number of normal hours' work was not sufficient, and they wanted to do more. There are others who did it because of financial pressure. If I remember right, the fact that about one-tenth of the number of teachers applied for permission to do extra teaching this year as compared with that of last year shows that the strain is telling on them. I hope that the Minister for Education will take a serious view of this matter. He is going to offer a transport allowance. But, nevertheless, I would say that if it is possible for him not to make it compulsory, probably some teachers who could not stand the strain may not apply for the extra allowance to do the extra job. The Member for Thomson has mentioned that a necessary quality of a teacher is dedication to his or her job. It is very true, and one cannot be dedicated to his or her job when one is forced to do what one feels is more than humanly possible in his or her particular case. 5.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, listening to some of the speeches by the Members opposite, I was reminded of the story of the Polish patriot. When he was asked to write an essay on an elephant, he began by saying: "Now, let us start with the Polish question." Similarly with the Members opposite. This is a Bill dealing with the problem of adult education, and we have had very passionate discourses on overworked teachers and back pay for teachers, which have nothing to do with this Bill. I therefore feel that perhaps - An hon. Member: Nobody said this!

The Member opposite did not listen to the speeches of his colleagues. He probably focused his attention on what happened op this side of the Bench. But there was a plea made for back-pay. I feel that it would, therefore, be appropriate to draw the attention of this House to the importance and purpose of this Bill. The first point is, as the Minister for Education has indicated earlier, that there are about half a million illiterates. I would say, Sir, in view of the fact that we have accepted Malay as the national language, perhaps the term "illiterate" should be extended to include those persons who have not become proficient in the national language, and today, there are half a million illiterates. It would be most unwise to let them remain illiterate, in view of the fact that we have now ventured into this new political experiment of having a Government elected by the people. So if you are going to have half a million illiterates - although that does not necessarily mean that they have no political wisdom - then certainly if you provide them with the opportunity to be able to make political decisions to elect candidates from time to time, perhaps with a greater increase in literacy, there will be more Members on this side of the House than on the other side. But if it is necessary for democracy to function efficiently, then we should provide people with the means of acquiring the necessary knowledge to be able to choose wisely and to ensure that democracy succeeds. That is one of the purposes of this Bill, and to that extent it is an important Bill; because if we do not educate the half million illiterate people in this country, then we are going to weaken the foundation of democracy. It is not only a question of educating them. The illiterates must also include those adults who terminate their education once they leave school. It is a fallacy often propagated that because a person has been to school for 15 or 16 years of his life, he will, once he has finished his schooling, remain a literate person for the rest of his life. Literacy should be something going all the time. People should always be learning, especially in a complex society like ours where knowledge is advancing and the issues become more complex. It is necessary that even those who have had the benefit of education should be continually educated, and one of the functions of adult education would also be to enable people who have left school to keep up with their education. One of the points, which was stressed, by one of the Members opposite was that there is not enough representation for teachers. Another Member indicated that there was no representation for this or that community. Obviously, Sir, every community group - from bricklayers to mothers, artists and musicians - can make claims to be represented on this Council. But obviously we have to draw the line somewhere as far as the composition of the Board is concerned. We have to choose a limited number of people, and obviously a great many will have to be left out. But that does not preclude, for example, teachers from participating in the work of this Council, because there will be various opportunities afforded to them to help in the work of the Adult Education Council. Therefore, the claim that this group or that group is not represented on the Council is one, which can be made by any body. As for the claim that Government will be more than well represented on the Board, may I draw the attention of Members opposite that, if they look back to the history of the adult education movement in Singapore during the last 10 years, they might have had occasion to read stories of some peculiar goings-on in the field of adult education? There were investigations into the accounts of adult education organisations. Certainly when you are dealing with half a million dollars which the Government is paying out, it is necessary for the Government, because of the importance of the work of providing adult education, and in view of the past (I am not referring to what has happened in the recent past, but to the early days of the Adult Education Council when money obviously was treated in a very cavalier fashion and was never accounted for) to have a tighter control over this Board. But if members of the public, whether they be teachers or musicians or artists or the Member for Tanglin, wish to contribute to the work of the Council, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so, and certainly there is nothing to prevent the Minister from inviting them to participate in the work of this Council. 6.05 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, while debating this Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa Bill, which is a very important Bill for adults if they wish to get a proper education, we may recall that in the past no progress could be seen in adults who received their education through the Singapore Council for Adult Education. Since the progress achieved by the Singapore Adult Education Council was negligible; the Ministry of Education under the present Government has therefore laid emphasis on giving education to adults. With this aim in view, the Ministry is introducing this important Bill, which is one of the means whereby education for adults can be provided. At the moment, there are adults who are in need of education. I can say that every active labour organisation is running adult classes for the purpose of providing education to its members. Mr Speaker, while debating this Bill, the Member for Kampong Kembangan initially argued that he did not know how to debate it. He continued further by saying that it is a Bill for which credit could be given but that he regretted that in clause 5, there is an element of discrimination because the Malay Education Council is not represented. Mr Speaker, as far as I know, the Malay Education Council (and I believe the Member for Kampong Kembangan is a member of the Malay Education Council) has no interest in giving education to adults. The Malay Education Council concentrates only on Malay education in Malay schools. Under the circumstances, Mr Speaker, it is not true to say that the Minister for Education is treating the Malay Education Council as a stepson. The Malay Education Council has been invited. There is a representative from the Malay Education Council who sits on the Malay Education Committee of the Ministry of Education. There is also one member who sits on the Education Advisory Council. Quite recently, Mr Speaker, the Member for Kampong Kembangan referred to an appointment to replace an outgoing member in the Malay Education Committee suggesting that the person should sit on the Malay Advisory Council as well, because the other member had left for Kuala Lumpur. On account of the fact that the Minister for Education had given his full attention to the Malay Education Council, this matter was left entirely to the discretion of the Malay Education Council to appoint a suitable nominee to the composition of the Malay Education Committee. The object of this Board is to provide education for adults. Its composition is fitting and proper because the Teachers' Training College in Singapore provides education for teachers; the Nanyang University and the University of Malaya are also institutions, which provide education for adults; and there are two members representing trade unions. I mentioned earlier that every active trade union is running adult education classes for its members. The appointment is therefore proper, Mr Speaker. The accusation was levelled by the Member for Kampong Kembangan that as the Malay Education Council is not mentioned he considered that this was treating the Malay Education Council like a stepson. In the report of the Malay Education Council, there is no mention whatsoever of its object for giving education to adults.

On a point of explanation, Sir.

If the Member will give way?

Afterwards, Sir.

Did the Member say afterwards? Afterwards may be too late.

(In Malay): Yes, Sir. The memorandum from the Malay Education Council sent to the Minister for Education in 1957 made no mention of adult education. The Malay Education Council concerned itself only with Malay education in Malay schools. The Minister for Education has given an opportunity for a representative of the Malay Education Council to sit on the Education Advisory Council and also to sit on the Malay Education Committee. If the Member for Kampong Kembangan fears that the Malays are not represented on this Board, this is because he has not made a thorough investigation. Among the representatives of trade unions, there are a number of Malays who are actively taking part in conducting Malay classes. These members are well versed in the Malay language. I believe the former teachers also teach in these special classes run by the trade unions. I know that the T.U.C. will nominate suitable persons to represent the workers in the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa. I hope that with the enactment of this Bill, the Member for Kampong Kembangan will not have fears about the composition of the Board.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I believe nobody who is of sound mind will say that this Bill is no good, or that its objects are bad, because we all know the importance of knowledge and education to the people as a whole. Therefore, I rise to say that the aim of the Government is good. I am of sound mind and I know the meaning of education and the value of knowledge to society. We have listened to many speeches made by the Government side comparing the work done by the past Government with the present Government's efforts to unify the education system so as to inculcate into the people of Singapore a sense of responsibility towards the State through the medium of education and knowledge, which they have gained. But we must not forget, Mr Speaker, that these efforts require a tremendous amount of manpower and entail sacrifices, especially from the Government side and from those who have been entrusted with the task of implementing this Bill. They must have a full sense of responsibility and a love for the work, which they are doing, in the interests of the State of Singapore. What has been said by the Opposition Bench is that persons who will be assigned to fulfil the tasks must also be given opportunities to express their opinions, which will be useful to the Government. In clause 5, on the composition and constitution of the Board, the Government is concerned about the administration and expenditure of moneys. This Government need have no fear about this. This is not an essential factor of our criticism. It can be said that, on the whole, the appointments are all agreed to by the Government. What I mean is that no nominee can sit on this Board without the sanction of the Government. If we need the co-operation of those who will be responsible for implementing the policy of the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa, then I feel, Mr Speaker, that work through pressure or coercion will not bring about the desired results, unlike the results that could be achieved from persons who fulfil their task with a sense of dedication to their job and a sense of self-sacrifice. Such people are prepared not only to work for eight hours but they are prepared to work longer and, therefore, they must be given an opportunity to express their views on this matter. Reverting to what the Member for Ulu Pandan has said on the Malay Education Council, and as mentioned earlier by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, Mr Speaker, I am afraid that the Member for Ulu Pandan himself does not know what the Malay Education Council is. Indirectly the Malay Education Council does not merely lay emphasis on Malay education. But from what I know, it has affiliate bodies of about 30 associations. They form the Malay Education Council for the purpose of Malay education. There must be some connection in the work they are doing with the Board, which is going to be initiated by the Government. Surely the Government will also include Malay as a subject. It is essential, therefore, that the Council, which is recognised by many Malay educational bodies, should be given an opportunity to express its views concerning the implementation of this Bill. 6.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I should like to answer the Member for Tanglin who fears that the proposed composition of the Board for Adult Education and the taking over of adult education by the Government through a statutory Board might stifle the efforts of private enterprise. One would have thought that the manner in which Government has been conducting its affairs would have been sufficient answer that such fears are unjustified and that, if any, the Government is afraid that when it comes to work there will not be enough people around to do the hard work. Several Members of the Opposition have raised the point that the Board, as proposed, has too heavy a Governmental representation. My colleague, the Minister for Culture, has already indicated that some years ago the public were shocked at the report that was released on investigations into funds which were handled by the then Council for Adult Education, My colleague, the Member for Thomson, has also disclosed certain facts that records of attendances in classes for 30 or 40 students had actually 10 students. It is, I think, essential that the Government should ensure that public funds are properly spent and accounted for. This Adult Education Board, when established, would, I think, be handling funds to the tune of a million dollars, for besides the half a million dollars which the Government would grant to this Board, it would also be in receipt of fees which, on the present enrolment of 40,000 at $1 a month, would be $480,000 a year. So I think it is essential that the Board should have reasonably enough Governmental representation to ensure that the Government's policy on adult education is properly conducted and that sufficient care would be taken to ensure that the classes are properly held. As you can see from the clauses in the Bill, there would be properly audited accounts, copies of which would be presented to this Assembly for their information. As regards the criticism that there is no representative of the teachers' unions on the Board, I expect that teachers' unions would ultimately come within the purview of the Trades Union Congress and that the teachers' representative would then come through that nomination. My colleague, the Member for Ulu Pandan, has already answered the Member for Kampong Kembangan as to why the proposed Bill does not include a representative from the Malay Education Council. I am only sorry that the Member for Kampong Kembangan should consider it discriminatory just because there is no representative from the Malay Education Council. I suppose if there is a representative from the Council then it is not discriminatory. I am afraid I am not inclined to follow that line of argument. The Member for Kampong Kembangan also asked about back pay. It is not the policy of this Government to talk in terms of back pay. My announcement this afternoon did indicate that from Monday onwards, which is only about 48 hours from now, all so-called volunteers will be reimbursed at the rate of $2 per session. I think it is not too long a time for them to wait for this transport allowance. Both the Member for Tanglin and the Member for Mountbatten raised the question of hardship and strain on the part of teachers in respect of extra session work. I think the Member for the Southern Islands also mentioned that coercion or pressure would not bring about the desired results. If the Government could be confident that teachers would volunteer in their thousands to do the work of adult education, then I am sure that the Government would be prepared to forget the idea of the extra session work and let the work be done by voluntary teachers. But let us be realistic. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already mentioned that we have an illiterate population of half a million people and that, despite the fact that Government is now conducting classes for 40,000, we are only scratching the surface. We are not even handling ten per cent of what we intend to handle. As an example of the nature of voluntary work, may I refer to the call for blood donors started by the Ministry of Health? The call was made for volunteers to donate blood. I was rather disappointed when the final returns came to hand, because out of the 10,000 teachers, only 741 volunteered. If we call for volunteers for adult education and other aspects of education and the same result should come to pass, then I am afraid that our illiterate population in Singapore will remain as it is five years from now. I agree that in the matter of implementation, hardships may be caused but these are details which could be arranged. If names of teachers in schools responsible for the despatch of teachers miles out could be mentioned, surely the Ministry of Education and its officials are not that irresponsible in that they refuse to see reason or to discuss the matter. If, as the Member for Tanglin suggested, certain teachers are not sufficiently strong to stand the strain of extra sessions and would be so medically advised, surely the Ministry of Education is not going to ignore the medical certificates to that effect and exempt the particular teachers when even in the course of their ordinary duty they are not supposed to teach in schools if they produce medical certificates. I would have hoped that the Members for Tanglin and Mountbatten, as ex-teachers or as people who are so much interested in education, would appreciate the problems that face this Government; but we welcome constructive criticisms from them, who are Members of the Opposition. Regarding the strain on teachers, the Member for Mountbatten, I am afraid, has ungallantly misquoted me when she says that I stated in my speech that the publicity given to the strain on teachers was grossly unjustified (I took it down exactly as she stated it). What I said in my speech was that undue publicity was not justified, and I am afraid she has introduced words, which I have not used. If, instead of beating the big drum about the strain on teachers, the Members of the Opposition would see the problem as it faces the Government, and our endeavours to do what we can to make Singapore a shining example in the whole of South-East Asia, they will then appreciate why it is necessary to call upon teachers to do their little bit for their country. In this respect, the speeches made by the Member for Kampong Kembangan and the Member for the Southern Islands strike a different tone. The first Member said that there should be less talk and more work. The second Member also spoke about sacrifices for the country. That is exactly what we are asking for. In nation building, one does not relax in a chair and let others do the work. Let us, by example, show what we can contribute to the well-being of the country. I say that those who are fortunate enough to have been educated have a greater responsibility to the country, and especially to those who have been denied the opportunity of education and who are blind to all the wonders which literature can offer. Therefore, I say that the burden of nation building is greater for teachers and I hope - we all hope - that they will be able to rise to the occasion.

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

Mr. Speaker, Sir, as you had ruled that in your opinion this bill is a hybrid Bill, I therefore move under Standing Order 65 (1), That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee consisting of Mr. Speaker as Chairman and the following seven members: Mr S. T. Bani. Mr Chan Sun Wing. Inche Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Inche Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Mr Teo Hock Guan. Mr Thio Chan Bee. Mr Yong Nyuk Lin.

Will the Minister put that in writing? Motion handed in.

The Members of the Committee have been named. I think I will take the motion in two parts.

Question, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the Select Committee do consist of Mr Speaker as Chairman and the following seven Members: Mr S. T. Bani. Mr Chan Sun Wing. Inche Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Inche Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Mr Teo Hock Guan. Mr Thio Chan Bee. Mr Yong Nyuk Lin." put, and agreed to.

Order for Second Reading read. 6.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Prevention of Corruption Bill is in keeping with the new Government's determination to stamp out bribery and corruption in the country, especially in the public services. The Government is deeply conscious that a Government cannot survive, no matter how good its aims and intentions are, if corruption exists in its ranks and its public services on which it depends to provide the efficient and effective administrative machinery to translate its policies into action. We have only to look at post-war Asia to realise how evil and damaging the scourge can be. K.M.T. China collapsed principally because of the demoralising influence of bribery and corruption. The collapse of constitutional governments and the chaos and confusion in certain of the newly independent countries in South-East Asia is largely a result of the prevalence of corruption in the governments. No country in the resurgent Asia can survive if the political leadership is corrupt; much less, if corruption has corroded into the roots of the public service as well. It is of interest to note that in post-war Asia, where the public service in a country has been undermined and demoralised by corruption, the rule of dictatorship follows inevitably. If we do not wish to see the same pattern being repeated in this country, then adequate power must be given to deal effectively with the problem. The vigour and the clean leadership of the P.A.P. makes possible the elimination of the evils of corruption. The clean record of the P.A.P. in the last City Council was a striking contrast to that corrupt old regime under the leadership of the Member for Farrer Park and had won all-round acclaim from the people. This Government has, during the first eight months of its period of office, given ample proof of its dedication of purpose, its honesty of action and its abhorrence of corruption. Its civil service is on the whole a well-trained, efficient and honest one and compares favourably in these respects with those of other countries in this part of the world. But it would be dishonest to deny that corruption does not exist and that there is no problem of corruption in the public services. Although it may not be so rife as to create public alarm and despondency, yet it nevertheless calls for unceasing vigilance and all possible remedial measures. Corruption on the part, of some must not be allowed to smirch the good name of the present Government and the large majority of its civil servants. Therefore, this Government is determined to take all possible steps to see that all necessary legislative and administrative measures are taken to reduce the opportunities of corruption, to make its detection easier and to deter and punish severely those who are susceptible to it and engage in it shamelessly. Therefore, in this Bill, the Government is asking for new and wider powers to fight bribery and corruption. As stated in the Explanatory Statement, the object of this Bill is to provide for the more effective prevention of corruption by remedying various weaknesses and defects which experience has revealed in the existing Prevention of Corruption Ordinance. The Bill, while directed mainly at corruption in the public services, is applicable also to corruption by private agents, trustees and others in a fiduciary capacity. To those who corrupt and those who are corrupt, the warning is clear - take heed and mend their ways. Just retribution will follow those who persist in corrupt practices. The existing Ordinance, consisting as it does of only 12 sections, has been found from experience to be limited in the scope of its provisions and inadequate for the more effective prevention and detection of corruption. There have been instances before where offenders have been able to evade prosecution or escape conviction because of some weakness or defect in the provisions of the Ordinance. The existing Ordinance is therefore being repealed and replaced by the present Bill, which is much more comprehensive in its scope. The Explanatory Statement has gone to some length and detail in explaining the principal changes made by the Bill and therefore I do not propose to describe the Bill clause by clause, I should, however, like to draw the attention of the House to some of the new provisions which will help to remedy the weaknesses of the existing Ordinance, and to the additional powers which are to be given to the Director of Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and his senior staff in order to help the Bureau to carry out its primary objects, namely, the prevention and detection of corruption and the prosecution of offenders, if corruption is committed. With that end in view, clause 27 now provides that all offences under the Ordinance will be deemed to be seizable offences instead of being non-seizable offences under the existing law. This would enable the Bureau to deal with offenders more speedily and effectively under the Ordinance. In a non-seizable offence, a police officer investigating a case cannot use his special powers of investigation of requiring witnesses to attend before him and taking statements, nor can he arrest or search premises without a warrant. The Bureau's practice at present is to proceed against a person initially under sections 161 to 165 of the Penal Code, and later amend the charges under this Ordinance. This will no longer be necessary. Also by virtue of clause 15, powers of arrest and search of arrested persons are now granted to the Bureau's special investigators, whereas at present similar investigators employed in the Bureau are not so empowered. Another procedural provision is that made in clause 20, which enables police officers where delay would frustrate the object of the search without a warrant. At present, police officers and Bureau officers have to fall back on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to take such action. Other additional powers given to the Bureau which will `be very helpful in the course of investigation are contained in clauses 17, 18 and 25. Clause 17 empowers the Public Prosecutor to authorise the Director and senior special investigators to investigate any bank account, share account or purchase account of any person suspected of having committed an offence against the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, and clause 18 empowers the Public Prosecutor to authorise the Director and senior special investigators to inspect a banker's books relating to a public servant, his wife, child or agent, if he considers evidence of the commission of an offence of corruption is likely to be found in such books. These two clauses will be very useful and make for less dilatory procedure in the investigation stage in dealing with corrupt public servants, particularly in the investigation of their money and property in all forms. Clause 25 makes it a legal obligation on any person to give such information on any subject which it is in his power to give, when required to do so by a special investigator, and failure to do so is punishable on conviction by a fine or imprisonment, or both, under the provisions of clause 24, which is also a new clause providing for penalties for obstructing or assaulting police officers and special investigators in the execution of their duties under this Ordinance, or refusing or neglecting to furnish them with any information which a person is required by them to do so and which he is able to give. I will now draw the attention of the House to some of the other new provisions, which will help to plug the loopholes and strengthen the attack on corruption. Clause 2 lays down a wider and more embracing definition of "gratification". By virtue of clause 9, it is now provided that an agent accepting an illegal gratification shall be guilty of such offence notwithstanding the fact that he did not have the power, right nor opportunity to do the act required of him and also where he mistakenly believes that the act required of him was in relation to his principal's affairs or business. Corresponding provisions are made with respect to a person giving or offering a bribe. This new clause would make it unnecessary to prove that the acceptor of a bribe should have been in a position to carry out the act or favour required of him. Clause 13 empowers a Court to order a person found guilty of accepting an illegal gratification to pay a penalty equal to the amount of that gratification in addition to any other punishment imposed, and such penalty shall be recoverable as a fine. This will act as a deterrent because, in addition to the penalty for the offence, the culprit is called upon to pay the amount he had taken as a bribe. Clauses 19 and 22 are two important clauses, which will strengthen the hands of the Bureau in its work of detection of corruption and prosecution of offenders. Under clause 19, suspected Government servants and employees of public bodies can be made to furnish sworn statements enumerating property belonging to them, their spouses and children and any property sent outside Singapore. Other persons can also be made to furnish similar statements where the Public Prosecutor has reasonable grounds to believe that the information will assist any investigation into corruption by a Government servant or employee of a public body. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other written law to the contrary, the Public Prosecutor is also empowered to obtain information from the Comptroller of Income Tax relating to the affairs of such servants and employees and their spouses and children and to require bank managers to supply copies of their bank statements and, to obtain any documents in the possession or control of Government departments and public bodies. Clause 22 provides that where an accused person is found to be in possession of property or resources disproportionate to his known income for which he cannot give a satisfactory explanation, such fact which appears to show that at or about the time of the alleged offence he has been bribed or is in the habit of receiving bribes may be proved and may be taken by the Court as corroborating the testimony of any witness. Similar evidence can be tendered against him in respect of property or resources in the possession of relatives or other persons, who are reasonably believed to be holding them on his behalf or as a gift from him. Clause 23 is designed to relieve the Court of the restrictions of the accomplice rule, that is, that the evidence of an accomplice is held to be unworthy of credit unless corroborated. Offences of bribery and corruption are usually committed in secret and not in the presence of any person other than the giver or receiver, and therefore this accomplice rule has been a stumbling block to many prosecutions in the past. It is felt that the reasons for treating accomplice evidence as tainted, for example, the accomplice is generally of bad character or acting to escape punishment himself or working off a grudge, need not always apply to the giver of a bribe, and therefore it could be left to the Court to form its own view as to whether, by his bearing, demeanour and the substance of his evidence, the giver of a bribe is a witness of truth or not. By clause 30, power is also now given to the Court where two or more persons are charged with an offence under this Ordinance to require one or more of them to give evidence as a witness or witnesses for the prosecution. Finally, by clause 27, it becomes an offence for a public servant if he fails to arrest a person without reasonable excuse at the time when that person has given or offered him a bribe. This provision will stop offenders from making excuses when arrested. For instance, instances have occurred where offenders have been acquitted in Court on the grounds that they were walking away to go and report to the Police when they were arrested. This clause will at least make them try to arrest the giver of a bribe or at least go straight to the Police and report their inability to effect the arrest. Two other clauses, which the House will be interested in, are clauses 11 and 12, which make it an offence to offer a bribe to any Member of the Legislative Assembly, or of a public body and for any such Member to solicit or accept a bribe. Mr Speaker, Sir, owing to the importance and comprehensive nature of this Bill, it is the intention of the Government to commit it to a Select Committee of the Assembly, where it can be studied in greater detail. I would like to conclude by saying that the present Government will do everything in its power to eradicate bribery and corruption in the country, especially in the public services. But it must also be realised that the attitude of the public is perhaps an equally important weapon in its elimination. We are striving to have in Singapore a public service which will be second to none in ability, efficiency, honesty and incorruptibility, and I therefore appeal confidently to the Members of this Assembly and the public to play their part in achieving this goal. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

7.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under Standing Order 4 (1), 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. 1.

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. 1.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That at its rising today, this Assembly do stand adjourned to 2nd March 1960.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising today, this Assembly do stand adjourned to 2nd March. 1960.

Debate on Second Reading resumed. 7.06 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, who has clearly stated the aims of the Prevention of Corruption Bill. Although previously in Singapore there were provisions for the prevention of corruption, the Ordinance and its provisions are now out of date and not applicable. Therefore, it is very necessary to amend it and make it a more effective legislation, to plug the loopholes so that we can eradicate corruption in the public services. We have fully studied the 1950 Ordinance of the Federation of Malaya, and it can be said that we have incorporated in our Bill the merits of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinances of other countries. Although we cannot say that our Bill is perfect, it can be said that, on the side of the Government, we have tried our best. Therefore, with the passing of this Bill, we can fully implement Government policy in this respect. The eradication of corruption is one of our programmes set out during the election. And today's Second Reading of this Bill indicates that we are trying to fulfil our promise. We are determined to eradicate corruption. Previously, in the eyes of the people of Singapore, the public service was a corrupt and inefficient bureaucratic machinery. Because of this, bureaucracy is just a by-product of corruption. Whenever someone went to the Government office, more often than not they experienced some unnecessary difficulty and trouble. Sometimes the dishonest public servants referred them to some other department instead of their own department, and said that such a thing was not workable. Therefore, the people under those circumstances had to offer bribes so that everything could be solved. Even then it was not practical, and they would try some other ways to solve the problem. Therefore, in the eyes of the majority of the people, the Government machinery was just a place of exploitation on a large scale. I do not mean to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in the Government service every member was corrupt and that he tried to oppress the people. There were also many clean, honest and able officers, but they were smirched by the corrupt ones. Since the P.A.P. Government came into office, the atmosphere of corruption is now very much less noticeable, because the corrupt officers have realised that the P.A.P. Government would not tolerate such illegal practices existing in the Government; and, secondly, the people are courageous enough to convey their grievances to their representatives who will take effective steps to look into the matter. Therefore, these irresponsible officers at present do not so openly try to take too much advantage. It does not mean that the problem of corruption does not exist in the present Government service. There are some officers who still continue with their illegal practices. To these people, we will take unsympathetic steps. Mr Speaker, Sir, the aim of this Bill is mainly to extend the power of investigation and to widen the definition of "corruption". The corrupt people previously used to take too much advantage of the loopholes in our law, so much so that the Government were unable to take steps against them. The provisions in this Bill are practical and essential. Only thus can we deal with corruption in the Government service. Our Minister for Home Affairs has drawn the attention of this House to clause 11. This clause deals with Members of the Legislative Assembly in the matter of bribery. They will be subject to imprisonment and fine. The inclusion of this clause in the Bill is essential, and must be attributed to the efforts of the Minister for Home Affairs. Mr Speaker, Sir, in China there is a proverb saying, "Promotion and getting prosperous." This proverb since recorded history up to the present is still applied. This does not mean that the scholars have widened its interpretation. In fact. in the history of the world and even in this twentieth century, we find many instances of "promotion and getting prosperous" in the Government service. If a government servant becomes an officer and does not become prosperous, it is rather surprising. In our primary or secondary school textbooks there is such a record of the proverb and in addition we have it in the newspapers too. The people can see for themselves that the public service in the previous Government enjoyed all sorts of benefits. And when they retired, they left lots of riches and property to their generation, so that the latter too can enjoy a higher standard of living. At present, the people can also see for themselves that those who retire from Government service can still continue to enjoy life without having to work. So much so that some of them can afford to leave this country and lead a very happy life in other countries. All this gives the people the impression that public officers must be selfish and corrupt, but we must try to understand their psychological make-up. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the P.A.P. Government we do not allow such things to exist. We not only do not allow them to exist, but we are determind to eradicate them. In the meantime, we have also to make every officer an honest and obedient servant of the public. I believe that this Bill, studied by the Select Committee and subsequently passed in this Assembly, will really prevent corrupt practices in the Government service. 7.18 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now our Minister for Home Affairs moved the Second Reading of the Prevention of Corruption Bill. This is an appropriate time to present this Bill, as it meets with the desire of the people of Singapore. En the old Government, corruption was rife. This is very bad and the people thought it was a part of their daily life. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that if the people of Singapore were under a bad rule and corruption prevailed, and they were aware, of this, then they would rise and try their best to eradicate corruption. We know that under the clean leadership of our party, the P.A.P. Government, the anti-corruption movement has become widespread. Contrasting the Lim Yew Hock Government with the P.A.P. dominated City Council in 1957; the people of Singapore saw for themselves that the City Council only could really prevent corruption. The Lim Yew Hock Government also had the work of eradicating corruption but without any result. Therefore, we can put it in this way - in Singapore corruption once prevailed in the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, the new Government have, since assuming office for the last seven or eight months, taken positive steps to eradicate corruption. We have seen that during the last election campaign, the Singapore Improvement Trust was the most corrupt Government office. We therefore made this the object of our attack when we came into office. We have taken a positive attitude towards the prevention of corruption. The people of Singapore are fully aware of this. When the new Government began working on the old Ordinance, they found that they had to plug a number of loopholes, in order speedily and effectively to prevent corruption. Therefore, the moving of the Second Reading of this Bill by the Minister for Home Affairs is further proof that we are determined to plug the loopholes in the Ordinance, and be in a better position to carry out our work of preventing corruption. Mr Speaker, Sir, you can see for yourself that in Singapore, if there is to be prosperity, there must be a clean and efficient Government. The machinery in the Government offices must be clean, honest and dedicated to the service of the people and the country. If we have no good legislation to carry out these aims, that means that we have no better method of eradicating the previous evil practices. I fully support the Bill introduced by the Minister for Home Affairs. 7.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to speak on this, because we have all agreed that corruption must be eliminated, and because no question of principle is involved. But the Hon. the Minister for Home Affairs, while he was moving the Second Reading of the Bill, thought it was part and parcel of the principle of the Bill to mention the City Council in the past and during his time? I am sorry that the Minister for Home Affairs exhibited such a pathetic ignorance of the Constitution of the City Council under which he worked and the constitution under which I worked. When I was in the Council, I worked under the Municipal Ordinance, and under that Ordinance leadership of the Council most definitely, most certainly, and most inexorably rested with the President of the Council. He was a civil servant. He was the leader of the Council. All the statutory powers of the Council were vested in him, and the Council merely assisted him in his work. Whereas, under the Local Government Ordinance, when the Hon, the Minister for Home Affairs was in the Council under the able leadership of the Mayor (he is now the Minister for National Development) who made such a good job of the City Council, things were entirely different. The leadership under that Ordinance passed to the majority party, or the party, which could command the confidence of the House. Under those circumstances, the Hon, the Home Minister's then leader, the Mayor, was the leader of the Council. He led the Council, and it certainly would have been correct to say that the leadership was with the Mayor. Leadership of the Council was certainly not with me when I was in the Council, or for that matter, Mr Speaker, when you were in the Council. I suppose the purpose of the Hon, the Minister for Home Affairs in mentioning that fact was to tarnish me with the brush, which he so willingly and so readily seems to wield. But might I say this to the Hon, the Minister for Home Affairs that I would like to give him the same answer which I gave to his ex-leader once in this House - the remedy is entirely in the hands of the Minister for Home Affairs, or should I have said the Hon. the Minister?

Order. I have allowed the Member for Farrer Park to make those remarks which are completely irrelevant to the Bill merely because the Minister for Home Affairs chose to make a. remark which was equally irrelevant in so far as the Bill is concerned. And that is as far as I am permitting hon. Members to go.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I rise on a point of information?

No. I have not allowed the matter to go any further. 7.30 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have heard the speech just now of my colleague on the Prevention of Corruption Bill. At the outset, I thought that the Member from the opposite side was not pleased to talk on this Bill, because in pursuit of the discussions, previous unpleasant things in the City Council might be revealed to this House.

Order. I have already ruled on that subject. There can be no reference now to the City Council and its past.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry. My colleague has just now indicated clearly the stand of the P.A.P. Government. We move this Bill with this purpose - to implement our task and fulfil our responsibilities, which were given to us by the mass of the people. Our desire is to satisfy the aspirations of the people. That is why we have solemnly introduced this Bill in this House. I personally support this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not like to repeat the points and arguments put up by my colleague. But I would like to tell the House what the P.A.P. did in the general election. Mr Speaker, if you had come to our mass rallies you would have seen for yourself that there were many brushes and brooms at our meetings. All these brooms were presented to us by the people. This gesture signified the aspirations of the people because they knew that in the Government under the leadership of Lim Yew Hock, there was corruption everywhere and all the time. Therefore, when the P.A.P. took part in the election, the people wanted a clean and effective Government to be put in. At that time, we clearly accepted, the aspirations and the demands of the people. Today when we put this Bill before the House, our purpose is to make the aspirations of the people a reality. I do not like to go into details. What I would like to say is that I fully support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition strongly supports the Bill. Any Bill introduced by the Government to wipe out bribery and corruption will have our full support. Sir, it is always the people of the country who suffer if we have a corrupt Civil Service, or if we have corrupt people in power. Therefore, what the Bill seeks to do is to prevent such things from taking place. I do not think it can totally be prevented. This Bill is to see to it that there is less opportunity and less freedom for such malpractices being carried out. It is a Bill that should be fully supported. The P.A.P. is fond of saying, "We are a clean Party. We are a clean Government." I would like to tell them that it is not for them to' say whether they are clean or good. It is for others to pass judgment. If you are clean, the people will know it. If you are not clean, so will the people know it. But corruption, Sir, is not only illegal gratification. There are other forms of corruption, and I do not think these forms of corruption are included in this Bill, nor could they be prevented from being practised, even if we were to amend this Bill. I refer, Sir, to political corruption.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has made only a very short sermon to us, on this Bill today. The pity of it is that he did not take the trouble to introduce a similar Bill when he led the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, in all these things, it is always better to practise what you preach. If he had taken the trouble to practise rather than to do what he did - to try to preach to us today - then possibly things might have taken a different turn. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know what has happened in the past. This Government is different from other Governments, because it is determined to stamp out corruption not only in the Civil Service but also in public affairs. That is why we have discussed penalties for Legislative Assemblymen who misbehave themselves, and I think those provisions have been particularly inserted so that we can be sure that the Members of the Opposition behave themselves.

Order. I do not think I should permit innuendoes of that nature in this debate. The hon. Member does know that in so far as that particular section is concerned, a similar provision is already contained in our law.

Mr Speaker, I am glad to know that the Opposition have associated themselves with the Government and praised the Government for introducing this Bill. As the House has already been informed by the Minister for Home Affairs, it is the intention of the Government to refer this Bill to a Select Committee on which I have no doubt Members of the Opposition will be serving. The purpose of this Bill is to eliminate the opportunities for corruption both in our Civil Service and in our public life, and also to make it possible for the State to detect corruption whenever it occurs. The power therefore must be given to State officials to enforce the law. It must be as wide as it can be, and we would welcome participation by both sides of this House in making this Bill a really effective Bill to do away with corruption in our Civil Service and our public life.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is really gratifying to note that the Members of the Opposition have expressed their support for this. Bill. With the strengthening of this Prevention of Corruption Bill, and with the support and co-operation of the people, I am sure that this Government will be able to eliminate corruption in the course of time.

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.- [Mr Ong Pang Boon].

7.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time." Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has been very exhaustively dealt with in the Select Committee, and I do not propose to waste the time of the House by referring to the voluminous report that is already before them. I would be prepared to reply to any observations, which the Opposition might care to make with regard to this report. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this is one of the cases where the Minister for Labour and Law will admit that the Government, having maintained the principles which they sought to establish in the amendments, have had them maintained, and yet when the Bill has emerged from the Select Committee, it is certainly in a better form and shape than it originally appeared in this House. I think the Minister will accept that. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to burden the House with much of a statement on this. The report has been before the House, and I take it that they have read the report. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill generally can be divided into three sections. The first part of it deals with the giving of extended powers to the inferior Courts; the second part deals with the admission of caution statements; and the third part deals with trials before the High Court without a jury. Those are the three parts into which the Bill could approximately be divided. On the first part, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition does not object to those provisions, but feels that in view of the present staffing position of the Courts, perhaps this is not the opportune moment to implement those provisions. So far as caution statements are concerned, Mr Speaker, Sir, here again the Opposition feels that the time is not ripe to implement that particular aspect of this Bill. And so far as the third section is concerned, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is, trials before the High Court without a jury, the Opposition is entirely opposed to the idea, and the Opposition feels that trials in the High Court before the jury should be maintained.

Are there any other amendments?

No.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all those observations have been made by the Member for Farrer Park and by witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee, and I do not propose to waste any more time. I have only got to say that we have moved the Third Reading of this Bill.

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

7.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time." Mr Speaker, Sir, there is only one point that I wish to mention here. It arose during the discussions in the Select Committee on the new section 54 that we proposed to the Evidence Ordinance. At the last meeting of the Select Committee, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park raised an objection to the terms of clause 3 of the Bill which amended section 54 of the Ordinance. He maintained that under the provisions of sub-clause (2) of the amendment proposed to section 54 of the Ordinance, the accused person would put his character in issue if either he or his counsel were to impugn the character of the prosecution witnesses, and would therefore be liable to cross-examination as to his own character. The Member for Farrer Park then went on to point out further that, in his opinion, once the accused had thereby put his own character in issue, there was nothing to prevent the prosecution from giving independent evidence as to the bad character of the accused. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember that on that occasion I agreed that there appeared to be some merit in what the Member for Farrer Park said, but since then we have both had the benefit of the advice of the State Advocate-General who pointed out that under the provisions of sub-clause (1) of the amendment which we had overlooked then, it is quite clear that the prosecution would be stopped from putting in independent evidence of the bad character of the accused in circumstances where he is cross-examined as to his own character after making imputations on the character of the prosecution witnesses. I am mentioning this tonight, Mr Speaker, Sir, to complete the record.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I also confirm that I have had the benefit of consultations with the State Advocate-General and the Minister for Labour and Law on this, and I am now satisfied that what I said in the Select Committee was probably an over-statement. It was not "probably", Sir; it was an overstatement. There is just one observation, which I wish to make on the amendment to section 54, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is that the present amendment brings our law into line with the English system. My own view, Mr Speaker, Sir, for what it is worth, is that our section, as it now stands, is much superior to the English law on this. It is much in advance of the English law, and English writers in England have criticised the English system, and they wish to bring about the state of affairs in England which we already have it now here. Therefore, in my own view, this is a retrograde step. But the Minister does not think so, and he has given us an assurance in the Select Committee - you may remember it, Mr Speaker, Sir - that if the law in England is altered, then he will most certainly give consideration to amending it here. With that assurance, I remain satisfied for the moment.

Mr Byrne, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the House that once we have dealt effectively with the problem of gangsterism, we will be very happy to fall in line with the new English law on this subject.

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

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes to Eight o'clock p.m. to Wednesday, 2nd March, 1960.