Hansard, 1960-05-12

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang), Minister for Health - for one week from 12th May, 1960.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee.

2.32 p.m. Clause 5-

We are on clause 5. An amendment has been proposed*: * An amendment proposed by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee) on 11th May, 1960. In page 5, line 27, to leave out "The Comptroller" and insert "Where the Comptroller considers it necessary in the execution of his duties under this Ordinance he". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it was the Hon, the Prime Minister who made the suggestion that the proposed amendment made the section clearer and that without that particular amendment it could have been that the Comptroller could have gone into the premises for any purpose whatsoever, even for purposes outside the scope of the Ordinance. But that cannot be so, Mr Speaker, Sir, for in line 32 of the clause, the purposes for which the Comptroller may exercise his powers under this clause are categorically set out: "...for the purpose of ascertaining any facts or inspecting any books and documents which the Comptroller considers necessary or relevant for the purposes of this Ordinance...". Therefore, the Comptroller's entry is limited to the purposes enumerated in that particular clause. So to say that that amendment makes it clearer, I think, Sir, is not right. If anything, it makes it easier and puts the Comptroller outside the ambit of the Courts by introducing that particular amendment. I myself see no point or purpose or usefulness in that amendment.

If there is no other Member wishing to speak, I will put the question. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, line 3, to leave out "statutory" and insert "legal". Sir, the purpose of this amendment is to bring within the proviso a category of persons who, under the law - and by law I mean both the common law and the statute law - are precluded from giving any information to any person unless the person in respect of whom the information is sought gives his express permission to that person. On that, I would like to refer to the advocates and solicitors practising in the Courts here. Advocates and solicitors, Mr Speaker, Sir, are under a legal obligation not to disclose matters, which have been disclosed to them by their clients, to outside persons or parties unless the clients themselves expressly authorise the solicitors so to do. That is covered by many common law decision cases. I am wondering, Sir, whether it is the intention of the Government to overrule the present position by the use of the word "statutory" in this clause. If the intention of the Government is that the words "statutory obligation" should mean that a person who says that he has the benefit of this proviso must point to a particular statute rather than case law, then advocates and solicitors would lose the privilege. If Government does not intend to take it that far, then this amendment would meet the case by preserving the privilege of an advocate and solicitor to maintain secrecy regarding matters of his client, unless his client tells him otherwise. In any case, Sir, since the Comptroller would know who the advocate and solicitor was, he would also know who the client was. Therefore, all that the Comptroller would have to do would be to get hold of the client and exercise on him the rights which the Ordinance confers on him, and through him, he could get at the advocate and solicitor concerned. It would I think be in the best interests of the profession that that privilege should be protected, and if the Government feels that it should be so, I feel that the amendment would meet the case rather than the clause as it now stands.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the point raised by the Member for Farrer Park has been discussed at length during the meeting between the Governments of Singapore and the Federation in Kuala Lumpur last month. It was agreed between them that it would be the intention of this Ordinance that solicitors would not be exempted from the provisions of this clause, and that only persons under statutory obligation would be outside its provision. These would include officials such as the Controller of Foreign Exchange, the Superintendent of Census, the Registrar of Imports and Exports, and possibly a few other officials. It is felt that in this matter there are no grounds whatsoever in drawing a distinction between the relationships of solicitors and their clients and other professional persons and their clients.

Sir, I would just like to remind the Member for Farrer Park that he drew a distinction in this House between the avoidance of that clause and the evasion of that clause. He praised lawyers of sufficient merit who were able to advise clients on the best way of avoiding these tax laws. I do not see why he must be afraid of that now when he said that he has been able to advise his clients on the best way of avoiding the tax laws. He should be just as prepared to co-operate with the Comptroller and explain to him how these tax laws can be avoided.

Sir, the avoidance of income tax is a highly skilled art, particularly when we have such an efficient Comptroller of Income Tax and an efficient Minister for Finance. However, Sir, I will not go into that. The Minister for Labour and Law has said that so far as the solicitors are concerned it is not against their interests to disclose what their clients have told them. But it has been the law that anything said to a solicitor in confidence must be respected by the lawyer. But any statement made to a clergyman or a doctor or a dentist or any other professional man has never been protected in a Court of law. The lawyer has always been in a privileged position. I was wondering whether to get at the tax evaders it is necessary to take away that privilege which the Courts of law have thought fit to confer upon the legal profession.

I am sure that the legal profession would welcome the provision of the law as it stands, since this will add to the safeguard against any approach by shady characters for assistance from the legal profession either to evade or to avoid income tax. I take it that the Member for Farrer Park is not against the principle of the Comptroller having access to information in the hands of solicitors, since he has put forward the suggestion that this could quite easily be done by direct application of pressure on the taxpayer himself. But the main reason is that there are no grounds whatsoever for distinguishing between, let us say, solicitors and accountants in this particular field. Both deal with tax matters, and if we were to grant privilege to one and not to the other, then we might well be accused of discriminatory treatment. 2.45 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Sir, the discriminatory treatment is already here, having been conferred on the solicitor by the Courts of Law, for reasons best known to them. But if the Comptroller thinks that that should be taken away and that it is in the best interests of the State that it should happen, well, it is for the Legislature to say so and for the Government in power to say so. And I dare say, Sir, when this Bill is passed and becomes law, certainly the legal profession will comply with it in the best way they can. But as matters stand now, they have this protection and they are in duty bound to their clients not to disclose information. If they did disclose it, they would be liable in damages to their clients. That is also a provision of the law. Further, on the question of tax avoidance, we have heard a number of times about how solicitors encourage tax avoidance. Mr Speaker, Sir, they do not encourage tax avoidance. They advise their clients in tax avoidance. May I put a case in a simple form so that even the Minister for Finance might understand it? Supposing there was a bridge and the Government was charging every vehicle using that bridge a toll tax of a dollar. That is a tax which goes to the Exchequer Fund and it will be used for purposes of the State. If I, as a motorist, avoided the bridge and went to my destination in a roundabout way, was I acting contrary to the interests of the State? Or if I advised a friend of mine, "Do not be such a fool! Why do you pay that dollar? If you go this way and that way, you will avoid paying that dollar." That is all the advice I give. Have I acted against the interests of the State? Amendment negatived. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause- 'Amendment of Section 2 of the Income Tax Section 2. Ordinance (hereinafter in this Ordinance referred to as the "principal Ordinance") is hereby amended by inserting immediately after the word "sections" appearing in the fifth line of the definition of "Comptroller" therein the expression "67,".'.-[Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." This is an amendment that would bring joy to the heart of the Member for Farrer Park, because it is the one thing, which he has been persistently clamouring for, that is, the concentration of authority in the hands of the Comptroller himself and not delegation to his subordinate officers. Clause 6 of this Bill provides that any person who carries on a trade or exercises any trade, business or profession shall keep and retain proper business records, and issue serially numbered receipts for sales. Under the proposed section 67 (3) contained in clause 6, the Comptroller has wide powers not only as regards laying down the form in which the records and receipts are to be kept, but also in respect of waiving the provisions of section 67 (1) either in regard to particular persons or class of persons or classes of records. These powers are so wide that it is desirable that they should be exercised only by the Comptroller himself. The definition of "Comptroller" in section 2 of the Ordinance includes a reference to a Senior Assistant Comptroller or an Assistant Comptroller. It is proposed to insert the proposed section 67 in the definition of "Comptroller" so that the powers exercisable in that section can only be exercised by him.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time.

If there are any amendments, they can be proposed now. Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

Tun Lim, is it an amendment?

No. It is just a point of neatness. In view of the proposed amendment to clause 2, which deletes 'Income Tax Ordinance (hereinafter in this Ordinance referred to as the "principal Ordinance")', why does the Government introduce it in this new clause? Could they not just go ahead and call it "section 2 of the principal Ordinance"?

It is a question of neatness, too, is it not? The new clause will be inserted as clause 2, which is prior to the present clause 2. I trust the Member for Cairnhill sees that point. Clause added to the Bill.

Consequential amendments will be made to the numbering of clauses. Now, we go back to clause 2. There is an amendment, which is consequential to the new clause, which has been added. Will the Minister please move formally? Clause 2-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, lines 8 and 9, to leave out 'Income Tax Ordinance (hereinafter in this Ordinance referred to as the "principal Ordinance")' and insert "principal Ordinance". The reason is that an amendment to section 2 of the Ordinance has been introduced, and this new clause will be inserted after clause 1 of this Bill. This consequential amendment is therefore necessary.

Perhaps the Member for Cairnhill is now satisfied.

Yes. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, with amendments.

3.45 p.m.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Question proposed.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill, as originally envisaged by the Government, except for a few minor amendments, will, on the Third Reading, be passed. It will become statute law when the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has assented to it. Sir, I am suggesting to the Minister for Finance that, as a result of these amendments, there is in the Ordinance a hiatus. The present position is that where the Comptroller has raised his assessment for the year of assessment, the taxpayer has to pay the tax within 30 days of the assessment. If he does not wish to pay the tax within 30 days as set out in the Ordinance, then he must file a notice of objection. On the notice of objection, if the Comptroller and the taxpayer come to an agreement, there will then be an amendment to the tax, and the amended tax will be paid to the Comptroller. But if the Comptroller and the taxpayer, on the notice of objection, cannot come to an agreement and - these are the operative words, Mr Speaker, Sir - if the Comptroller so signifies to the taxpayer that he cannot agree with the taxpayer, then and only then will the right of appeal, so far as the taxpayer is concerned, arise. On notification from the Comptroller that he cannot agree with the taxpayer, then within seven days of such notification, a notice of appeal must be filed and the matter then goes to appeal. That is the position under the existing law. What will be the position after these amendments have been passed? The position will be that, as soon as the Comptroller raises his assessment, the tax must be paid within 30 days. The taxpayer's right of appeal will only arise if he files a notice of objection within 30 days and, mark these words, Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Comptroller signifies to the taxpayer that he is not in agreement with his objection. So that if the Comptroller, under the new law, keeps quiet about the notice of objection, the right of appeal does not arise. In this case, the Government can have the cake and eat it too. I know of cases, Mr Speaker, Sir - and here I am prepared to give facts and figures to the Minister, if he wishes me to, in writing - now pending before the Comptroller where notices of objection have been given, but no agreement has yet been reached between the Comptroller and the taxpayer, with the result that no appeals can arise. That position now is all right so far as the taxpayer is concerned, because tax also need not be paid. But when the position is that tax must be paid within 30 days, you can imagine, Mr Speaker, Sir, what hardship can be caused to the taxpayer. Let us take a hypothetical case - this is not unusual - where notice of objection has been given but agreement has not been reached between the Comptroller and the taxpayer, and no intimation to that effect, in writing, has been passed on to the taxpayer. Two years elapse and then the Comptroller says, "I do not agree to your objections." The right of appeal then arises. A notice of appeal is filed, and another two years is taken before the appeal is heard - I was told that that is the normal length of time. So four to five years could elapse, Mr Speaker, Sir, before the taxpayer could have his case heard. The Finance Minister is laughing, but it could happen because he himself has told the House that from the time of objection to now - two to three years - nothing has been done by the Board. I am telling the Minister that two to three years have passed in the Office of the Comptroller and he has not signified his dissent to the taxpayer. I think two and three makes five - I believe that is good finance, too. So the Government says, "Pay the tax within 30 days, but the determination of your rights must wait for another five years." I do not think any decent Government, however anxious it is to collect tax, would leave the taxpayer in such a position. I do not know whether it would be necessary to amend the Ordinance to secure a statutory right on the part of the taxpayer to call the Comptroller to give his decision within a stated period. But perhaps the Minister himself, under the new section 3A, might now be able to do it by giving a general direction to the Comptroller that in such matters he must say "yea" or "nay" within 30 days. I hope that one of the more pleasanter duties of the Minister, when he gets his power under the new section 3A, will be to issue a general direction to the Comptroller to the effect that in future he shall say "yea" or "nay" within 30 days. 3.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park has brought up very clearly the reason why it has been necessary to bring about the amendments that we are seeking from the Assembly. He has given instances of delays resulting from the lodging of an appeal or an objection against an assessment. It is because the present Ordinance makes it so attractive for taxpayers to lodge an objection that we have such a large number of objections raised that it is not possible, within the resources of the Income Tax Department, to deal with them expeditiously. This has a cumulative effect in that the moment people know that there will be delays in giving a decision on this from the Comptroller, there is all the more an incentive to lodge an objection until we get to the ridiculous stage where it may take four to five years to bring about finality in these matters. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when the taxpayer has to pay his tax first, we shall not find large queues of taxpayers lodging objections, and the fears which the Member for Farrer Park has just expressed will not be realised.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.03 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I have received His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation for this Bill to be read a Second time, and with that, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Order. Under the Standing Orders, the Yang di-Pertuan. Negara's recommendation must first be signified by a Minister.

I so signify.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Mr Speaker, the P.A.P. has been in power in Singapore for almost a year. During this period of time, several Bills have been tabled and passed in this Assembly. The point I wish to emphasise here is not the number of Bills which have been tabled by the P.A.P. To a certain extent, Bills introduced by the P.A.P. reflect the conditions prevailing in Singapore at the present time, and the conditions which the Government intends to achieve in the future. But one thing is clear. That is that every action taken by the People's Action Party Government in the field of legislation has been made not as a result of any pressure, nor as concessions to any demand by any particular group. In fact, we of the People's Action Party can take pride in the fact that every measure taken by us in the political, economic and even social field has originated from our own plans and considerations and taken on our own initiative. It is not necessary for me to give details of the steps already taken by us for the improvement of the living conditions of the people of Singapore. On our own initiative, it is enough for me to introduce this National Language and Culture Institute Bill at its Second Reading today. Mr Speaker, if the Government wishes to develop and popularise our national language, and promote the evolution of a Malayan culture as a permanent measure and a long-term policy, it becomes essential to set up a National Language and Culture Institute for the purpose of directing, and co-ordinating all work in this direction. The Singapore Institute of National Language and Culture has two aspects, that is to say, language and culture. We have decided to set up the Institute with these two main objectives, because we believe that the problem of achieving national unity is equal in importance to the problem of developing the national language and national culture. Efforts which aim merely at popularising the use of Malay as the national language will not be enough. It is essential to make efforts to encourage mutual understanding in the various aspects of the cultures of the races in this country as the first step to infuse the spirit of unity. Through such efforts, it is hoped that a basis for the eventual synthesis of a Malayan culture will be laid. With regard to the first aspect, i.e. language, the immediate task before us is to popularise the use of the national language among the people of Singapore, the majority of whom are non-Malays. The object of this task is to educate the majority of the people in the national language during the next four years. Non-Malays in Singapore who do not have a sound knowledge of Ma-lay number about one million persons. It is clear that the problem of popularising the use of the national language among these people is a tremendous one. The role which the Institute will play in solving this huge problem is only a part of the overall solution. The Ministry of Education will also share in the solution of this problem. The Institute will be responsible for producing books on the national language, text-books and books on methods of teaching the national language to non-Malays of various races and cultures. The Ministry of Education will, of course, produce the national language teachers. In addition to that, the Institute will publish magazines in the national language which can be easily understood by people of various age groups. It is also necessary to produce radio programmes in the national language which can be easily understood by listeners of all races. Books on politics, economics and science will be translated into Malay, Chinese and Tamil. Books and novels on Malayan subjects will be published. School text-books in the national language, and books on Malayan subjects for our schools will also be published. In carrying out the aforesaid tasks of the Institute, it must be borne in mind that we earnestly desire to co-operate with the Malay-Indonesian Language Co-ordination Committee by implementing decisions on spelling, terminology and other matters relating to the standardisation of Bahasa Melayu and bahasa Indonesia, agreed upon by Malaya and Indonesia. Our Language Institute will try to establish relations and cooperate with organisations which have similar objectives such as the Language and Literature Agency in the Federation of Malaya, and the Indonesian Literature Institute, so that duplication in the translation of books, etc., for instance, can be avoided, and in general to carry out the objectives of the Institute. We will regard such organisations as being our elders and possessing more experience. The cultural aspect of the work of the Institute is no more and no less important than its role concerning language. The Institute will encourage research in all aspects of cultures existing in one country, so that the people can understand the matter more deeply. This will include sociological, political and art research. For example, research on the Malay opera or the Peking opera has never been carried out before. It will be useful if research is carried out on the background of these two types of operas in order to find out whether their feudalistic backgrounds should be restored or revived, or whether a new type of Malayan drama should be created to replace both types of opera in the national language. Mr Speaker, Members of this Assembly have surely noted that, among other things, our Language Institute aims at encouraging and, wherever necessary, providing facilities for promoting Malayan fine arts. Such objectives are based on the fact that culture is a thing that lives and grows. Members of this Assembly who are present here will agree with me that, in the field of culture, the arts can only live and grow well if it is nourished by healthy and progressive art creations which are consistent with changing times. Even though some of our arts contain traces of the influences of the past, yet not all these past elements should be eradicated. Mr Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of this Assembly to one of the objectives of our Language Institute, namely, to encourage and promote literary talent in the national language and other languages used in this country with the aims of fostering the growth of a Malayan culture and Malayan consciousness. In this transitional period of our educational system, it will be found that there are many among the people of Singapore who are gifted with literary talent. But their talent can be brought to light only through the language in which they have been taught, such as Chinese, Tamil and English, apart from the national language. It would therefore be reasonable and realistic for us not to allow this to be wasted. It is better to allow them to write short stories, drama and plays with a Malaysian theme and background than to allow them to rely only on books and perform plays and drama imported from China, London, Taiwan or Madras. As I have said earlier in regard to the growth of a culture, which is nourished by healthy elements, it is likewise the same in the case of arts, literature and drama. Mr Speaker, the establishment of the National Language and Culture Institute is based on the need for such a department that can tackle and solve various problems connected with our common aim to make Malay the national language of this country. Owing to the acute shortage of Malay teachers in Singapore, it is necessary for the Ministry of Education to provide courses in the national language for non-Malay teachers. This shortage of Malay language teachers is likewise a problem for this new department which we wish to set up, in so far as our Language Institute will face the problem of producing books in the national language and other text-books for the non-Malay teachers who will teach the Malay language to non-Malays. This is indeed an extraordinary situation. Another matter which I wish to mention is the role of the National Language and Culture Institute in the adult education campaign which the Government is planning to intensify. Our Language Institute must play an important role in achieving the aims of the Adult Education Board in Singapore. Question proposed. 3.19 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, on behalf of U.M.N.O. particularly, I say thanks to God Almighty. Neither will I forget to offer my congratulations to the Government which has shown its determination not only to raise, encourage and develop the Malay language, but also to solve the problem of nationality for all our citizens. Mr Speaker, Sir, once again I pay tribute to the policy of the People's Action Party. During the First Session of this Assembly, the speech made by the first Yang di-Pertuan Negara of a self- governing Singapore was made in Malay. But the then Yang di-Pertuan Negara is not an Asian. He is an Englishman. From before the colonialists had encouraged Government servants especially to study the Malay language. Similarly, they also encouraged those people who were interested in learning that language. What impresses me in the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture was his remark that political history will also play its part in culture. Mr Speaker, as a Member of the Opposition, I need clarification as to what political history we should tell the people of Singapore, because if we are to extract this only from the history of the Malays, it will be communalistic. As I am still in the dark, I think it should be clarified in this Assembly. Apart from that, Mr Speaker, I have noted this fact - the people of Indonesia and the Federation of Malaya, who are our neighbours, have achieved independence. I am proud of them. Regarding the question of culture, which should be encouraged, we have seen the Indonesian badminton team whose members are the Ra'ayat of Indonesia. They are not of Malay origin, because all of them wear caps. Likewise, representatives of the Federation of Malaya who go abroad put on songkoks or caps. Could I have an explanation from the Government whether, in culture, we should put on caps to show that we are representing Singapore, which will be achieving independence? This is merely a question. Apart from that, Mr Speaker, I do not know what to talk about. Looking at the Opposition, I see that the Member for Mountbatten is wearing sarong kebaya and a shawl. Will this be part of the problem of culture in so far as national dress is concerned? What would be the style of our national dress? Are we going to wear white shirts and long trousers like the Government side or like the Opposition Members, including myself, who merely put on caps? I feel that this too should be clarified, if it is the intention of the Government to get support from the Opposition. In addition to all this, Mr Speaker, nearly one year has elapsed since this Assembly came into session. I hear with great regret that Mr Speaker will be resigning from office. But what to do? Mr Speaker will be succeeded by another Speaker. During this period of one year, Mr Speaker, I wish to offer my highest congratulations to the Prime Minister, who has, on several occasions, used the national language in this Assembly. It could be said that the language used by the Prime Minister has been of a high standard. But what has become a question mark to me is that, aside from the Malay Members sitting on the Government side, only one Member has made his speech in Malay. So I hope that the Government should, as an example to the people of Singapore encourage the use of Malay right inside this Assembly House if we are to merge with the Federation of Malaya. We know what language is used there. In their Senate the official language is Malay. It should be an inducement in this Assembly, and I hope that Tun Lim Yew Hock in future -

Order. The hon. Member cannot address a Member of this House by name. There is no translation for Tun Lim Yew Hock, but he is the Member for Cairnhill.

(In Malay): I apologise, Mr Speaker, I withdraw that part of my speech. Mr Speaker, I also hope that Opposition Members, like the Members for Cairnhill and Farrer Park, will, if possible, speak in the national language. Mr Speaker, I would also like to say something about culture. I would like to know whether the Government, in order to create a culture, wishes to make Malay culture as a basis? It is merely a question which I pose to the Government, because I wish to know further how the Government is going to implement the aim of creating one culture. I have given considerable thought to this matter. The Malays cannot easily be persuaded to leave their traditional culture. But we must remember that our fellow citizens in Singapore are made up of various races who have shown their loyalty to Singapore. We know from history that there are people who have had their own culture generations ago, and their culture is very much older than our Malay culture. Are they prepared to discard their own culture? Or will it be a hotch-potch of this and that culture of those people who have now become citizens of Singapore? I hope the Government will enlighten me on this matter so as to enable us to go further into it. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Malays have ronggeng or joget which is also part of their culture. At wedding feasts joget is performed to entertain the guests. In the changing times that we are now facing, Malays as well as non-Malays like dancing. The colonialists brought their own culture to our land. Likewise the people of other countries brought culture similar to the one I have mentioned just now. I would like to have a fuller explanation on such matters. There is another point I would like to bring up in this Assembly. In the matter of culture, I would also like to refer to our national language. When are we going to use our national language on notices, notice-boards, etc.? The names of the roads should also be in Malay. Are we going to permit matters to remain as they are today? We must take positive steps now to bring the people together. We must eradicate all imported elements from our culture. All notices, advertisements, etc, should be printed in Malay. In this way, we can show to the people of the Federation of Malaya that Singapore is taking positive steps to promote the use of the Malay language. With such a claim to our credit, I feel that the possibility of a merger with the Federation of Malaya will not be so remote. In whatever we do, we must be sincere. We must not do things half-heartedly because we do not wish people to level the criticism that things are done half-heartedly. Mr Speaker, Sir, you may recall how, during the Japanese occupation period, the Japanese tried to introduce their own culture in the occupied countries. But the method by which they tried to achieve this was by force. We know that such a method would be resisted by people who love independence, unity and prosperity. They would be prepared to fight to the death on this matter. Sir, I hope the Government will clarify, particularly to U.M.N.O., the nature of Malayan culture in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I also hope, with respect to you, that you will be able to conduct proceedings in this Assembly in the national language so that you will not say, "Order, order" in English but in Malay. 3.36 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Leong Keng Seng)(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have just heard the parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture say that the National Language and Culture Institute will concentrate on the study of the Malay language and promote the mixing of the various cultures. We, as members of the Education and Culture Ministries, should support this resolution. We should co-operate with the Ministry of Culture and work hard on it so that it may be a success. We know that in the past the colonial Government tried to divide the people because of its multi-racial society. In the past, there was no inter-relation and co-operation between schools of the four different language groups. The non-English schools were suppressed. Since the new Government came into power, Malay has become the national language. The National Language and Culture Institute will be established for the development of the national language so that more people will be able to express their views in Malay. That is what we aim to do. In the schools, the study of the Malay language has been introduced. The Malay language should be the same as that of the Federation of Malaya and Indonesia. We have already sent a delegation to Indonesia to study the problems of education there. The textbooks of Indonesia can be used by us to nourish the Malayan culture. I believe that in future Singapore will send a delegation to the Federation of Malaya to study Malayan culture. In order to promote the development of the Malay language, we must engage in various activities. We must encourage the teachers to make use of Malayan history and background in their writings, so that the next generation of people in Singapore will have a clearer picture of Malayan culture. In the past, the textbooks used in English schools came from England, the Chinese textbooks came from China or Hongkong, and the Indian textbooks came from India. Only Malay textbooks were produced locally but no serious effort has been made to improve the standard of these books with the result that there are only a few Malay textbooks. I hope in future Malay textbooks will be produced by the Institute. With regard to the training of Malay teachers, we have trained many teachers to teach the national language to students in schools. We have started courses in the Teachers Training College for teachers to learn Malay so that in future they will be able to teach Malay. Since the establishment of the Adult Education Council, adults can study the national language at night. The Ministry of Culture can encourage the use of the national language in school magazines and in many other ways. The new Government has made Malay the national language, but we should not just sit back and shout about it. We must take positive steps to popularise Malay as the national language. I hope in the not too distant future we will be able to have a clearer understanding of Malayan culture and that we will also be able to express our views in the national language. 3.45 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in support of the Bill setting up the National Language and Culture Institute, I wish to say that the time has come for a self-governing Singapore to be administered by a political party which has the support of the masses in establishing an institute which aims at promoting and developing the national language and culture. The national language - which is Malay - is a national issue, which should have the support of all sections of the people, irrespective of their party leanings, and of the fact that generations of them have lived here, as long as they owe their allegiance to Singapore. In the Federation of Malaya there exists an institute called the Language and Literature Institute. Similarly in Indonesia, we find such an institute. Both these countries have Malay as the national language. Mr Speaker, we in Singapore also take Malay as the national language. It is therefore appropriate that we should have our own National Language and Culture Institute. Mr Speaker, Sir, the objects of the National Language and Culture Institute, as mentioned in the Bill are, inter alia, to enrich and develop the Malay language so as to make it an adequate and comprehensive medium of expression and also to spread knowledge of the language to non- Malays. Here we could picture how wide the objects of the Dewan are. Apart from carrying out research, I am confident, Mr Speaker, we know that the Malay language has been in existence for a good number of years. It is hoped that with the cooperation of all concerned in this Island, regardless of their party leanings, we will achieve our determination to enrich and develop the Malay language and study and know the Malay language. On the question of culture, Mr Speaker, we are trying to build our national culture from whatever cultural sources are available. I think our culture is still at a stage where research is being carried out, because the officials of the Dewan will carry out research into our national culture. In support of this Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to clarify that Government has opened the way towards one language which will be used and which will be spoken by people of all races in Singapore. For the purpose of achieving this objective, the support of the Opposition Members will be welcome. 3.51 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am of the opinion that the National Language and Culture Institute is a necessity. Since the P.A.P. Government introduced the slogan that Malay is the national language, the majority of the Chinese people in Singapore have not only accepted it but are also taking positive steps to learn the language. No matter where they are - in the trade unions, Nanyang University, rural organisations, all the branches of the P.A.P., and in various commercial organisations - many Malay classes have been set up. I can put it in this way - the majority of the Chinese workers, the young students and the intellectuals, sincerely accept Malay as the national language. They are aware that if they can directly communicate their feelings and their thoughts to their Malay brothers, then the Malays' fear of the Chinese will be eradicated. The Malays will then realise that the so-called Chinese chauvinism is not as serious as that considered by the non-Chinese educated people. It can be said that the non-Chinese educated young people regard the learning of the Malay language as more important than the study of the English language. This is not because the study of Malay is easier than the study of English, but that they are aware that the Malay language is the most important means of achieving national unity in Malaya. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Kampong Kembangan made some comments on Malayan culture. I venture to take this opportunity to say something so that everybody will understand what the attitude of the Chinese youth is towards Malayan culture. Throughout the year the campaign among the majority of the Chinese youth to learn Malay has created a certain psychological change. In the past many Chinese educated youths, because of their lack of understanding of the Malay language, looked down on the Malays. But this attitude has changed now. Since we have declared Malay as the national language, their attitude has changed, and they now accept Malay as the national language. There are many articles translated from Malay into Chinese appearing in the Chinese newspapers. In these newspapers, we can read a lot of essays about the history of Malay literature. This is proof of the change of attitude of the Chinese youths towards Malay literature. We can see from the many articles that the Chinese youths have been able to translate into Malay, essays on trees and plants, and there is the Chinese version of Sejarah Melayu or Malai Chi Nien. The works of Ungku Aziz are welcome and are earnestly studied by the Chinese youths. Today the Chinese readers learn more and more of Malay works. From the Malay Tribune run by the Nanyang University, we also read articles published by the Utusan Melayu. The translation is made by Mustapha. From all these translated articles, the Chinese youths, for the first time, learn that there are many literary workers who work very hard and who have the correct mentality and consciousness in this field, especially when they learn about the transitional changes. And when these Chinese youths learn Malay literature, they deeply respect the Malay writers. They discover that in the history of Malaya there were certain people like the Chinese Wun Tiang Siang and Yeok Fay. There were also people who were resourceful and brave, for example, Hang Tuah. These Chinese youths have as great a respect for Hang Tuah as they have for Wun Tiang Siang and Yeok Fay. All these translated versions and all these essays appear in the newspaper, but they have not been done under a good organisation. Therefore, it is clear that a certain amount of effort has been wasted by the Chinese youths. They not only decide to learn more about the living conditions of the Malay people and their past history, but they also try to pass on to the Malay people their own feelings and their points of view in this respect. We can see for ourselves that there is a certain newspaper which is being run by the Nanyang University. Another publication, the Kesusasteraan Kebudayaan, is also run by the Nanyang University. The running of these two publications is to encourage the Chinese people to understand the Malay people, and also to encourage them to translate Malay literary works for the benefit of the non-Malay people. Mr Speaker, Sir, if instead of trying to understand Malay culture in a purely formal way we try to understand it from the way which I have mentioned just now, that is, by showing as much respect for the past Malay heroes as for the Chinese heroes, then we can achieve national unity in this country. In the meantime, there are many people who are learning Malay. But some of them have stopped half-way. One of the most important reasons which is responsible for this failure is the lack of suitable textbooks for beginners. At present, we have such textbooks like Sinar Baru,, which is for beginners. Our adult readers are people who have much experience, and they are somewhat sophisticated. A textbook like Sinar Baru, of course, cannot satisfy their needs and desires. Moreover, the supply of books is not adequate. Another reason for the failure is the lack of a good Chinese! Malay dictionary. When this National Language and Culture Institute is set up, we can then carry out the task, which I have mentioned just now under a well-directed organisation. We will no longer waste our time and energies as we have done in the past. After the setting-up of this Dewan Bahasa dan Kebudayaan Kebangsaan, we will bring a new climax to our campaign for the encouragement of the learning of the Malay language. In addition, it will make an unlimited contribution to our national unity. 4.05 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I fully support the establishment of a National Language and Culture Institute, for which the Bill has been introduced today by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. The decision to establish this National Language and Culture Institute was made by the Language Congress and the All-Malaya Language and Literary Congress more than a year ago, although at the meeting of the Congress referred to, members from the Party which form the Government today were not represented. Yet the People's Action Party Government is always paying attention to the welfare of the people, especially in the sphere of language and literature, and it is doing something which had been resolved by the Malay Language Congress, an organisation which represented all the language institutions throughout the land. The setting up of the National Language and Culture Institute had its origin at a meeting of the Malay Language Congress when a resolution was adopted. As far as I know, at the opening of the All-Malaya Language and Literary Congress, Singapore was represented by the Singapore Government. The Singapore Government was represented by its junior Minister for Education. He made a fiery speech, and gave an assurance that the resolution of the Congress would be fully supported. In the circumstances, Mr Speaker, if we were to note the time which has elapsed from the moment the resolution to establish the Language Institute was adopted up till now, I think, we are a little behind time in setting up this Institute. However, with a view to the full realisation and the fulfilling of the aspirations of the people, we have decided to establish a body known as the Dewan Bahasa dan Kebudayaan Kebangsaan. Mr Speaker, if we consider the objects of the Institute, I am quite sure there will be nobody who will oppose them. On the contrary, they will be proud of the fact that our objects are-based on facts and not on fiction. Mr Speaker, I wish to bring this point to the attention of the Member for Kampong Kembangan, who has repeatedly and indirectly challenged the Government to declare its stand on the meaning of culture. I think the subject which we were discussing just now is similar to what we do when we provide a site to grow rice. We will provide the seed, and the result will be that we will reap the harvest in the future. So that only when the time comes for us to reap the harvest will we decide whether we are going to make it into a bryani or fried rice. So the clarification asked for by the Member for Kampong Kembangan is not how we are going to ensure that the harvest will be a good one, but what we are going to do when the rice is ready to be cooked. I think this is a question, which no linguist will be able to answer. As a matter of fact, I am not an expert on language and culture. But from what little I know, culture is not a dead thing, nor is it a thing which can be shaped or handled by human beings, like a shirt for a man to put on. Culture is a living organism. No government could force any kind of culture on the people, as was quoted by the Member or Kampong Kembangan when this sort of thing happened during the Japanese Occupation. In the final analysis, culture is evolved by the people themselves, not by any government. So it is up to the people of Malaya, who owe their undivided allegiance to this fair land of ours, to evolve a national culture. Mr Speaker, I am conscious of the fact that some frivolous matters have been raised. For instance, coaching the representatives from the Indonesian badminton team putting on caps. But I think the Indonesians who came to Singapore with songkoks were Chinese. When they were asked, "How do you do", they said, "Well, thank you". But we would be disappointed if the residents of a country like Singapore, which has accepted Malay as its national language, were asked, "How do you do?" in Malay and they would not be able to answer. The basic problem is how to spread knowledge of the Malay language. This is what we should concentrate on. Similarly, Mr Speaker, with other matters like the nature of -our culture, names of roads and so on, which require clarification. The setting up of this National Language and Culture Institute, as has been explained by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, will lay the foundation on which we can enrich and develop the Malay language so that all the people will learn the Malay language. Why do we refer to it as the Bahasa Kebangsaan or the national language? Because the Malay Language Congress has made, as its slogan, language is the soul of the nation. So that if we know that the Malay language is the national language, then the soul of the nation will be created by the people themselves. Mr Speaker, it is not just a question of culture or national language. A youth, if he is forced to marry a girl whom he does not know, will reject her, because, as the Malay saying goes, "If you do not know someone, you will not love him or her." So the first step is to spread knowledge of the Malay language to the people: so when they have studied and grasped the Malay language they will begin to have a love for it. Generations of Chinese and Indians will then have an interest in learning the Malay language. When the people are already versed in the knowledge of the various cultures that exist in Malaya, then there will evolve a spirit of mutual respect and understanding among the various races. Mr Speaker, in the struggle to achieve our object of spreading knowledge of the Malay language, we must work hard, whether we are from the Government or the Opposition benches. Our object is the same, that is, to create a national culture. So, Mr Speaker, the point is to work hard - not to lead or to demand. That can be equated to a child crying for milk. But for us, there should be no need for pleas or fears. The attitude we should adopt is "We will do this. We will demonstrate to society that we are positive in our actions." For instance sepak raga jaring, which is a national game. The extent to which this game is indulged in can be seen from the fact that Chinese and Indian youths also have an interest in it, and they participate in it. I have heard that it was a Chinese sepak raga jaring team, which won the championship recently. That is the kind of culture which, by itself, has been accepted by all the races which live in Singapore. Sepak raga jaring has automatically become a national game. So I hope, Mr Speaker, we should base our struggle on the principle that we must work, work and work. The Government, on its part, will be pleased to accept any constructive criticisms. So that is the clarification I wish to offer to the Member for Kampong Kembangan who has sought information as regards the nature of culture, whether all of us should put on caps, the changing of the names of roads to Malay names, whether ronggeng should be employed at wedding feasts. These will be determined by society. It would be too premature at this-stage to prophesy. I know Mr Za'aba, a professor, and Che'Gu Mahmud Ahmad, an expert on Malay culture. These experts themselves do not dare to come out into the open and say what the nature of Malayan culture should be, because they know that culture is not a dead thing nor is it a thing which could be forced on the people. Culture is the result of the birth of a process of enlightenment and refinement of taste acquired and gradually evolved by the people. 4.22 p.m.

(In Malay):Mr Speaker, in regard to this Bill setting up a National Language and Culture Institute, I feel it is not necessary or essential for the Government to emphasise the objects of the Bill since the Opposition Members realise their responsibilities as to how they are going to create a national identity comprising the generations of the various races. It should not be the attitude of the Government to use the piece of paper on which the Bill is printed as a commodity to hoodwink the masses. As a responsible member of society trying to create one nationality, Mr Speaker, I wish to emphasise this in no uncertain terms. The Government itself is aware that this Institute contains two schools of thought, one of which is to create a united and strong nation. In talking about language and culture, there are -two aspects, which will benefit certain sections of the people. Take the question of the national language. If we dwell at length on the fact that Malay is the national language, it will naturally impress the Malays because their language has become the national language. But what is the object of making Malay the national language? Is it because it is recognised, or is it because it will be an instrument, which will bring benefit to those, concerned? If the purpose is to make the people realise that that is the only means whereby they can improve themselves, then I say that language becomes an instrument to improve the welfare of the people. From the changes going on in Indonesia and the Federation of Malaya at present, we can see that the Malay language is the national language. Therefore, in Singapore, there is no other way but to see that Malay becomes the national language, because the use of the national language will bring benefit not to particular individuals but to all the people. Therefore, we should work together on this problem so as to make the national language become one which is nurtured and loved by the people. Concerning culture, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government side has stated that that is a matter, which cannot be forced on the people. But culture has its influence. Also it is culture, which can keep one party apart from another, because to the individual using culture, it gives rise to an expression of feelings and opinions. Therefore, it is not something, which can wholly be accepted if the individual cannot raise himself to the standard of the culture. If this is something, which can benefit us, we should use it. But if it is something, which is not in accord with us, then I feel it can give rise to failure in our effort to build a national culture. In the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development today, he stated that the Opposition should not have any fears about the objects of this Institute. He said we should wait until the harvest is collected before we decide on what to do with it. It is as though the Member wanted to make fun of what my colleague has stated. We from U.M.N.O. will continue to watch over this matter because the Malays in Singapore, who have been accepted by law as the indigenous people of the island, look upon it weightily and we from U.M.N.O. will oppose anything that is contrary to what is laid down in the Constitution. I can say here, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Ministry of Culture is about to hold a huge mass meeting on National Day, but we cannot be together with them because what is to be carried out on that day is not in accord with what we in the Opposition think is healthy for the people. This is the second time that Members of the Opposition are not together with the Government on a national occasion. The dictatorial attitude adopted by the Ministry of Culture in refusing to accept the views and opinions offered by the Opposition is resented, and I hope this will be given due consideration by the Government in future. To talk about this and that and to tease one another in this Assembly is an attitude of irresponsibility. What we should try to resolve is the problem of how to make Singapore prosperous so that every citizen will feel that he is living in a safe and sound country. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to dwell further on the matter except to elaborate on one point. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development has accused the previous Government of not setting up a similar Institute. This kind of talk is irresponsible. This is merely to win the acclaim of the people. I would like to say that the National Language and Culture Institute in Malaya was established by language enthusiasts with the support of the Federation Government, but the Institute in Singapore is to be set up by the Government itself. So you will find that there is a difference between the Institute in Malaya and the Institute that is to be established in Singapore.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, in reply to the Member for Kampong Kembangan, let me reiterate that culture is a living thing and it grows constantly. As an example, drama as an element in our national culture should be based on our national language but the materials used in our drama should reflect a Malayan society comprising Malays, Chinese, Indians and others. Eastern elements in such a drama could suitably go hand in hand with Malay, Chinese or Indian culture. For instance, what materials should we use for art? Art also requires a Malayan element. Mr Speaker, Sir, our efforts to unify the people should be based on the national language. That is the primary objective of the proposed Institute. On the question of notice boards and street names, which are now in English, the P.A.P. Government has definitely taken the stand that these will be replaced and written in Bahasa Kebangsaan (the national language).

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 Lee Khoon Choy]. Bill considered in Committee, reported, without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.41 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation for this Bill and I beg to move, "That this Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill has two main purposes, firstly to strengthen the law for the suppression of common betting-houses, betting in public places and bookmaking, and, secondly, to enable off-course betting on racing to be conducted under certain conditions. The definitions of "access" and "common betting-house" have been amended to bring in persons who carry on bookmaking activities by telephone. In a Bill like this, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we are to deal effectively with bookmaking, it would be necessary for us to introduce a number of presumptions and we have done so in this Bill.

4.42 p.m. Clause 2 (3) of the Bill provides: "A place shall be deemed to be used for habitual betting or wagering if betting or wagering is frequently carried on therein, notwithstanding that betting or wagering is not the primary purpose for which such place is normally used." Clause 3 (2) of the Bill provides: "Any person who occupies or has the use temporarily of a place which is kept or used by another person as a common betting-house shall be presumed until the contrary is proved to have permitted such place to be so kept or used." Clause 8 (1) of the Bill provides: "Any person accepting or receiving bets, stakes or wagers or found in possession of any books, accounts, documents, telegrams, writings, circulars, cards or other articles which are used or appear to have been used or intended to be used in connection with or which relate or appear to relate to the business of a bookmaker shall be presumed until the contrary is proved to be acting as a bookmaker." Clause 8 (2) of the Bill provides: "Any person who settles or pays money or money's worth in respect of bets or wagers relating to a horse-race or any other kind of race shall also be presumed until the contrary is proved to be acting as a bookmaker." Clause 15 of the Bill provides: "In all proceedings under this Ordinance any evidence given by a police officer not below the rank of Sergeant that any book, account, document, telegram, writing, circular, card or other article produced before the court had been used or was intended to be used for betting or wagering, shall, until the contrary is proved, he deemed to be sufficient evidence of the fact." The scale of punishment under the Ordinance, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, has been increased. Thus, for offences relating to common betting-houses, the punishment has been increased from a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both such fine and imprisonment. Clause 6 of the Bill makes it an offence to publish the results of any public lottery or horse race, but the publication of the results of a horse-race in a licensed newspaper is not affected. Clause 13 of the Bill gives power to a police officer to arrest on reasonable suspicion and to search the person arrested where he believes that, by delay in reporting, the offender may escape. Although the increased powers which the Government seeks in this Bill will help it to deal more effectively with bookmaking and betting, the Government has also taken a realistic attitude, and has taken the view that it is better to control bookmaking and betting where circumstances are such as to make it impossible for it to suppress book-making and betting altogether. It is therefore proposed to permit off-course betting on racing under certain conditions. Clause 22 of the Bill provides a means whereby an approved racing club or association may be exempted from all or any of the provisions of the Ordinance, thereby enabling such exempted club or association to lawfully conduct or promote off-course betting on racing and to admit members of the public to its premises for the purpose of betting. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.46 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Labour and Law has stated that there are two main purposes in his moving the Bill. The first is to strengthen the law against illegal betting and illegal bookmaking. The second is to enable off-course betting to be held under certain conditions. Sir, we on this side are not opposed to his first purpose, although there are certain defects in the Bill to which my colleague, the Member for Farrer Park, will in due course draw the attention of Government. Sir, when we read the Bill up to and including clause 22 and the two Bills that are to follow this Bill, we realise that the real purpose of moving this and the following two Bills is not so much to suppress common betting-houses, betting in public places and bookmaking, as to legalise betting shops and provide more facilities for betting and gambling under certain conditions by which Government will be able to increase its revenue. There is nothing wrong - in fact, it is laudable - for the Government to look for ways and means to increase revenue. But, Sir, there is a limit as to what sort of means should be employed to raise additional revenue. The Minister for Labour and Law has been quoted by the Straits Times in its issue of Thursday, 7th April, as follows: "Mr Byrne emphasised, 'We have no intention of encouraging gambling in any way.'" Sir, I agree with him. I wish he had also said, "We wish to discourage gambling." I wish he had indicated that the desire of the Government is that, although it may not be possible to suppress gambling completely, they would try their best to limit and to reduce gambling to the smallest scale possible. But he went on, as if he had surrendered to the situation: "But we must accept the fact that gambling is now taking place in Singapore on a large scale, and much of the profits", you will notice, Sir, that the capitalist mentality seems to be creeping in there - "from this gambling goes into the pockets of bookies and gambling racketeers. No income tax is ever paid on these profits." The Minister added: "If there is to be gambling on this large scale, we might as well take the opportunity to see that the State gets its proper share of the revenue." Sir, that sort of reasoning is rather dangerous. There is a lot of kidnapping going on. Since it is impossible to stop or prevent kidnapping, the Minister for Labour and Law is practically suggesting to his colleagues, "Say, you chaps. We cannot stop or prevent kidnapping. Huge ransoms are being paid to the kidnappers. The State may as well go into the business. Get a few fellows kidnapped, and then we can get additional revenue." Sir, it is dangerous to encourage that sort of reasoning in the State. It is like saying that since secret society activities cannot be totally suppressed, the Government should organise their own secret society for the sake of increasing the State revenue. I am sure the Minister would not do that, but there is a danger in that the young people in Singapore may be encouraged to reason along those lines. A wrong thing does not become right just because it is made legal. A bad egg remains bad, although one may paint it white, black, red, green, or yellow. We, Sir, agree that we should not encourage gambling. We should discourage it and limit it.

That is what we are doing!

But I am afraid, Sir, the purpose of this Bill is not to do so. It is to expand gambling, and the main purpose behind it is to increase the revenue of the State. This decision of Government has come as a shock to many people. Many have praised Government for their anti-vice drives. Their moves to close down juke boxes, certain massage parlours, and other methods of recreation regarded as yellow culture, although perhaps made too drastically, were commended by, I would say, the majority of the people. But what will they say when, in place of the jukeboxes, they see betting shops; when, instead of gambling on a small scale, they see gambling on a big scale? That seems to be a great come down from the lofty perch established by the Minister for Home Affairs. Instead of following the socialist line, they have taken to the capitalist line and beyond. Sir, imagine in future, visitors to the State of Singapore looking around. They see coffee-shops and trading shops. They then come across certain shops and, not knowing what they are, they ask the Singaporeans, "What are those?" The answer they get is, "Oh! Those are betting shops." Is this the Government's new industry? Are we to see more and more, betting shops year by year? is Singapore to be converted from the emporium of South-east Asia to the gambling den of South-east Asia? Surely this is contrary to the declared policy laid down by the People's Action Party in its Five-Year Plan against immoral and yellow culture. Sir, when I was a boy, about 42 years ago, my father talked about a gambling den across the Straits of Johore. There was then no gambling den in Singapore. There had been gambling on the five-foot ways during Chinese New Year, but that had disappeared too. Now, 42 years later, this Government has decided that we should go back, to the most backward period of the colonial era, and reintroduce public gambling places. It is regrettable. The idea of raising State revenue by legalising betting shops is not a new thing. Ever since 1947, officials in the Treasury have suggested to the Government that an easy way of replacing the lost revenue from the Government opium monopoly was this way. Time and again the subject was brought up, and Government at that time could have forced the issue by using their official votes. But, Sir, we must give credit where credit is due. Although the Government at that time, in the post-war period, had the majority, they listened to the views of the minority and restrained their hand. Betting shops were not legalised; public lotteries were not introduced. And so the old Government lost the chance of making millions of dollars. But today with Singapore in the hands of a Party which is supposed to make self-government a success, we find that in their desire to raise more revenue, they have decided to go back and reintroduce those measures which are regarded as unworthy of a Government and which have demoralising effects on the citizens of this country. Sir, we are sorry that this Government, starting with high ideals, has been sorely tempted because of its need for funds to do what they have condemned. During the debate on the Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, they condemned the tax evaders for doing something which is not quite right for the sake of profit. Sir, I would like to ask the Government to answer five questions. I hope the answers will be given without any hurling of abuse. The first question is: has the Government changed its policy, as indicated by the Minister for Home Affairs, in its campaign against vice and yellow culture in Singapore? If a chap ji-ki promoter is caught, he is imprisoned or banished. Those who participate or help the promoters are liable to suffer the same fate. But after these three Bills are passed those people who promote gambling on a big scale under the protection of this Bill will be honoured, because they can contribute a big slice to the State revenue. So, on the one hand, you have the chap-ji-ki promoter and his supporters getting a prison sentence or being banished, and on the other hand, you have gambling promoters getting the kudos. If this kind of policy goes on, the Government will very soon introduce legalised prostitution. Later on they will reintroduce the Government opium monopoly because there is money to be found there. Sir, the Government of the country is supposed to set an example to its citizens as to what is right and wrong. Sir, the children in schools are told that they should not gamble. When they gamble on the school premises or even outside, the police are informed. Now what are the teachers to say to the children when these betting shops operate openly? There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that there is going to be an age limit for a schoolboy to place his bets. Government will be setting an unsavoury example to the citizens, especially the young citizens. Is this exchange worthwhile - $10 million extra for the public coffers, but the young manhood of the nation is being spoilt? I believe, Sir, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister warned public servants not to bet outside office hours, but he also implied that there was too much betting during office hours, because he said that the phones were continually engaged. Does he want to encourage betting to the extent that people who are in Government offices regard betting as an honourable game? If they get into debt because they participate in this new game introduced by the Government, are they liable to be sacked? Sir, may I now ask the Minister for Labour and Law to answer the second question? Does the Government truly and sincerely believe that legalised betting :shops should be encouraged - because such gambling will be good for the welfare of the people of Singapore? Sir, I have a random selection of quotations from the local Press. The Singapore Free Press of 24th February, 1960, has this to say on betting. Perhaps they said it without knowing that the Government was about to introduce this Bill: "Betting is a mug's game Complaints by punters at the Bukit Timah amateur meetings when they got back only $5 for their winning $5 tickets after backing the winner just prove again that betting is a mug's game. Twenty per cent of all the money going on to the tote disappears in Government tax and club commission before the horses start. And dividends are paid out to the nearest dollar below the actual dividend, all the cents from one to ninety-nine being broken money and retained by the Club. If you bet long enough you lose all you start with." And the Government makes $10 million! And here is one from the Sunday Times of January, 20th, 1957. "Coroner denounces gambling. It led to the death of two." [Laughter] Sir, it is not a laughing matter, because these two people were valued teachers in educational institutions, but because they became enamoured of the craze for lottery tickets, there was a misunderstanding between two good friends, and one was shot and the other committed suicide. Sir, one might say that even this additional revenue is blood money. It is blood money because it led to the death of citizens who should have continued to live and contribute valuable services to the country. Sir, now and again we read of people who are well educated members of the Bar and who, I am sorry to say, sometimes were tempted because of this - I would not mention names -

The one who has just got suspended, I suppose!

One was tempted and used the client's money. A former clerk was tempted because he fancied he would gain $16,000. His fancy did not come off, and he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Another, who was a salesman, said that he punted on horses and that led him to misappropriate gold ornaments worth $12,000. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 13 months' imprisonment. That is what happens to many unlucky fellows who become enamoured of the idea that they could make money out of betting. There are only two parties who are sure of making money on betting, and they are the organised and the Government. Sir, in the face of these misfortunes, can the Government maintain that the provision of more betting facilities and more opportunities for gambling would be for the good of the people of Singapore? The third question is this. Does the Government regard betting shops as a good socialist method of raising money for the State? The People's Action Party claims to be a democratic, non-communist, socialist party. Is it socialist to resort to a means of raising revenue for the State whereby those who are poorest are made to contribute the most in proportion to their income? This is an indirect way of taxing the people, so that more money come from the poor than from those who can afford it. The rich go to the races; they buy lottery tickets, and they bet for fun. If they lose, they can stand it. It is nothing to them. They know that the chances of winning are very meagre. But the poor are tempted because of their poverty, forgetting that their chances of winning are meagre. They bet, and they bet more heavily than they can afford to, which means that many will lose money that could have been better spent on food for their children and on clothes. Of course, it could be said that these poor people should not bet. If they cannot afford it, they should not bet. It is like a fisherman who dangles a tempting bait to the fish and he says to the half-starved fish, "Do not take the bait. Let the fat ones take it." Sir, that is against human nature. The fat ones are not likely to take the bait. But the hungry will do it. And the poor in Singapore will be the ones most tempted to take the bait and most tempted to lose money on it. Sir, I thought that this Government, when it came to deciding between the temptation of getting more money and losing its conscience, would be prepared to lose the money and keep its conscience. Apparently it is just like any capitalist government. It is worse than the post-war Government which resisted the temptation for the sake of the people of Singapore. One argument is this: if it could be done in Australia and certain other countries, why cannot we do it here? They forget that in Australia and New Zealand the standard of living is so high that every worker could afford to lose some money. Here the standard of living is not that high and yet, with increased unemployment, the Government say to the unemployed, "Come along. Even with your dole you can give a portion back to the State." Sir, the fourth question is this. Does the Government honestly believe that betting shops will reduce rather than stimulate more gambling in Singapore? The argument is that, by having these betting shops, business would be taken away from the illegal bookmakers and from those who take part in chap-ji-ki gambling. Those who like chap-ji-ki will continue to gamble on the chap-ji- ki. Those who like football will continue to play and watch football. It is not going to be easy to say to them, "We give you this new game; give up the old game. We give you the legalised betting shops; give up the chap-ji-ki" it is not so easy. So the result would be that, in addition to all these old gambling faci1ities which have been regarded as illegal, there will be these new facilities provided by the Government as a result of the legalisation of betting shops and more sweepstakes and lotteries. If there is to be gambling on this scale, we might as well take the opportunity to see that the State gets its proper share of revenue. Its proper share of revenue - that seems to be the chief aim of this Bill. The fifth question. Will legalised betting shops mean less crime in Singapore? The Singapore Police officers have consistently maintained that more gambling means more crime. More betting shops and more gambling facilities will mean more crime. Sir, when the Party in power contested the last elections, it did not say that it was going to introduce more gambling. In fact, the impression created was that if this Party was put into power, it would never resort to anything that would be regarded as vice or yellow culture. Many voted for this Party because they said, "Well, this Party will be more honest and cleaner, etc., etc." I am sorry to say that this is a big come- down for the Party in power. This Bill will cause the Party to lose the respect that some people had for them. For the sake of more revenue, it is willing to give up its old policy, its anti-vice drive, its closure of juke box shops. They are now finished. It is a new policy. Vice is dishonourable when it is not legal. But vice becomes honourable when it pays its contributions to the State coffers. Sir, I know that Government has got the votes to push this Bill through, but is it really earnest about the Will of the people? May I suggest that the Government do one thing? Let there be a re ferendum. Let the Government ask the people whether they wish this Government to have more and more gambling in order to raise more revenue. Some will vote for it. But if the people think of and care enough for their children, they will prefer to lose the $10 million extra revenue and let the Government find it in some other way, rather than have this Bill passed and have harm done to the character of the young citizens. Some will say, "Why should there be all these moral scruples?" A man is honest because he has moral scruples. A Government is honest and it acts honestly because it has moral scruples. If we are to throw away our moral scruples for the sake of more revenue, what sort of policy are we going to introduce for this country? I am sorry, Sir, the respect which I had for certain policies and measures of the P.A.P. Government has received a great shock.

I shall suspend this sitting until 5.45 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.19 p.m. until 5.45 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.45 p.m.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 5.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I start speaking on this Bill, please permit me to make a confession in just one sentence. As a woman, I cannot help taking a secret delight in the fact that my choice of dress and my taste in costume jewellery (which - for the information of the Members - costs me next to nothing) have attracted the attention of two Ministers and one Assemblyman! Coming to the Bill, Sir - when I read this Bill, f wondered whether it was a case of good intentions foiled by a faulty method of implementation, or whether it was a case of an ulterior motive hidden behind pseudo-good intentions.

Order. I think the hon. Lady comes straight up against the Standing Order which says - speaking from memory - that a Member must not impute an improper motive to another Member, and "ulterior motive hidden behind pseudo-good intentions", I suppose, must be improper. Therefore, I think the hon. Lady ought to withdraw that expression.

Sir, I beg to withdraw it. This Bill, Sir, is intituled "An Ordinance to suppress common betting-houses, betting in public places . . .". But it ends up with an explanation, which reads: "...thereby enabling such exempted club or association to-

Order. If the hon. Lady is going into the details of the clauses, I suggest that the proper place to do so is in Committee. We are now dealing with the general principle of the Bill.

Surely, Sir, this Bill has been introduced to enable the Police to catch and prosecute the guilty, not to incriminate the innocent. To make people guilty before their trial and until they prove the contrary is against all principles of natural rights. Sir, some clauses of this Bill defeat the aim of the Bill itself. As I have mentioned before, a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to suppress common betting-houses, betting in public places . . ." should, to say the least, make an attempt to reduce the conducting of betting places and the promotion of betting in public places; and not, as is the case with this Bill, increase, promote and legalise betting- houses and betting in public places. The government of any State, Sir, has always been and is still looked upon as the father of the State and her people. Which father, Sir, would encourage his children to gamble or to bet, especially when he knows that the children cannot afford to gamble without destroying himself and his family? Which father would do it? Perhaps a cruel stepfather might! Now, which father does the P.A.P. Government claim to be? A father to the State of Singapore and her people, or the cruel step-father? 6.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not often that the Opposition have had the opportunity to bask in the glow of superior virtue. But we quite expect that in the course of the debate on this Bill they will try to make the Government look as if they are encouraging what they term "vice". We also have seen, in the instances of the two Opposition Members who have spoken against the Bill, much sanctimonious wringing of hands over the poor, the weak and the foolish, who ruin themselves through gambling. But before I attempt to rebut their arguments, may I first make a disclaimer? When the Member for Tanglin was holding forth at his usual hilarious best on this Bill, he repeatedly made the point that the Government was moved by financial considerations to pass this Bill; that is, it is the demands of revenue that have made them agree to allow off-course betting under certain conditions. Now, I hasten to add that I am not the villain of the piece, nor are fiscal considerations the over-riding or even the important ones in this issue. The Government of today - and indeed the Government under the previous administration - has to choose between two alter natives. The first is to allow off-course betting under well-controlled, properly regulated conditions; the other is to pretend that bookmakers do not exist, and that the vicious atmosphere in which the illegal bookmaker operates together with the whole apparatus of secret society gangsters does not exist. Sir, we of the P.A.P. are, above all, realists. We do not pretend that given the imperfections of human nature as they now exist in our present society, we shall be able to suppress completely gambling in all its forms. The only alternative then is to see that such an activity carries on under controlled and well regulated conditions. That is the purpose of this Bill. The Member for Tanglin expressed great admiration for the previous administrations for resisting repeatedly the temptation to allow off-course betting. But he did not draw attention to the fact that this policy was completely futile because off-course betting was in any case taking place to the detriment not only of persons who were foolish enough to patronise these institutions but also to the loss of public revenue. No one tries to pretend that gambling is not foolish and irrational behaviour. But in a free society, you cannot completely eradicate these manifestations of a very natural instinct, as gambling is, among the people, especially in a commercial entrepot like Singapore. If you are to aim at the ideal and try to eradicate gambling in all its forms, then you will merely reduce the administration of the law to ridicule and contempt. We are therefore taking the courageous stand of admitting the imperfections of human nature, and try to make the best of a bad job. I want to end on a light-hearted tone. The Member for Tanglin, in the last part of his speech, declared himself to be disappointed at this move of the Government. He said that his previous high regard for our sense of dedication and high sense of purpose received a shock. I have always suspected that the Member for Tanglin has been a secret admirer of the P.A.P. but I would not try to raise his hopes by saying that he has any chance of being admitted into our circle!

No desire!

I do not know about that. The Member for Tanglin has been a member of many political parties in the past, and I have no doubt that if given half a chance he would ask us for an application form! If he feels so strongly about this issue, he will have one consolation - that in his capacity as one of the leaders of the Moral Rearmament movement, he will have more opportunities for the exercise of his proselytizing zeal.

Mr Byrne, in reply?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been quite noticeable for some time now that the Member for Tanglin has moved so often in the rarefied atmosphere of moral rearmament that he tends to get out of touch with reality. Mr Speaker, Sir, I stated in my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill that the main purposes of this Bill are, firstly, to strengthen the law for the suppression of common betting-houses, betting in public places and bookmaking, and, secondly, to enable off-course betting on racing to be conducted under certain conditions. I did not hide anything. That was our objective. I also made it clear that although the increased powers which the government sought in this Bill would help it to deal more effectively with bookmaking and betting, we had also taken a realistic attitude, and had taken the view that it is better to control bookmaking and betting where circumstances are such as to make it impossible for us to suppress bookmaking and betting altogether. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have not in any way changed from our socialist principles. We stand on the principle that gambling is a social evil. We are also honest and we recognise the fact that there is gambling on a large scale in our State. We have taken great pains to bring this situation under control. About ten months ago, below the office where I used to work, I remember quite clearly there was a coffee shop. The public went there every day. They were placing bets quite openly. They could place any bet they wanted on any race meeting, whether the race meeting was hold in Singapore or in the Federation of Malaya. A few steps along the same road, there was a gambling parlour - juke boxes, pretty girls - and everybody was tempted to go in. That was the situation, and everyone knew about it. These are facts. It is not the little people who place bets and so on who are really the evil doers. The evil doers are the people who organise all these things and get a profit out of it. They organise it, and they give you a discount on it. They make their money on it. They exploit the situation, and work it for a profit motive. They keep those profits. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, suppose we carry out our socialistic principles to their logical conclusion. We hound the bookmakers. We logically put the Turf Club out of action. Well, they will go across the causeway and start a gambling paradise there. We will then get back to the situation which the Member for Tanglin referred to 42 years ago, when his father could go across the causeway to take part in gambling. We are realists. We know that that is the position and we have got to face it. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanglin has said that we are now trying to reintroduce conditions similar to those existing during the time of his father. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 22, sub-clause (1) of this Bill has been on our statute book from 1929, when the Member for Tanglin was 11 years old. By virtue of the exemption provisions in this sub-clause, it is possible for gambling to be restricted to the subscribing and associate members of a particular racing association in Singapore. Does he really honestly believe that the tickets on sweepstakes organised by the Turf Club are not, in fact, being sold outside its membership to the people of Singapore? You can buy the tickets if you want to. You need not be a member. Mr Speaker, Sir, that is the situation, and we think it is better to acknowledge that that situation exists and try to place gambling under proper control. We can do it by extending the provisions of clause 22 (1) . Everybody knows that any member of the public can go to the Turf Club and take part in punting if he so desires. There is such a membership as the subscribing membership and it is known that subscribing members transfer their badges to one another. It is quite easy for any member of the public to go to the race course if he wants to. So let us not be hypocritical about these things. Let us acknowledge the facts. If we do that, we can reconcile these two apparently conflicting objectives. In this Bill we are taking determined steps to put the bookmakers out of action. We mean everything we say. We have introduced very hard presumptions. Why have we done it? It is because it is very difficult to detect and bring the bookmakers to book for what they do. That is why we have to depend on these presumptions. The Member for Mountbatten has said that we are seeking to change the law and to alter our liberal tradition by making persons who are innocent guilty. These are ordinary presumptions which, we have to introduce if we are to mean what we say. I have mentioned that in the speech I made earlier on. I have drawn the attention of the House to these presumptions. They are hard presumptions. They are intended to be hard presumptions so that we can deal with this situation effectively. I have also pointed out that it is our intention to raise the penalties for this type of offence, and we have so proposed in this Bill. It is no use people blinking facts and charging us with all sorts of things, accusing us of inconsistency and saying that we are jettisoning our principles. They do not believe the things that they say. The Member for Mountbatten has referred to our monogamous marriage Bill. She said, "Look at it. This Bill which seeks to introduce monogamy is the same Bill which legalises prostitution. What is all this about?" Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 3rd March, when this Bill was introduced. I remember meeting the Member for Mountbatten in the Hokkien Huay Kuan. The women of Singapore had called a public meeting to express their views on this Bill. I remember the Member for Mountbatten was there and she asked permission from the ladies to speak. She went on to the platform. I was curious to hear the things she would say about this Bill. She welcomed, it and said: "Dear sisters, in Singapore we have now come to the position where at last we women have got our freedom." She spoke for three-quarters of an hour, and I clapped her. For I then believed that a great change had come over her. But when I heard her later in the House, I was so stupefied that I even forgot to remind her of what she had said at the Hokkien Huay Kuan a few weeks before. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not that sort of people. We are not chameleons. We do not change our colours.

Order. That is a direct reference to a Member of this House. To call a Member a chameleon is unparliamentary. Perhaps the Minister would like to withdraw that word.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, I realise I was getting very near to the rocks and the shoals.

Will the Minister withdraw?

Mr Byrne: I do withdraw, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, in all things we have got to be honest with ourselves first. We must understand the situation in which we find ourselves. We cannot blink facts. We must not try to distort facts. The Member for Tanglin was in his element just now when he talked of the exploits and achievements of the past Government with which he was so closely associated. Mr Speaker, Sir, if he was a realist, and if he really understood the social position, he would have agreed that the best way to deal with the situation would be not to blink facts but to accept the position as one finds it and try to resolve the difficulties as best one can. And that is what we have proposed in this Bill. That is the solution we offer. Mr Speaker, Sir, there was the charge made against us that we were increasing the opportunities for betting; that we might have good intentions but that those good intentions were foiled by faulty methods of implementation. That we might, after all, have ulterior motives behind these pseudo-good intentions. Is that a fair charge to make? Does this Bill really and honestly encourage gambling and increase the opportunities for betting? If it did, we would not have introduced those presumptions. Why did we? It is because we are realists, we really intend to deal with the situation and with those who make profits out of gambling and keep those profits for themselves, that we have introduced these measures. Mr Speaker, Sir, it was also pointed out that there is nothing in this legislation to stop students and school children from going to the betting shops. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think the Members who made that charge really understood the provisions of clause 22. It is clearly stated in that clause that: "The Yang di-Pertuan Negara may by notification in the Gazette, either generally or in particular cases, exempt from all or any of the provisions of this Ordinance the members and officers of any racing club or association in respect of any totalisator or pari-mutuel betting or any other system or method of cash or credit betting...". Mr Speaker, Sir, the organisation that is exempted under the provisions of this clause would be exempted under conditions, and it would be well within the organisation's power to restrict children and school children from entry into such premises. They could easily make those restrictions. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to point out that under clause 22 (3) of the Bill we have provided that all bets received must be placed on the totalisator. We have provided that it would be unlawful for any such organisation to run its own private book. That is the protection, which we have sought, and that is the safeguard, which we have entered in this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice that earlier on the Member for Tanglin referred at length to various newspapers on the evils of gambling and so on. As luck would have it, I was also referred today to a newspaper report. This report appears in the Singapore Free Press of Thursday, 12th May. What does the report say: "Off-Course Betting In Britain by July London, Thurs.-The House of Commons lust night passed a Government Bill to legalise cash betting on horse races in betting shops to be set up all over the country. The voting was 211 to 42 - a Government majority of 169. The Bill, expected to become law by the end of July, now goes to the House of Lords." Mr Speaker, Sir, probably there are people elsewhere in the world who are realists like ourselves. They look at a particular situation, they see it to be what it is, and they are willing to move with the times. But there are some people who are so bound up with the colonial tradition that they can only think in terms of that colonial tradition. They believe that a person who is part and parcel of that system can do a thing only in a certain way and believe it to be right for all time. Now we are not like that. We do not have those mental blinkers. We see the situation as it is and we are determined to find a solution for the difficulties that we meet. That is why we have proposed this Bill. I have been challenged to answer five questions. The first question is: Have we changed our policies as announced by the Minister for Home Affairs against vice and yellow culture? I say we have not changed our policies. We are still against vice and yellow culture. Does the Government truly and sincerely believe that legalized betting shops should be set up because gambling would be for the welfare of the people of Singapore? The answer is that gambling is a social evil. There are people who still want to gamble, whatever you do, Even in co-operative organisations you will find that situation. You will find the thrifty lending money to the improvident. Now, most of the improvident have got very firm contacts with moneylenders. But nevertheless that sort of thing goes on. The provident earn dividends from that situation. That is how the co-operative and thrift and loan societies run. Question No. 3 was: Does the Government regard betting shops as a good source of raising money for the State? We have never wanted to raise money by this method. We have said that there are many people making money out of bookmaking and keeping that money, running these rackets for their own purposes, giving discounts, giving credits and earning -huge profits. Now we say that we want to put all end to that, to stop them from doing it. We will so reorganise it that this money will come to the Government. But we do not do this primarily for the, reason that we want this money. If they take those pro, fits in that way, it is but right that they should be stopped from doing so: that we, as the Government, should avail ourselves of that money. Question No. 4. Does the Government honestly believe that betting shops will reduce rather than stimulate gambling? I do not think you can make the situation worse than it is today. It is on a very large scale. It is already stimulated out of all proportions and the only thing to do is to keep it under control. Question No. 5. Will these legalized betting shops mean less crime in Singapore? I would venture a guess, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if we bring this situation under proper control, we will be able to reduce the incidence of crime. It is well known that many bookmakers are given protection by secret societies. They carry on these operations with the protection received. If all this is brought under proper control, I could say that we would be able to reduce crime. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would say that we have good intentions, we have no ulterior motives in introducing this legislation, and we do not ever try to conceal ulterior motives under pseudo-good intentions. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Byrne]. Bill considered in Committee. 6.37 p.m. Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6- Question proposed, "That clause 6 stand part of the Bill".

Mr Speaker, Sir, this clause seeks to provide: "Any person who announces or publishes or causes to be announced or published, either orally or by means of any print, writing, sign or otherwise, the result of any public lottery or horse-race shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars:". Mr Speaker, Sir, my understanding of the words, "announces or publishes" is this: if one person mentions by word of mouth or in writing to a second person, then that is announcing or publish. ing within the meaning of the clause. So that this position could easily arise. I go to the Bukit Timah Race Course. Having lost all my money after the third race, I retire and come back. On the way I meet Mr X, who is anxiously awaiting a bus to get to the Turf Club. He says, "Hey, what is the matter with you? Why are you back so early?" I say "Well, I lost my Bets on the first three races. Such and such a horse won the first race. I did not back it. Such and such a horse won the second race. I did not back it. Such and such a horse won the third race. I did not back it." That, Mr Speaker, Sir, is announcing or publishing within the meaning of this clause, as I see it. Is it the intention of the Government that such a person should be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000? The second point I wish to make is on the proviso, which reads: "Provided however that this section shall not apply to anything published or forming part of any announcement in any newspaper relating to any horse-race or the result thereof if such newspaper has been printed or published under a licence in that behalf duly issued in accordance with the provisions of the Printing Presses Ordinance.". That means, I take it, Mr Speaker, that the right to publish or announce, as prohibited in the main clause, is only available to any newspaper and that only to any horse-race or the result thereof. Although the main clause talks about a public lottery, the proviso does not say anything about it. The subsequent Bills which will come up before the House will enable public lotteries to be run. So, does the Government then intend this position - that newspapers can only publish the results of horse-races but they may not publish the winner of a lottery ticket?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the intention is to prohibit oral communication of the results of horse-races. Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been found that when the Turf Club recently removed all facilities with regard to public telephones and when the Rediffision broadcasts of races were stopped, there were teams of people running between the Turf Club and neighbouring coffee shops and communicating the racing results to interested persons. It is the intention to prohibit that sort of thing in this clause. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are precedents for this. I would refer the Member for Farrer Park to section 4 (f) of the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance. I will read the section to him: "Any person who -

If the Minister will resume his seat, I will puzzle this one out. Mr Byrne resumed his seat.

Does the Minister then wish to seek leave to move an amendment: In page 5, lines 22 and 23, to leave out "any horse-race or the result thereof" and insert "the result of any public lottery or horse-race"?

Yes.

Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that that amendment be moved? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 5, lines 22 and 23, to leave out "any horse-race or the result thereof" and insert "the result of any public lottery or horse-race".

The Question before the House is, "That clause 6 stand part of the Bill." That is the difficulty I am trying to overcome.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember we have done this before.

Not when the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill has been proposed from the Chair. Strictly, of course, the procedure is that when the Chair calls a clause, that is the time when amendments ought to be proposed. Thereafter, when the Question is proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill", the debate can only be on the principle of the clause itself. No amendments can be proposed. Any amendments that are thought of can only be made by way of recommittal. But, of course, if there is no dissentient voice, there can always be a suspension of Standing Orders to enable the Minister to move his amendment. Is there any dissentient voice? There being no dissentient voice, will the Minister please move, "That notwithstanding the Standing Orders the amendment proposed to be moved, be moved."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That notwithstanding the Standing Orders the amendment proposed to be moved, be moved.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the amendment proposed to be moved, be moved.

We will deal with the amendment now. It has been proposed as an amendment: In page 5, lines 22 and 23, to leave out "any horse-race or the result thereof" and insert "the result of any public lottery or horse-race". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Byrne: I want to thank the Member for Farrer Park for having brought this to the attention of the House. Otherwise our newspapers will be in a very serious predicament if they publish the result of any public lottery. Amendment agreed to.

Are there any other amendments? Has the Member for Farrer Park any other amendment up his sleeve?

No, Sir. Question proposed, "That clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Labour and Law said that there is a precedent for this particular clause and he quoted a section from the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance relating to public lotteries. Mr Speaker, Sir, that particular section in the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance relates to public lotteries, which are illegal. Public lotteries were not possible in the Colony, but now, as a result of the various amendments to this Bill and to the two subsequent Bills, public lotteries, provided they are conducted in a particular manner, will cease to be illegal. Therefore the publication can take place. I appreciate the motives which have impelled the Minister to frame the clause, but in framing it, the scope of the clause is so wide that it has taken in the case of the man - as I cited - who went to the race-course to bet, came out when the race meeting had gone halfway, and said to his friend, "My horses did not come in. Some other horses came in," and he mentioned the names of the horses. It seems to me that he is certainly guilty under this clause, because he has announced the results of a horse-race. If the Minister gives the assurance that it is not the intention to prosecute such a person and the Police have instructions to that effect, then I think it would meet the case.

Mr Speaker, Sir, surely it must be presumed that the Government acts reasonably in these matters.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8- Question proposed, "That clause 8 stand part of the Bill."

I understood that the Member for Mountbatten wished to say a few words on clause 8. This is the time to say them.

Sir, I believe that the clause has been framed with this in mind,; that the person charged is guilty. Let us take the other side of the picture. Supposing the person charged is not guilty. There are many a book, many an account, a document, telegram, writing, circular, card or other article which may easily appear to have been used or intended to be used in connection with or which relate or appear to relate to the business of a bookmaker, and the person may be entirely innocent. What then if the law presumes that he is guilty? There are sometimes cases, Sir, when it is difficult to prove yourself innocent although you are innocent. What happens in that case?

Mr Byrne: It is an ordinary legal presumption, Mr Speaker, Sir. On a given set of facts, the presumption arises. It does not mean to say that the person is guilty, but until he proves the contrary he would be deemed to be acting as a bookmaker. These are ordinary presumptions of law, Mr Speaker, Sir,I do not wish to take up the time of the House. If the Member for Mountbatten will have a little talk with the Member for Farrer Park, I am sure he will be able to explain it to her. Question put, and agreed to. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 9 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13-

I do not know whether the Member for Farrer Park has an amendment up his sleeve in this case.

I have given notice that I will be speaking on the clause, but I am not doing so. Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 15- Question proposed, "That clause 15 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, this clause is borrowed from section 37 (i) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Chapter 137). This particular clause 15 says: "In all proceedings under this Ordinance any evidence given by a police officer not below the rank of Sergeant that any book, account, document, telegram, writing, circular, card or other article produced before the court had been used or was intended to be used for betting or wagering, shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to be sufficient evidence of the fact." It is said that this clause has been inspired by section 37 (i) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. That section in the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance relates to opium pipes, opium utensils, smoking lamps, opium rags, etc, which, on the face of it, quite obviously can only be used for smoking opium. The question on which the presumption will arise is whether these articles were, in fact, used in that particular case for smoking opium. But the presumption arises by the very nature of the articles, which can only be used for smoking opium. Here, Mr Speaker, the position to my mind is quite different. This police officer not below the rank of Sergeant brings along any book, account, document, telegram, writing, circular, card or other article, produces them in Court and says that they were intended to be used for betting or wagering. And the presumption shall arise. Now, a book by its very nature can be used for all sorts of purposes. Similarly, an account, a document, a telegram, a piece of writing, a circular, a card, or any other article. While appreciating the elusiveness of the bookmaker and the anxiety of the Minister to bring him down in a legal tackle, I feel, Mr Speaker, Sir that, the presumption is so wide in its scope and its nature that it could very easily be refuted. I think a presumption of this nature will not cause the person, against whom the presumption arises, any difficulty in rebutting it. 7.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would refer the Member for Farrer Park to a more recent precedent. It was not long ago that the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance was amended in this House. On that occasion, Mr Speaker, Sir, there was an amendment to section 9, which is very much on similar lines. If I may read this to the Member for Farrer Park - the amendment reads: "Where evidence is given by a police officer not below the rank of Sergeant that any document produced before the court is a lottery ticket of any public lottery or is an account, memorandum, or record of stakes or wagers in or relating to any public lottery, the court shall presume that such document is a lottery ticket of such public lottery or an account, memorandum or record of stakes or wagers in or relating to such public lottery, as the case may be." Mr Speaker, Sir, I have got the Hansard report on my Second Reading speech in regard to that amendment Bill, and I remember that I pointed out to the House then that by this clause the Court is required to accept the evidence of a police officer not below the rank of Sergeant, that the document produced before it is a lottery ticket or an account, memorandum or record of stakes or wagers in or relating to a public lottery. On that occasion, I think the Member for Farrer Park did not pay very much attention to this clause, but rather he sought to suggest that the Minister might be very much tempted to abuse his powers under another amendment - an amendment to section 2 - which gave the Minister power, by notification in the Gazette, to declare any game, method, device, scheme or competition to be a lottery for the purposes of the Ordinance. He suggested that the Minister might even think of declaring football to be a public lottery. Now, mark you, he was aware of that clause then and took no objection to it. This provision is not new. It is a similar presumption.

Mr Rajah: With respect to the Minister for Labour and Law - that particular section which the Hon. Minister quoted just now was in reference to "public lottery". The position then was quite different. There would be numbers on it to indicate that it was part and parcel of a public lottery. Therefore the presumption arises. The position here is that any book, account, document or telegram received by some person or other and when produced by a police officer is presumed to be intended to be used for betting or wagering. It could be that the document, on the face of it, has nothing whatsoever to do with betting or wagering. All that need happen is a statement by a police officer that that ,particular book or account is used for betting or wagering. In those circumstances, the presumption could easily be rebutted by the accused saying, "I bought it to keep my accounts", or something like that.

If the book was bought to keep an account, I am quite sure the evidence would be rebutted and the accused acquitted. As the Member for Farrer Park knows, what happens in these matters is this. A junior police officer or a junior Inspector has been in charge of some investigation into a minor gambling racket. A sergeant, who is usually an expert in that particular line, goes to Court and, rather than go through the whole rigmarole, "I am a Sergeant. I have been in the Police Force for the last 25 years. I have been chasing gamblers in chap ji-ki and 4-digits - now the latest craze - for the last five years. I can therefore prove that five bottles here really means five points, and that half a bottle means I put half a dollar either way.". you just cut the whole proceedings short and say, "Look, here is an expert. He is presumed by law to be an expert. He says it is what it is. If it is not, then I am not quite sure." The person who is charged can rebut it. If, in fact, he says, "It really means I am going to buy two bottles of catsup and a bottle of beer," there should not be any difficulty in proving it.

Mr Rajah: All I am saying to the Minister, in this particular instance is that the net is being cast so far and so wide that the fish is going to escape. That is all I am saying. Question put, and agreed to. Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 16-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, line 23, to leave out "wilfully". I believe that it was at about this time yesterday that we were debating the word "wilfully" and we are back again today at the same time on the word "wilfully". I distinctly remember the Minister for Finance saying how very difficult it was to prove "wilfully". Might I say here how very difficult it would be to prove "wilfully" here again? Here is a case where the Court, if it believes that the informer wilfully made in his information a material statement which he knew or believed to be false or did not believe to be true, may require the production of the original information and permit an inquiry and require full disclosure concerning the informer. This is a very desirable clause, particularly when the person against whom the information is given is going to get into a great deal of trouble. I would have thought, Mr Speaker, Sir, if the clause read: "...believes that the informer made in his information a material statement which he knew or believed to be false or did not believe to be true..." then the consequences should ensue. I would have thought that to be enough, because somebody moving against the informer would have to show that he knew or believed it to be false or did not believe it to be true. If in those circumstances, he made a statement, I think the consequences envisaged in that clause should ensue. But why the State insists that it should also be made "wilfully", I am at a loss to understand.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this, in fact, is a vintage section of the Ordinance. The word "wilfully" appears in section 9 of the existing Ordinance, which became law in 1934, having been introduced by the Betting (Amendment) Ordinance in 1934. This word "wilfully" has been in the law for the past 26 years, and we have made no changes to the existing section.

All I can say to the Minister for Law is that it is high time that he took the cobwebs off some of our laws. I am suggesting, in all seriousness to the Minister, that this is one of the sections which should be changed. Merely because it has remained in our Statute book for 26 years does not make it sacrosanct. When it is clearly bad legislation, then, when we are bringing about amending legislation, it is time when these imperfections should be eradicated. I am suggesting to the Minister that the word "wilfully" should be taken out. I suppose in those days it was necessary for the Police Force to function efficiently to have these informers and give them full protection. But nowadays we do not need these informers. The Minister himself has said so, "Our Police are not go- ing to depend on informers but on their own two feet" - big feet. So I feel, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is time the word "wilfully" went out. To give protection to the informer, all that need be said is, "That he made a material statement which he knew or believed to be false, or did not believe to be true". If he did any of those things, surely then the consequences envisaged there should ensue. Why should a person, who seeks to prove that a false statement has been made on top of that, have to prove that, "He did it wilfully."? One has to prove mens rea.

Mr Speaker, Sir, must we keep repeating ourselves all the time? The point I made just now was that this word "wilfully" was imported into the section by an amendment Ordinance enacted in 1934. And there were good reasons why that amendment Ordinance was introduced.

Well, this is a new Bill and I take it that it is intended that the various clauses in this new Bill should stand or fall on their merits. It is no use the Minister trying to bolster his case by saying that an amending Ordinance previously introduced this word "wilfully". No doubt there might have been very good reasons for introducing it 26 years ago when colonialism was in its hey-day. But when we have got self-government by people rooted in the masses, I think we should really view these things properly and kick the informer where he deserves to be kicked. He does not need such protection. It may be that in the old days the informer had to be protected on all sides, and the Crown made it very difficult for him to be got at. Whereas now, if an informer gives information which gets a private citizen into trouble and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the information given was false, and the informer knew that it was false, then I think the consequences envisaged should ensue. The person who is moving against the informer, in other words, the accused, should not, in addition, be called upon to prove that the informer acted wilfully and maliciously - that is what it means, wilfully and maliciously.

The Member for Farrer Park is a practising lawyer and has been practising law for many, many years. He knows that this very same clause appears in many of our laws where similar protection is given to informers. That very same clause is written into many of our laws.

I do not want to belabour the point, but does it really make all that difference whether the word "wilfully" is in or out of the clause? In deciding finally whether or not the informer had offended against this particular provision, the Judge must make up his mind whether the informer knew what he said was false. And when he put his mind to that particular point, the informer would have had it. If it was a material point and the Judge came to the conclusion that the informer was fully compos mentis when he made it, then the presumption must arise that he was wilful. Like so many other elegant amateurs in the art of legislation and draftsmanship, it sounds better if you say "wilfully or maliciously to have done so-and-so" than to leave the bare bones and skeleton of the verbs by themselves. If the Member for Farrer Park takes offence at the inelegancies of parliamentary draftsmanship, then perhaps at some subsequent date, when we have more leisure, we might listen to an essay on the subject from him. But right at the moment, it really does not count whether it is in or out. That is the way it was drafted years and years ago. There is no good reason why a cricket bat which has been cut into that shape for years and years should be altered. That is not a very good reason.

Sir, might I remind the Prime Minister that in the recent boat race between Oxford and Cambridge, Cambridge put a hole in their oars' blades, and so lost the race? I think the Prime Minister himself supports my argument. I do not want to attempt an essay on parliamentary draftsmanship - that is not my function in this House. As I understand the interpretation of statutes, Mr Speaker, every word is deliberately intended to be there and must be given its natural meaning. If the word "wilfully" is put in deliberately in the clause, in addition to the words "which he knew or believed to be false", then the courts must give a meaning to the word "wilfully". To say that "which he knew or be lieved to be false or did not believe to be true", exactly equates with the word "wilfully", Mr Speaker, I am unable to accept. As the word "wilfully" is put in there deliberately, then the courts will interpret that to mean that it should be given a meaning over and above the other words which follow it. If the Prime Minister thinks it does not matter whether "wilfully" is in or out, could he not concede the point to the Opposition and say, "Let us have it out"? Amendment negatived. Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 17-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, line 32, to leave out "or heard". This is a presumption against the house and the occupiers. That is what the marginal note says. Can I seek the indulgence of the House to read the clause: "If any books, documents, telegrams, writings. circulars, cards or other articles used as a subject or means of betting or wagering, or in connection therewith, are found in any place entered under this Ordinance, or upon any person found therein, or if persons are seen or heard to escape there from on the approach or entry of a Magistrate or police officer not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent...", then the presumption arises. I can understand a presumption arising, Mr Speaker, Sir, if a man is seen escaping from the premises. But I am at a loss to understand how a presumption is going to arise if somebody is heard escaping. You hear with your cars, you see with your eyes, and on these you give evidence. If I hear somebody escaping, do I know who has in fact escaped? All I can say is that somebody has escaped. But I cannot say who he is. So I would, with great respect, suggest to the Minister that the words "or heard" are quite meaningless and will not bring about any presumption.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 1 think the Member for Farrer Park lacks imagination. If in a dark night I were to hear somebody scampering away in the back lane, and hear the somewhat stentorian voice of the Member for Tanglin saying, "Chabot, chabot!," and he is caught subsequently, then I can presume that, being a person of reasonably good auditory function, I can give evidence that I heard a voice which not only sounded schoolmasterish and authoritative, but quaintly agitated, and I say, "This is the man." On the contrary, if I were to hear a lady-like and feminine voice saying, "Lari, lari! ", then I can, if I am sufficiently acquainted with the dear Lady from Mountbatten, say, "Well, she is the one that scooted!" When you hear, it does not mean that you hear just noises. It means recognisable noises, either by the daintiness of the feet or the gentleness of the voice, or otherwise.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may add to what the Prime Minister has already said. I think we can agree that our forefathers were endowed with the same auditory sense as we have, and this very section has been in our existing law from the 23rd December, 1912, that is, when the Member for Tanglin was 12 years old.

Mr Rajah: May I suggest, with respect to the Prime Minister, that had he been appearing in a court of law, that is not the sort of argument that he would have put up to the court. It might work in the Assembly, but it would not work in a court of law. I merely point out the absurdity of those two words in that particular clause, and if the Minister for Labour and Law thinks it is not absurd, it is entirely up to him. Amendment negatived. Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 18- Question proposed, "That clause 18 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, the point I wish to raise here is this. As I understood it, the normal practice, Mr Speaker, Sir, - here I am subject to correction by the Minister for Labour and Law - is that when there are two or three or more accused involved in a particular crime, then it is up to the Crown to decide which one shall give evidence for the Crown, and that person will then be put up as a witness for the prosecution. It is not within my knowledge where this duty is cast on a trial judge. Sub-clause (1) seeks to impose such a duty on the Judge. Sub-clause (1) reads: "Whenever two or more persons are charged with any offence under this Ordinance, the Magistrate's Court or District Court may require one or more of them to give evidence as a witness or witnesses for the prosecution." This, to my mind, is a very unusual procedure. Is there any reason why the prosecution, before prosecution proceedings are instituted, could not have picked on one or the other accused to do it? To call upon the trial Judge to perform the function is something, which I do not think is in the interests of justice.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, a similar provision exists in all our laws. I checked back on this and found that this section was introduced into our laws by an Ordinance No. 16 of 1912. That is when the Member for Tanglin was 12 years old.

I trust the repetition will not become too tedious!

Mr Rajah: If the Minister for Labour and Law considers it an undesirable provision, then this is the time to deal with the situation. But if he considers it a laudable one and he approves the framing of such a law, then, of course, the remedy is in his hands. Question put, and agreed to. Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 19 to 21 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 22- Question proposed, "That clause 22 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, under clause 22, may I ask the Minister for Labour and Law whether betting and gambling facilities would be controlled and reduced, or controlled and increased? It seems to me, Sir, that this clause will give more opportunities for gambling. Sir, like the Minister, we face realities, but with a difference. We want to face realities with the desire to control, limit and reduce gambling facilities. We do not want them to be increased and exploited to the tune of $10 million. Sir, under clause 22, at page 10 of the Bill, in the last line, the word "any" in the phrase "any racing club or association" could mean that the Government would be prepared to approve racing clubs or associations not only for horse racing, but also for greyhound racing, motor racing, cycle racing and other kinds of races. Could the Minister for Labour and Law give us the assurance that approval would be given only to such racing associations as have the present facilities under the law, and to no other racing club or association, thereby at least limiting the evils? Then, Sir, under sub-clause (3), I read: "It shall be lawful at any time for any racing club or association exempted under the provisions of subsection (1) of this section to admit members of the public to its premises when racing takes place...". "at any time". Would that mean that there would be racing the whole day long? Then the admission of members of the public. The Minister has assured us that there would be some kind of ruling so that school children and children under a certain age limit would not be admitted to these places. Would he give us the assurance that under this sub-clause school children and children under a certain age limit would not be admitted? But even then this is going to expand and increase the facilities for betting and gambling.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to wear the House down by repeating what I have already said. 7.30 p.m. I only wish to remind the Member for Tanglin that the clause means what it says. The intention is to restrict these activities to a single organisation. As to the admission of children and students to betting shops, I have already said that it is our intention to ensure that that does not happen, and I stand by the assurance that I have given to the House.

Sir, supposing that particular association wants to increase the number of its race meets during the year in order to have more occasions for betting, would the Minister give his approval?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member is referring to the same association as I have in mind, it is common knowledge that they have 23 racing dates a year in Singapore and 72 elsewhere. It is not the intention in any way to increase those facilities.

The horses may die!

Sir, the Government's intention to see that bookmakers do not escape paying a licence or tax or whatever be the charge, and that they should not swindle the Government of revenue, is laudable. But the position is this. Let us face realities. Let us say, for argument's sake, that there are 10 bookmakers operating in 10 places. Instead of scoundrels working on it and benefiting by it and Government losing on it, the Government says "Let us have 10 places in the hands of a legal and licensed association and they will be paying Government revenue." But what happens to the 10 places that have been operated by the bookmakers? Are they going to be extinguished just like that because the legalised association has opened 10 new places? I believe bookmakers offer a discount or whatever they call it. They do offer some sort of competition. Now what competition will be offered by the organisation that is legalised to carry on this business? Would we not be returning to a position worse than the position; that of having 10 bookmakers running legally and these l& others still running illegally? Is it not better to get hold of the 10 that are now functioning illegally than to set up a competition with 10 others that are running legally? I think we are going round in a vicious circle and returning to where we started.

That is all common sense!

I would have thought the answer to the point raised by the hon. Lady is very obvious - that the 10 bookmakers would be arrested, locked up and put out of the way. I want to refer to the comments made by the Member for Tanglin when he sought an assurance that it would not be the policy of the Government to increase public betting. I have no doubt that when the Member for Tanglin said those words he had in mind an increase in the visible forms of betting, i.e., the number of bets put on the tote, the number of people attending race meetings and so forth. But, may I suggest that a fair comparison is not between what is the level of legal betting now and in the future, but between the total of legal and illegal betting now against the total of legal betting in the future?

Mr Speaker, Sir, already we see a conflict of opinions and interpretations. The Minister for Labour and Law has indicated that there will be a limit to and a reduction in the visible evidence of betting and gambling facilities. Then the Minister for Finance says that there is a difference and there could be an increase in the visible evidence. Sir, I do not know who would implement the policy. But under this clause, there are definitely powers to enable the facilities to be increased. Not only the members of the racing association would be admitted, but members of the public generally with or without payment of a fee would be admitted. So if the visible evidence is not reduced in any way but rather increased, and the invisible evidence is not going to be reduced, then it means that there is going to be more and more betting and more and more gambling. We on both sides face reality. If we both agree on the principle that we should try to reduce if we cannot eliminate, then I hope the Minister will agree to limit also the visible evidence of the betting and gambling facilities.

When I said the visible evidence of an increase in betting as against the invisible forms of betting in illegal bookmaking, I was trying to make the point that if in future there is an increase in Government revenue from this form of controlled betting, then the Member for Tanglin cannot claim that that there has been- an increase in the total amount of betting, because the increase in stakes put on the tote would mean for the greater part a transfer of betting now going through illegal bookmakers to the proper controlled channels.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, at the moment, I believe the particular racing association has only one town office where the betting can take place. Now, under clause 22, not one but a hundred places can be set up, or even a thousand -

Or even a million!

Yes. How then can the Minister maintain that the facilities will not be increased? The facilities will be increased and, with more facilities, there is no doubt that there will be more gambling. If there is only one coffee shop, you would expect a certain number of people to patronise it When you have got 1,000 coffee shops, one cannot say that there will be less people taking coffee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek some information from the Minister who now appears to be quite an expert in horse-racing and the payment of dividends on the totalisator. According to clause 22, there is no restriction on the residential qualification of a racing club. In other words, any racing club in Malaya or outside Malaya can still apply for exemption. If, let us say, the Perak Turf Club wants to open a betting shop in Singapore, can they apply? Or is it intended that only the Singapore Turf Club can open betting shops for races run in the Federation? If that is so, how are they going to operate on the totalisator?

Mr Byrne, is there any reply?

No.

Perhaps the debate could be wound up?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance said that the answer is obvious. The bookmakers will be arrested and put in gaol. Why cannot we do this without increasing, promoting or legalising betting shops all over Singapore? Cannot we do it now? Cannot we arrest them and throw them into gaol? Government's answer, I suppose, will be that when the public are deprived of the means of betting, there must be a substitute for them. Sir, the Turf Club will serve the purpose. Those who cannot afford to go to the Turf Club evidently cannot afford to bet without getting themselves into debt. Why is Government providing facilities for such people? The Minister for Labour and Law has just now mentioned that if we do not have betting places here, people will go to Johore, as happened 42 years ago. I would like to remind the Minister that the Singapore Turf Club is situated between Johore and Singapore and there is no reason why they should go to Johore when they can go there. The Minister has also mentioned that this will make it easier for people to buy lottery tickets. They go to Johore and buy lottery tickets. I do not think we have heard of cases where the purchase of lottery tickets has brought about the downfall of a worker. It is usually his placing bets, and not his buying lottery tickets, that causes his downfall. To suppress betting houses, I think we need to tighten up the laws and get at the present culprits, rather than try to compete with them by promoting and legalising betting shops.

It seems to me that there is repetition, which is becoming tedious. I wonder if the Prime Minister would like to add to the debate?

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the reasons why the present bookmakers cannot be caught and thrown into gaol is that it is difficult to catch them. Therefore, many of these provisions have been introduced - all the presumptions about account books, telegrams, documents and so forth - so that we can deal more efficaciously with them. I am quite sure that with the blessings of all sides of this House, the police force will be spurred on to greater efforts to bring them to book.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we on this side can meet rational arguments. But we find it difficult to meet fanatical arguments -

Order. I thought something like that would happen. I do not think the Hon. Minister can allege that anything fanatical has been said in this House. Perhaps he would like to withdraw the word "fanatical"?

Mr Speaker, can I substitute the word "tenacious"? Mr Speaker, Sir, we make it clear that we do not wish to increase the opportunities for gambling. That is not our intention at all. We have the powers to deal effectively with bookmakers and we intend to use those powers. That is all we propose to do. Regarding the other matter, which was raised by the Member for Cairnhill as to how this Betting Bill will operate, that will become apparent in due course. I do not propose to say anything about that at this stage.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 23 and 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 7.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation to proceed with this Bill. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This House is aware that both the Governments of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya have been seriously troubled for a great number of years by the operations of bookmakers who have not only deprived the State of legitimate revenue but have also permeated every walk of life to the extent that they have become a menace to society. It is this Government's policy to wipe out this form of illicit gambling which goes on on a large scale in Singapore, since it undermines the welfare and morale of the people. Gambling has therefore to-be confined within the limits permitted by the law so that the State and the people can be protected. To this end, Government is introducing three related Bills incorporating the recommendations-of the various committees which have been set up to examine the problem of illegal betting. The present Betting and Sweepstake Duties Ordinance provides for betting on the totalisator or pari-mutuel and sweepstakes promoted by racing clubs and associations by the members only. It is because the general public is excluded from participating in these games of chance that the bookmakers have been able to exploit the situation. Therefore, by throwing open to the public participation in the properly organised and legal activities of such clubs and associations, by allowing these clubs and associations to sell sweepstake tickets partly in Singapore and elsewhere, bookmakers will be driven out of business. In addition, it is intended to provide for the collection of duty on any other kind of betting that may be promoted by racing clubs or associations which is made or conducted through any totalisator or pari-mutuel. I believe, Sir, that these amendments will once and for all take care of what has been a serious loss of revenue and a danger to the healthy development of our society. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

The Minister, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, has made reference to this curse which is not only confronted by the Singapore Government but also by the Government of the Federation of Malaya. Since he has brought in the Government of the Federation of Malaya, I would like to know, Sir, whether there had been any consultation with that Government before these three Bills were introduced?

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I am troubled about is that an assurance has been given verbally that gambling facilities and so on will be reduced, but from the wording in the Bill itself it would appear that there would be an expansion of such facilities. I notice, Sir, in this Bill before the House that the words "every" and "any" are repeated again and again. As a school master, I know what these words mean. The door is left wide open. Any body and everybody can come in. We were given the assurance that school children will not be allowed in, and so forth. I wish a provision to that effect could be put into this Bill. In any case, I hope enough publicity will be given-so that the public will expect that school children and those children of a-certain age will not be allowed to participate. For instance, clause 4 provides "Any person may buy a ticket . . .". I suppose any person may also sell a ticket. I can imagine the sale of sweepstake tickets not only to adults but also to pupils outside school premises. In spite of all that we may say, that our children will not be allowed to buy them, we may find that school boys will be buying them and saying to themselves, "Why should we study? There is no use studying and getting promotion. We can win a prize and we will be rich. There is no need for us to get employment." If old people can think in this way, what more the young people? The children will be demoralised. Sir, I do not wish to be too difficult, but the wording in this Bill gives the impression that the Government side are also human: "...there shall be charged a duty of ten per centum... ...there shall be charged a duty of thirty per centum...". Sir, if the Government expects an additional revenue of $10 million, it would mean that in Singapore at least $100 million must be put down as stakes so that at least $10 million will go into the public coffers. But I do hope that Government will really act according to their assurances that these Bills are being passed to control, limit and reduce betting and gambling facilities so that the harmful effects will not be increased. 7.52 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is really consequential to the Betting Bill just passed. I do not think that there is very much that I could usefully say other than to point out that the Member for Tanglin has been pursued by fears of such nightmarish proportions that nothing I can say can ever have any hope of reassuring him.

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 Billl.-[Dr Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee.

7.54 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Question proposed, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, I want some information from the Minister for Finance. Perhaps he will be able to tell me what it -was that the Minister for Labour and Law found difficulty in telling me just now. The proposed section 2 (2) says that sweepstake tickets can be sold on a horse race that is run outside Singapore. Does it mean that the turf clubs in the Federation of Malaya can apply for exemption and sell tickets in Singapore? Or does it mean that the Singapore Turf Club will be allowed to sell tickets on horse races run in the Federation? This is important, Sir, because it has some relevance to the extent of gambling in Singapore.

The latter interpretation is the correct one.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 7.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That this Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill is complementary to the Betting Ordinance and seeks to provide a means whereby an approved racing club or association may legally promote and operate a public lottery. The Bill gives power to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to exempt the members and officers of any racing club or association from the provisions of the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance in respect of any public lottery or sweepstake held, promoted, organized, administered or operated by it or by its duly authorized officers or agents. The Bill also provides that it shall not be an offence for a person to buy a ticket or chance or to take part in a public lottery held, promoted, administered or operated by a racing club or association which has been so exempted. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, we were given the assurance that only one particular racing club in Singapore will be given approval to organise all these betting shops and the sale of sweepstake and lottery tickets. Supposing there should be various agents selling lottery tickets issued by racing clubs of other countries, then under this Bill no action can be taken because the proposed section 23 reads: "Notwithstanding the prohibitions and penalties prescribed and imposed in this Ordinance in relation to a public lottery it shall not be an offence for any person to buy a ticket or chance or take part in any public lottery held ...". I do not know how the Minister is going to limit the facilities for gambling because these Bills are so worded that the door is left wide open. Sir, I think the Minister said that in England betting shops are to be set up and that therefore we in Singapore are simply following the good example of England.

We are doing it on our own.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: We should follow the good example of any country. But if bad examples are set by any country, we should have the discretion not to follow such examples. Sir, I would like to refer to somebody, who, I believe, is held in very high esteem by Members of the Opposition - a gentleman whose philanthropic deeds in Singapore have been well known for many years.

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

Tomorrow, Sir.

So be it.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.