Hansard, 1960-05-16

Order for Recommittal read.

32 p.m. New clause (Amendment of section 13)-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." Hon. Members are aware that the intention of the Pawnbrokers (Amendment) Bill is to give the poor the benefits of obtaining a loan at a cheaper rate of interest. This, of course, does not meet with favour by the pawnshop operators, who live on the interest paid by the poor. In the course of the deliberations on this Bill, the pawnbrokers attempted to coerce the Government by suspending business even before the Bill becomes law. A warning issued by the Government to withdraw their licences brought them to their senses. Within a few days, the pawnshops resumed business. The pawnbrokers have learnt that if they want to convince the Government of the justice of their case, coercion is not the proper way. They have come to realise that this Government cannot be cowed into submission by threats. Thus, after the resumption of their business, the pawnbrokers were told in a statement that the Government is always prepared to consider their views if they can produce sound reasons to convince the Government of the justice of their actions. Since then, a further representation has been made to Government. This representation is under consideration. In the meantime, Government has gone into the question of providing alternative means of giving loans to those who are in need. Several proposals are now under consideration, and its implications examined. The new clause before the House is to give the Government more flexible power to deal with the situation in the interim period by enabling the Minister to vary the rate of profits whenever he thinks the time is opportune. In order that those who have to frequent the pawnshops should receive some immediate benefit from the Government's policy of helping the poor and at the same time to avoid a possible temporary dislocation of the service in case pawnbrokers resort to exploiting those who are in distress, the Government has decided when the Bill becomes law that the Minister should exercise the power conferred in this clause to reduce the rate of interest from 24 per cent to 18 per cent per annum in the first instance. The Government will also take immediate steps, when the Bill becomes law, to reconstitute the Pawnbrokers Licensing Board so that it will implement the Government's intention of having more competitors in the field instead of the present monopolistic provision and to cancel the business licences of those who deliberately seek to exploit the distressed. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is another classic example of Government's inconsistency. If this Government feel that they want to help the poor, so do we. And if Government feel that the pawnbrokers might close down, thereby causing difficulty to the poor, we will support Government. But unfortunately this has happened, and a little too often, Sir. You will remember, Sir, at the last sitting I pointed out that "An Ordinance to suppress betting places" actually legalises and promotes more gambling places. I also mentioned that the monogamous marriage Bill legalises polygamous marriages. For mentioning that, I was accused of being a chameleon, changing colours, changing my opinion, and after having hailing the Bill at a women's meeting, coming here and attacking it - that is just the point of my argument, Sir. Yes, I did hear it. But why did I then speak against it? It is because when the monogamous marriage Bill was introduced-

Order. We are going right back to debating on monogamy. I think we should concentrate on this Bill now. I think the hon. Member was quite correct in mentioning these facts in passing, but if she goes into detail and tries to reopen the debate on monogamy, of course, she is out of order.

I am sorry, Sir, I am not trying to reopen it. I am trying to show how Government confuses not only me but also the rest of the people in Singapore. I was just going to show that it was because I was confused by the words "a monogamous marriage", which legalise polygamous marriages that made me say one thing at one time and another thing at another time. In the same way, this is going to confuse the public because at one stage the amendments in the Pawnbrokers (Amendment) Bill were to reduce the rate of interest, but today, if the amendment is accepted and the Bill is passed, it does not reduce the rate of interest. That was what I was trying to compare when I mentioned monogamous marriages. When the Bill says it is out to do one thing and in the end it does not do the thing it claims to do, the public gets so confused. When we say one thing at one time and another thing at another time, we are accused of changing our minds. We change our minds now because the Bill has changed its colour, Sir. The Bill, Sir, did say it was going to reduce the rate of interest. The Minister did say, even today, that it is to enable the poor people to be able to get loans at a lower rate. After that, as the Minister said, it did not meet with the approval of the pawnbrokers. Not only did it not meet with their approval, but the Government were very firm in their decision. And when the pawnbrokers threatened, the Government threatened in return and told them in no uncertain terms that they would not be coerced. In the Select Committee, Sir, the Government showed firmness, and I had great confidence in them. Some of the members of the public did tell me that the Government were going to withdraw the clause reducing the rate of interest. They seemed to believe that they knew the reason why the Government wanted to withdraw the clause. It did shake my confidence for a time. But when I was in the Select Committee, I put that all to idle rumour, because the Government was very firm. In fact, some of the Members of the Select Committee on the Government benches were selling me the idea, "Mrs Seow, do not believe the pawnbrokers. They will never close down. This is just a bluff and they will continue even if we reduce the rate." So I stood as firm as they did because I thought that they knew what they were talking about. Then, at the last sitting, when the Third Reading of the Bill was deferred, my confidence began to be a little shaken. But the Minister did reassure us that the measures which he was taking were - shall I quote him - (this is dated 7th April, 1960): "Just to give the Government time to take such measures as may be necessary to counter the suspension of business by Singapore pawnbrokers."

7th of April of what?

Of the Straits Times. Well, Sir, having been reassured like this, I again said, "What the public said was just wild rumour." But today, Sir, the Minister has given me the idea that the warning was something more than wild rumour, because, after having been so firm, Sir, the Minister said, as reported in the Straits Times of 25th March, 1960: "Mr Ong, in describing the pawnbrokers' refusal to accept the pledges as a calculated attempt to embarrass the Government, taking as an excuse the government's crisis, says,. 'No Government can be coerced into accepting all kinds of things. The moment they use this kind of tactics we cannot ignore the situation that is created and must consider measures to stop it.'" That was quoted from the Straits Times of 25th March. Then on the 29th of March, it was again reaffirmed, and this time the Minister said: "He had given the pawnbrokers a chance to reconsider their action before the Government decided to take `other measures' to meet the situation." Then, on the 30th of March, we hear that Mr Kularajah is starting a cooperative pawnshop society, and the Minister for Labour and Law said: "It is a new venture in co-operative enterprise." And we read in this paper that the draft constitution is now being finalised and an inaugural meeting to form the society will be held next week. After all this assurance, Sir, we have come here today to cancel that very clause which is going to reduce the interest rate. 2.45 p.m. Can you blame me, Sir, if I start wondering whether, in view of the reason put forward by the public and the warning that they have given me, that the Government for certain reasons want to withdraw that amendment, there is anything more to it than just wild rumour? What are the Opposition and the public to think of this inconsistency? Government have always said that they cannot be pushed from pillar to post. What mysterious powers, Sir, have the pawnbrokers applied that they have driven the Government now not only from pillar to post, but from post to nowhere? In a statement to the Press, the Minister for Home Affairs has interpreted the pawnbrokers' refusal to take pledges as an attempt to intimidate Government, as I have read just now, Sir. Now do the Government admit giving in to this intimidation? Otherwise, what could explain the Government's wanting to withdraw that clause now? And to add insult to injury, Sir, after showing all this weakness and inconsistency, we are now asked to give the Minister power to raise or reduce the interest whenever he has more strength to do it, since it has been shown that he has given in to this intimidation and is too weak to implement it. Now we are asked to give him power so that at any time when he regains his strength he is going to implement it. Sir, cannot the Government decide one way or another if by reducing the interest it is going to be detrimental to the State of Singapore and its people, the poor and the pawnbrokers? Cannot they decide, "We will not reduce it."? If they think it is good, cannot they decide, "We will reduce it one way or another", and not keep everybody in suspense, the pawnbrokers included? The pawnbrokers do not know whether they are going to function on 2 per cent or whether tomorrow or the day after the rate is going to be 1 per cent again - when the Minister has the power. Sir, I would appeal to the Government to make a decision. Surely they know what they want. Are they going to reduce the rate of interest or are they going to let it remain as it is?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Mountbatten seems to me to have a most simple and innocent approach to this problem. Considering that she has been a Member of the Select Committee to study the Pawnbrokers (Amendment) Bill, I am horrified to see how utterly ignorant she is of the problem she is supposed to have studied on behalf of the Assembly and on behalf of the people of Singapore.

Not the pawnbrokers!

And not, as my colleague has said, on behalf of the pawnbrokers. If she thinks that, by this amendment, the Government is being chased from pillar to post, then she is even more foolish than I thought any Member of the Assembly could be. Obviously, she has not taken the trouble to read today's Order Paper Supplement, which defines the way in which the amendment to section 13 is being sought. May I read it for her benefit the actual wording of the amendment we are now seeking: "PAWNBROKERS (AMENDMENT) BILL as reported from Select Committee (Paper L.A. 5 of 1960) - Recommittal in respect of the following new clause:- New clause: 'Amendment of section 13. Section 13 of the Pawnbrokers Ordinance is hereby amended by inserting immediately after subsection (4) thereof the following new subsections:- "(5) The Minister may by order amend the rate of profits and charges specified in Schedule B to this Ordinance."'" and so on and so forth. Sir, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the charge made by the Member for Mountbatten that this Government is being chased from pillar to post. On the contrary, when we discovered that the pawnbrokers were attempting to coerce this Government, we called them up and said, "Look here, chums, don't try to be funny." And these are salutary words, because the next morning they all opened up. And this is not the behaviour of a Government that is being chased from pillar to post. I say quite frankly that the fault lies completely and entirely with the pawnbrokers, because they utterly failed to make a case before the Select Committee. The Member for Mountbatten, being associated with big business which, as we know, gives full support to the S.P.A., must have advised the Select Committee about the way the pawnbrokers operate. Members of the People's Action Party can be excused for not having the depth of knowledge about the intricacies of the pawnbrokers' business. Either the Member for Mountbatten took her duties very lightly during this Committee Stage, or there were other reasons, of which I cannot understand, why she could not have assisted the pawnbrokers to lay their case before the Select Committee. The pawnbrokers made such a poor case that the Select Committee had no alternative but to reject the application for reconsidering the reduction of the rate of interest. But after the findings of the Select Committee were known, Government made a study of the method of financing pawnshops, the whole machinery of pawnshop financing, and the system of loans, and they came to the conclusion that the matter was not as simple as either the Select Committee believed on the one hand, or as straight, forward as the pawnbrokers, through their solicitor, had made out. Now the whole pawn business is in itself an isolated money market in Singapore. Because of its special function within a limited sector of the economy, it became possible for the pawn broking business to draw a substantial amount of capital at comparatively high rates of interest for lending to persons, mostly consumers, at even higher rates of interest. The pawnbrokers were, I think, right in saying that a great majority of their capital came from small deposits loaned to them by miscellaneous small men, possibly hawkers, small businessmen and so on, at very high rates of interest, which vary from time to time, depending on how urgent the demand of the pawnbroker is for this short-term capital. Because the people who have this capital - and they are mostly small people - have not developed the more modern approach to means of investment, they are willing to part with their capital at very high rates of interest, round about 12 per cent per year. Given this fundamental factor that a great part of the capital which the pawnbrokers now rely on can only be obtained at 12 per cent interest per year, it is not reasonable to expect that they will lend money at an identical rate of interest. That is one aspect of the money market in the pawn broking business. The other aspect, and this is more vital, is that when pawnbrokers are short of capital for some reason or other, and they cannot go to this group of small savers for loans to help them out of a very tight financial position, they have, as lenders in the last resort, the goldsmiths who, as a result of convention and tradition, have agreed to accept pledges made to pawnshops and not redeemed at certain agreed price levels. Now what complicated the position after the Select Committee's Report was published was that a number of goldsmiths, for reasons which are still obscure, had to go out of business, and that confused the whole situation. This was one of the principal reasons which led the Government to come to the conclusion that it would be prudent for the time being to have a reappraisal of the situation. Hence the amendment that we now seek. This will give the Minister authority from time to time to lay down the maximum rate of interest which could be charged on pledges. And I can assure the Member for Mountbatten that the rate of interest which will be effective forthwith would be a reduced rate of interest, and we are carrying on with our intention to see that the poor people who have to borrow money can do so at as low a rate of interest as possible. The rate of interest is the price which a borrower has to pay for the loan of capital, and that price must vary from time to time according to the supply and demand position in the market. It is, therefore, necessary when one regulates a price, whether it is the price of a commodity or the price of a loan of capital, that there should be provision for variation to meet the supply and demand position of the market. We are of the opinion, having studied the question in some detail, that it is not possible today to bring down the rate of interest as rapidly as was originally envisaged in the first Bill. And it may take some time before we could reduce the rate of interest to that extent. There are many factors in the situation which have to be dealt with before we can make available to persons, who want loans from pawnshops, loans on low terms which we think the poor need and the poor deserve. 3.00 p.m. It may take some time because it means that the market for loan money must be made more fluid. Obviously here, the short-term market for capital which the pawnbrokers are now tapping is an imperfect market in that the people who have money can only channel it through this one sources When we make available to them other sources of investment, the final result no doubt will be that the rates of interest which they now receive will be reduced in the course of time. Of course, the one factor which makes for high rates of interest in this particular sector of the economy is the instability of the pawnbrokers' business itself. Supposing you are to lend your life savings to a pawn broking business. You have $3,000 and you know that there is a certain risk - the business may go bankrupt and the man may disappear. You would expect a higher rate of interest than what you would get from Government bonds. That is in the nature of things. But when we improve on the whole organisation of this particular part of the loan market, I say the end result will be that we shall be able to provide a lower rate of interest for patrons of pawnshops than it is possible today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the facts which the Hon. Minister for Finance says only reached the Government after the Select Committee had submitted its report and as a result of which Government is now having second thoughts, to my mind, were all available in the report itself. The pawnbrokers were represented by a lawyer. They gave their evidence before the Select Committee. The facts which the Hon. the Finance Minister now says impel the Government to change its mind and to reconsider its decision were all available to the Select Committee. The fact that a greater portion of the monies which are lent out by the pawnbrokers are monies invested by small men at 12 per cent or 10.8 per cent is set out in the evidence contained in the Select Committee Report. What the Finance Minister has now said - that is to say when the major portion of the money comes from investors who get 12 per cent on it, it is hardly reasonable to expect the pawnbrokers to lend out at I per cent, was all within the knowledge of the Select Committee. Even in spite of that the Select Committee would not deviate from the position which the Government had originally taken up; that it would bring the rate of interest on loans by the pawnbrokers to the same level as that of the moneylenders. I am not saying, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Finance Minister is not correct in his estimate that one has to go carefully over this situation. But I do accuse the Government of introducing legislation such as this in a hasty manner, and of not thinking out all the full implications of such a move before the Bill is introduced in this House. I would submit, with respect to the Minister for Home Affairs, that before he even thought of introducing such a measure he might have consulted the pawnbrokers, found out where their money market was, and how they financed their loans; if he had taken that little trouble to go into these matters, he might possibly have satisfied himself at that early stage that 1 per cent for pawnbrokers was not possible. Even when the Minister for Home Affairs moved the postponement of consideration of the Report of the Select Committee after the pawnbrokers had made their representations, the Minister did not give any inkling to the House that the Government was having second thoughts about the matter. The impression given to this House was that the adjournment of the consideration of the Bill was being sought for to tell the pawnbrokers in no uncertain terms to behave and not for the reason that the pawnbrokers had made out a good case. However, Sir, there is another aspect of the Bill in which I am particularly interested. It is this. I think it is highly undesirable as a form of legislation, Mr Speaker, Sir, that, where the Bill itself sets out a fixed rate of interest, there should be further provision in the Bill enabling the Minister by an Order to vary the statutory provision of a fixed rate of interest. I think such legislation is highly undesirable, particularly when the Minister, on his own account, can, by an Order, vary the rate of interest either up or down. The Hon. Minister for Finance has said that until economic conditions in this country settle down and people have other avenues of investment, and until such time as people give up the idea that they must get this high rate of interest on investment, we will be left with the position that pawnbrokers can only get a major portion of their monies which they can lend out from small investors who will ask high rates of interest. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that introducing the new subsections (5) and (6) into the existing section 13 is no way of keeping invested the monies that are already going into the pawn broking business. Unless the investors are satisfied that their monies will remain at a given rate of interest, without the unilateral action of the Minister intervening and reducing their rates of interest, I am afraid very few people will invest with the pawnbrokers.

Buy gilt-edged bonds!

I am on the topic of pawnbrokers, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are told that the pawnbroking business today is working at half-steam because the majority of the small investors have withdrawn their monies and because of the uncertainty with regard to the present position. We understand that about $15 million to $20 million have already been withdrawn. If uncertainty is to continue as a result of this legislation, that $15 million to $20 million will stay away permanently and, possibly, yet more money will be withdrawn from this particular type of banking facility, which is now available to the poor man. The Government has probably made up its mind what the rate of interest should be. If Government has made up its mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, then I suggest that Government should set out the rate of interest in the Bill and not hide behind a Minister's order. Surely, the Government must have some idea now after all these months of investigation. I believe, they have spent 6 or 7 months investigating this particular problem. Government should know now what is the appropriate and fair rate of profit, which a pawnbroker should derive from his business. All the Government need say is that it wants to amend the figure "1" to "1½". I think the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs in his Second Reading speech said Government was considering 18 per cent, that is if I have heard him correctly. All that the Minister need have said was, "Strike out the figure `1' and insert '1½' ". That would have met the situation, instead of keeping both the pawnbrokers and the investing public in the pawnbroking business in doubt.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the provision is specifically set out in the Bill as 1½ per cent or in the rules to be made thereunder, uncertainty as to whether the l½ per cent will continue indefinitely, or only for such time as the Government can either persuade the investors or the pawnbrokers, or make other arrangements to make capital available for this particular form of enterprise. So long as it is the intention of the Government to try and bring about a situation whereby interest rates are reduced, then it does not matter whether you have written 1½ per cent into your statute or whether it is an order by the Minister which this Assembly can accept or reject. The provision is there. In my submission, on principle, just answering the point that the Member for Farrer Park has made, it is just as sound to say that a ministerial order can vary the interest, subject to this Assembly annulling it, because in any case, rather than go through three readings on a certificate of urgency, I Thiok it is neater and more decorous to have a debate arising out of a resolution to annul a ministerial order. I would like to answer the other point made by the Member for Farrer Park. To a certain extent, I would say that it is an irresistible conclusion that the Minister for Finance, having taken everything into consideration, has decided that the Minister in charge should proceed warily. That is not the same as saying that we have decided to allow things to remain as they are or that the Pawnbrokers (Amendment) Bill was ill conceived. It has brought the rate down from 24 per cent to 18 per cent in the first instance. It is a continuing issue for some time. It is the opinion of the Government that the borrowing impecunious public should be made to pay less heavily for their unthrifty ways. But ultimately the issue is this. I agree that we are not resolving this matter with a finality which should perhaps be desirable in these matters. Not being able for reasons which the Minister for Finance has stated, to bring about the final position in one phase, I think the Members on the other side should be grateful that we have decided to face the position by reducing gradually, and we hope less painfully, from 24 per cent to 18 per cent. Meanwhile, of course, I think the pawnbrokers are fully aware that the Government intends not only to hear evidence, but also to know from its positive operations the conditions of the pawnbroking business. Mr Speaker, Sir, in India the banks run a pawnbroking business. Every bank has a branch which has a pawnbroking department. That possibility here is being explored. In Israel, the State runs a pawnbroking business. I think there is as much a measure of finality in economic and financial matters for the pawnbroking business as is possible in the circumstances.

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has very effectively dealt with the point why the rate of interest should not be set down on the statute book, because we expect that, in the course of time, there will be further variations in the rate of interest. I would like to reply to the other point made by the Member for Farrer Park; it is that during the Select Committee's consideration of this Bill, all information was made available to us. I dispute this point, Mr Speaker. It is true that the pawnbrokers presented a case. 3.15 p.m. Various measures were proposed but it was necessary to evaluate the reliability of the information on which they were based as it was obvious that the pawnbrokers were in the position of supplicants making out a case. They had an axe to grind. And it was a misfortune that they did not present their case as ably as they could. For instance, there were doubts on at least two points. The first was on the amount of profit that they made from the sales of unredeemed pledges. There were also doubts whether the figures on the overhead costs of the pawnbroking administration were correct. And, of course, the whole business of the role of the goldsmith - the re-discount facilities, so to speak, that go to them - was not at all brought out clearly before the Select Committee. As a Member of the Opposition, the Member for Farrer Park could hardly take the Government to task for not accepting the findings of the Select Committee, because the Opposition Members in the Select Committee came to agreement over certain recommendations. And it was the Government itself, in the course of events which developed after the publication of the Select Committee's deliberations, which sought further information and made a more detailed appraisal of the situation. And it came to the conclusion that certain changes were necessary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, speaking for myself, I rather got the impression, after having read the Report of the Select Committee that the Government had not given in to the representations made by the pawnbrokers to the Select Committee, that the Government had already made up its mind on one per cent rate of interest per month, and that they were not going to be influenced one way or the other by any argument advanced by anybody in Select Committee. What impressed me was that as the pawnbrokers borrowed at 10.8 or 12 per cent rate of interest per annum, they could hardly be expected to lend at 12 per cent. It would appear from what the Hon, the Minister for Finance has said that the pawnbrokers are, in fact, performing a function which in other countries is either performed by State banks or by the Government itself. It is also an undisputed fact that a greater proportion of the money lent out by the pawnbrokers to small borrowers come from the investing public. If, Mr Speaker, Sir, Government is really keen and sincere in making available to the public this form of service, then I think that they should try to set the mind of the investor at rest. I am not saying that the Minister for Home Affairs is not going to exercise the power given to him in the best interest of the State, but what I am telling the Government is that the main objective should be to create an atmosphere of confidence for the investor. If an investor who invests his money in January, 1960, cannot confidently expect to get 12 per cent interest at the end of the next six months, then he is not going to lend. If a potential investor had this at the back of his mind, "Well, tomorrow the Minister might by an order vary the rate of interest in so far as the pawnbroker is concerned from 18 per cent - or whatever it may be - to 10 or 12 per cent: naturally this is going to affect me and, therefore, the pawnbroker will not be able to pay me the interest which he now says he will pay." then he would Thiok twice and, having thought twice, he might not go to the pawnbroker with his money for investment, thereby depriving the poor man of this service. The Government says that this service is now being provided by the pawnbroker and that if it is not going to be provided, then either a State bank or the Government itself would have to provide it.

Mr Speaker. Sir, the question is rather more complex than what the Member for Farrer Park has set out. These people are not the investing public in the sense that one would think they are if one reads the commercial page of the Straits Times. These people comprise domestic servants, small shop-keepers, vernacular school teachers perhaps with small savings of up to $5,000, and the wives and widows of this class of people, and they have for quite some time regarded this range of activities as a sort of normal means of investment. The pawnshop is one of them. Pawnbroking is fairly lucrative but rather risky and speculative, because the pawnshop might pack up. Only some years ago, pawnshops have packed up and that increases the rate of interest below which these people are not willing to lend their money. Then there are other things. Goldsmiths too borrow money from these people at fairly high rates of interest. The greater the risk, the higher the rate of interest charged. Therefore, the question of inducing a supply of capital from these people is not something that could be decided just by one act of legislation. The whole problem is one of bringing home to these people the fact that there are other avenues for investment. There are the stock market equities, Government loan market, property market, and so forth, which it is true may yield lower returns but which, in the long run, taking into account the risks involved, are more to be preferred than speculative ventures such as they have been accustomed to. So I cannot agree with the Member for Farrer Park that the fixing of the rate of interest once and for all would increase the confidence of this class of investors in the supply of capital to pawnshops.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, concerning this Bill which was considered by the Select Committee, the Opposition Members who sat on that Select Committee gave their support to the principle of the non-exploitation of the poor people by the capitalists. In the course of the deliberations of the Select Committee, we understood, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there was a threat by the pawnbrokers to close down their business because of the proposed reduc tion in the rate of interest from two per cent to one per cent per month. Sir, the Opposition Members on the Select Committee expressed the view that if this threat should materialise, then it would be the responsibility of the Government to undertake the running of the pawnbroking business themselves or to devise some ways or means whereby the greater proportion of the people who patronise these pawnshops could borrow money. But what is most astonishing today is the Government's proposed amendment to the Bill. The Government has said that it cannot be pushed from pillar to post, but I am afraid the inconsistent stand adopted by it on this issue would appear to mean that it is not prepared to fight for the masses but that it is prepared to kowtow to the threats of the capitalists. As a Member of the Opposition has said, this matter was not gone through in a thorough manner. The Minister himself has said that members of the P.A.P. did not know much about the pawnbroking business as regards the supply of capital. But it should be the responsibility of the Government to look after the affairs of the poor people of Singapore and it should be the duty of the Government to go thoroughly into this Bill before embarking upon certain steps. This is another example where the Government has embarked upon a certain scheme and cause suffering to the poor people, some of whom depend on the pawnbrokers for loans. I would like to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Bill will not only affect the Malays, but also the people of other races comprising trishaw riders, hawkers, and so on. Whenever they are in difficulty, they have nowhere else to borrow money from, except the pawnshops. During Han Raya Puasa (Malay fasting day), some Malays faced hardship because of the steps taken by the pawnshops which refused to accept pledges, and some of them had to go over to Johore Bahru to pawn their pledges. This is an example of how unwise the Government has been in taking such a hasty step to the detriment of the people of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on this amendment, the Opposition has charged that the Government has been driven from pillar to post. Far from it. We have proved that we can be very firm and yet reasonable. In deleting clause 5, we are taking a realistic view. 3.30 p.m. It is quite impossible to legislate at one per cent when economic and trading conditions vary from time to time. From the evidence taken in Select Committee, it is evident that much of the capital that is being employed by these pawnbrokers is borrowed capital. It also goes to show that they do not have sufficient capital to operate this pawnbroking business. Therefore, much of their income goes out to pay high dividends to these small-time investors. If they could rally sufficient capital of their own to operate the pawnbroking business, I am sure they will be able to operate at one per cent. If co-operative societies in this country can operate at one per cent and pay dividends to their members at the rate of 3 to 5 per cent per year, I see no reason why pawnshops in this country which operate on a larger scale will not be able to operate at one per cent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the matter is confusing enough without the Government trying to confuse us further. The Minister for Finance accuses me of having taken the proceedings of the Select Committee very lightly. I do not see any reason why, because the Minister for Home Affairs, or the Government, and the Opposition walked out of that Select Committee with the same opinion, we should stand firm by our decision. If the Minister means that the present gesture of Government to negative clause 5, which we have decided upon in Select Committee, is the result of the Government's extra energy or extra attention in the Select Committee, then that, of course, cannot be proved because when Government walked out, it had the same opinion as the Opposition. The other confusing point is this: if Government is going to negative the clause because it paid more attention in Select Committee than the Opposition, it means that the representations from the pawnbrokers in Select Committee were more effective to Government than they could have been to the Opposition. But Government claims that the pawnbrokers did not make out a good case. If they did not make out a good case, then why is Government going to negative clause 5 today? Sir, this is all very confusing. On the one hand, Government says that the pawnbrokers did not make out a good case but, on the other hand, it is Government who is giving in to them.

Just a short rejoinder, Mr Speaker, Sir. When I said that the Member for Mountbatten had taken her duties in Select Committee rather lightly, perhaps I should have qualified my remark that it was based on the assumption - and I think a correct assumption - that since the Government is on the side of the workers, the Opposition is on the side of the business interests. Therefore, when we hear the Opposition Members of the Select Committee saying, "One per cent is all right", well what do you expect the Government to do? The second point which she made - I was just about to jot it down when she concluded, and I am afraid I have to leave my remarks at this stage.

The Minister can possibly read it in the Hansard. Would the Minister for Home Affairs like to reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the criticisms raised by the Opposition have been ably answered by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance, and I do not wish at this stage to confuse the Opposition further. But I wish to say that the Government's intention to help the poor has not deviated. In fact, this is the underlying factor in many of the Bills that the Government has introduced. If the Opposition Members had listened carefully to my speech just now, they would have been aware that the moment the Bill becomes law, it is the intention of the Government to reduce the rate of interest from 2 per cent to 1½ per cent in the first instance. In dealing with this matter, the Government has to take into consideration the position of the fluctuating money market. But the intention of the Government to help the poor still stands.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Third Reading read. 3.39 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." The Bill has been considered in detail in the Select Committee, and I do not intend to bother the Members any further.

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

Order for Third Reading read. 3.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Sir, the Report of the Select Committee on the Societies (Amendment) Bill has been published and is in the hands of Members of the Assembly. It will be observed that considerable interest was evinced in the Bill and quite a number of oral and written representations were made on the Bill by individuals, parties and associations with various shades of opinion. The Report shows that in the final reprint of the Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, the Government has not acted in a dictatorial manner or shown itself to be indifferent to the views expressed and suggestions made by Members of the Opposition and public bodies and associations. On the contrary, the Government has given very careful consideration to the views submitted and objections raised and, as can be seen in the Report, has accepted and incorporated in the final Bill a number of the points raised. I will cite some of the principal changes which are worthy of note and which are indicative of the Government's considerate attitude in the deliberations of this Bill. The Government had already stated that there was no ulterior motive in requiring political associations to register. But in order to allay any fear still further, the Government has agreed, in clause 5 of the Bill, that the Registrar shall not have the power to call for the minutes of any meeting of a political association or ask for a list of members of political associations. In order to remove all doubt, clause 4 now makes it clear that previously excluded societies, like a Lodge of Freemasons or political associations, would also be given a year's time, like exempted societies, to register under the Ordinance. Clause 7 now gives a person the right to appeal to the Minister against the refusal of the Registrar to consent to the change of place of business of a society. This followed representations made that the Registrar may unreasonably withhold his permission. In clause 8, the words "place of meeting" have been deleted, in view of representations made of the difficulty in notifying the Registrar every time a place of meeting is to be changed. In view of various representations made in respect of clause 11 in the original Bill, this clause has been negatived and substituted by a new clause 14 which meets some of the points raised in these representations. The former clause 11 gave rise to misunderstanding of the Government's intentions, which has now been dispelled by the new clause. Under clause 14 only ex-office bearers of dissolved societies are made guilty of an offence under the Ordinance it they become office-bearers of another society without the written permission of the Minister within three years of the date of the previously dissolved society. Finally, clauses 15 and 16 introduce Government's amendments to sections 18 and 19 of the Ordinance to provide for additional effective control and supervision of shady societies by the Registrar, or suspected by him of indulging in moral abuses, by enabling him to authorise the Police to investigate and report on them. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Third Reading read. 3.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." The report itself is very voluminous, Mr Speaker, Sir, extending to 168 pages and 1,301 questions and answers. I do not propose to add to the difficulties of the Member for Mountbatten by trying to say anything further on this report this afternoon. Question proposed. 3.47 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was one of the Members of the Select Committee. When the Muslims (Amendment) Bill was discussed, many questions concerning payment to the kathi were asked by various sections of society. According to the directive issued by the Minister, the kathi is empowered by the Shariah Court to charge a fee of $30 if the marriage is held in the house of the bride or the bridegroom, and $15 if it is held in the house of the kathi. But, Mr Speaker, unfortunately, there are many kathis in Singapore who do not make proper assessments because, according to the rules, $15 and $30 are the maximum amounts, which means that a lesser amount could be paid, but some of the kathis in Singapore demand the full payment, that is, $30 or $15 as the case may be. This is a serious matter from the point of view of Malay opinion in Singapore, and I hope the Minister concerned will give consideration, if possible, to amend the rules of the Shariah Court. 3.49 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have noted what the Member for Geylang Serai has said about the need to have a second look at the fees that are paid to the kathis in respect of the solemnization of Muslim marriages, either at the homes of the parties or at the kathi's residence. I can assure him that the Government will be prepared to have a second look at these rules.

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

Order for Third Reading read. 3.50 p.m.

Notices have been given by the Member for Tanglin that he wishes to propose amendments to clauses 2 and 45 of the Bill and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour and Law that he wishes to propose an amendment to clause 47. The Bill accordingly stands re-committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly in respect of clauses 2, 45 and 47 thereof. Any other Member who wishes to propose other amendments or new clauses or schedules may now give notice of his desire. No other Member giving notice -

Committee Stage, what day?

Now, Sir.

Notices of amendments have been given. The Assembly will, therefore, immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill. Bill considered in Committee.

3.51 p.m. Clause 2-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page A1, line 17 to line 1 in page A2, to leave out "either as the principal object or as an ancillary object" and insert "as the sole or principal object". Sir, I am sure it is not the intention of the Government that this legislation should cause inconvenience to more people than is necessary. Sir, the definition of "mutual benefit organisation" is so wide in its scope that many organisations which should not be registered will have to apply for registration or be declared illegal. The purpose of my amendment, Sir, is to limit the scope so that those which should not register need not register. Sir, the definition, as it stands, makes no difference between mutual benefit organisations which have that aim as its principal or main object, and those whose main object is something else but which have, as a subordinate or ancillary function, the giving of some mutual benefit. Sir, in page A2, clause 2 (c) opens the door very wide indeed. It reads: "the relief or maintenance of the members or subscribers when unemployed or when in distressed circumstances;". Sir, if the staff of a business firm feel that they want to help the widow and the fatherless children of a colleague of theirs who has died, and they pass the hat round, I believe they may immediately be regarded as coming under this provision, because they are providing relief or maintenance of the members or subscribers when unemployed or when in distressed circumstances. Supposing in a school the teachers subscribed money to aid members of their staff and the boys subscribed money to aid the members of their class, would that come under this provision? Supposing in the case of a religious organisation, where they have a small section to aid the poor members, would they then have to register twice? I believe they have to. In the case of other religious organisations like the Buddhist temples, if they have a small section devoted to helping their members, I believe they will come under this provision. Sir, the purpose stated by the Government in introducing this Bill is that a good many persons have taken advantage of mutual benefit organisations to get up their own spurious organisations in order to swindle the public. We agree with that purpose. It is a very desirable object. But surely in order to achieve that objective, it could be so done that not too much inconvenience and not too many difficulties are caused to honest and charitable people who would then be discouraged by the requirements of having to revise their rules, to invest funds in certain trustee securities and postal savings bank, where they draw less interest than elsewhere, having to employ an auditor and having to employ a book-keeper to draw up a statement of accounts every year. Surely some of these could be excluded by limiting the definition to such organisations as have mutual benefit as their sole or principal object, and not as an ancillary object. Supposing, Sir, they all apply, they fill in the forms and they write to the Registrar of Societies. We wonder whether the Registrar or his assistant will have the time to study all these documents. Very likely after all the trouble taken by so many people, the documents will just pile up and the Registrar will wait for complaints before he goes into an investigation of the various societies. If that is the case, why not wait until the complaints come and, in the meantime, make the gate narrower so that those, which apply, are in such numbers that the documents can be handled by the staff of the Registrar of Societies. Otherwise, it is imposing unnecessary difficulties, like the old-fashioned method where the teacher says to a boy, "All right, write a thousand lines", when we know very well that the teacher will not go through the thousand lines.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it looks very much as if the Member for Tanglin is even more confused than the Member for Mountbatten on the matter of mutual aid organisations. Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this Bill is to bring under control organisations, which receive subscriptions or donations from their members in return for future benefits. That is the purpose of this Bill. It will never cover those cases, which he has just imagined; say, somebody suddenly gets ill in the Anglo-Chinese School and they pass the hat round. Surely that is not a mutual aid organisation. If you will look at the definition of "subscription" - these associations always collect subscriptions - you will see what the word means: '"subscription" means a subscription paid by a member or subscriber to a mutual benefit organisation'- that is, the payment of the subscriptions must be to a mutual aid organisation. So there must be an organisation. It must have members in it. They must pay subscriptions or make donations. That is the sort of thing that we have in mind. 4.00 p.m. There is need of a definition for mutual aid. Everyone must know exactly what it is. There are many organisations, which say they have principal objects, which do not concern mutual aid activities, but have nevertheless ancillary activities, which cover mutual aid activities. The net must be enlarged to catch all these organisations. If there is to be a definition of a mutual benefit organisation, it must be a comprehensive one. This definition must be looked at also in relation to clause 45. In clause 45, it is provided that contributions made to a life assurance company or co-operative societies or trade unions will be excluded from the operation of this Ordinance. In all other cases where their primary object does not concern mutual benefit activities, they nevertheless must register under the Ordinance; otherwise, there would be no means of introducing an effective control over such organisations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my school may be peculiar and although we do not have what is known as a mutual benefit organisation, we have a teachers' society where the members subscribe regularly. If somebody is in need, the members may decide to vote money. Would they come under this? An hon. Member: It is an illegal society.

Then it becomes illegal. That is the point, Sir. Reference has been made to clause 45. Both of them are related really. I wonder if it will be proper for me to debate on clause 45 as well, Sir?

It might be convenient to touch on that amendment as well, so that when we do come to clause 45, there can just be a formal motion before the House.

Sir, at the Select Committee meetings two ways were suggested by which the number of societies affected could be reduced. One was by narrowing the gate and letting a smaller number come in to register. The other was to make the gate as wide as possible, and when they come in, the Minister would be given the power to exempt as many categories as he thought should be exempted. The categories mentioned as being deserving of exemption were insurance companies and bona tide voluntary charitable and religious organisations. The words "bona fide" were purposely inserted because we all desire that spurious organisations should not be registered. But what did we find, Sir? When the Bill, as amended, came before the Select Committee for adoption, we found that the Government had decided to exempt insurance companies - that is all right - trade unions - we do not mind that - co- operative societies - we do not mind that either - and exclude bona fide voluntary charitable and religious organisations. Sir, although the Government might not have realised it, the implication is bad. It means that of those bona fide societies which could be exempted, the Government has decided that in addition to insurance companies, only the co-operative societies and the trade unions will be included. What about the others? Does it mean that they are not to be trusted? Does it mean that their standard of honesty is not as high as that of the trade unions and co-operative societies? Surely, we know there are good elements and bad elements in all spheres of life and in all organisations. If we decide to exempt, say, trade unions and co-operative societies, then by all means exempt also bona fide voluntary charitable and religious organisations. If you do not wish to exempt bona fide voluntary charitable and religious organisations, then why exempt trade unions and co-operative societies? I wonder if the Government fully realises the wrong impression that might go around. That this Government does not like religious societies and voluntary and charitable organisations. I therefore ask the Government to reconsider the question. We went further into this and the impression, which the representors and Members of the Opposition got in the Select Committee was that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour and Law was quite convinced, like ourselves, that the suggestion was reasonable. But, of course, he knew that he was not the one to make the final decision. I would like to read to the House from the Report of the Select Committee on the Mutual Benefit Organisations Bill, page C85, questions Nos. 831 and 833: "Mr Wee Toon Boon 831. Mr Speaker, you have taken some considerable time to point out what actually the representor has in mind. It appears to me that what he has in mind is that those institutions such as medical benefit societies or financial companies or those run on a commercial basis should be registered. Is that Mr Rayner's opinion?". Mr Rayner's reply was: "That is so.". Mr Wee Toon Boon speaking again: "Mr Speaker, just now Mr Rayner also said that not all religious organisations were bona fide organisations, if we were to accept the proposal that there should be provision for the exemption of certain organisations, would he agree that provision should also be made to check those organisations which had been exempted from registration under the Bill?". We jump, Sir, to question 833 - you are speaking here, Sir: "Anyway, the principle which the Parliamentary Secretary has in mind is accepted by you (addressed to Mr Rayner), the principle being that if you are to exempt, there must be power in some way, either in the Bill or some other Ordinance, to look into the affairs of those organisations exempted?" Mr Rayner's reply was: "I entirely agree, Sir.". Mr Wee Toon Boon asked: "Mr Speaker, could the witness suggest what sort of check we could put on the management of exempted institutions?". You said, Sir: "That is what Mr Rayner has explained? -In the first place, they will probably be registered under the Societies Ordinance. That is your first check. Should there be a whisper of any abuses, the Registrar of Societies will call them up immediately under his powers, If the Registrar of Societies finds that they are abusing their powers, he will no doubt communicate with the Registrar under this Bill.". Sir, we ask, as a compromise, a partial and not even complete exemption for bona fide voluntary charitable and religious organisations. Full exemption is being given to trade unions, cooperative societies and insurance companies. For voluntary charitable and religious organisations of the bona fide type, we ask only for a partial exemption. After they have applied for exemption and the Government, after investigation, has considered that certain organisations are bona fide, then these organisations should be exempted. I am sure, Sir, that in order not to give an impression that there is discrimination, this concession could be given.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have given considerable thought to this Bill and we find it necessary to take powers to control all such organisations, whether their primary objects are matters which concern mutual benefit activities or not. That is very essential to a proper scheme of control. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Tanglin has overlooked the provisions of clause 15. If I may invite him now to take a second look at this clause. There it is provided that "a registered organisation shall not be affected by the provisions of the Societies Ordinance, if no activities are carried on by it other than those of a mutual benefit organisation." If it is purely a mutual benefit organisation, then it need only register under this Ordinance. But if such an organisation intends to function as a society as well, then it would be necessary for it to be registered under the Societies Ordinance. At present, the whole position is very confused because mutual aid organisations and societies all appear on the same register. That has facilitated considerable fraud in the setting-up of these organisations. I will refer the Member for Tanglin to clause 46 of this Bill. The distinction is made there between the honest type of mutual aid organisation registered under the Societies Ordinance, and the dishonest type of association, which has hitherto been acting fraudulently. In the case of those associations which run these mutual benefit schemes and which are registered under the Business Names Ordinance, they would be required to register under this Bill within a period of three months. In the case of the reputable type of organisations, which are all registered under the Societies Ordinance, they have a period of one year in which to register. That means to say, if they find that they are, in fact, nothing more or less than mutual aid organisations, then within a year they must register under this Bill. Now, if they are mutual aid organisations and also function as societies, they will have to register themselves under the Societies Ordinance as well as under this Bill. That is what we have tried to do in this Bill. We have excluded life insurance companies, those co- operative societies, which run benefit schemes, as well as those trade unions, which also run mutual benefit schemes, from the provisions of this Bill. Now in the case of the association of teachers, which the Member for Tanglin is very interested in, if it has a mutual benefit scheme, then all that it has to do is to register within one year after this Bill. If it is already registered under the Societies Ordinance, this registration will continue. So there should be no difficulty whatsoever, Sir.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I am sorry if I gave the impression that, I was fighting for those organisations, which have, as their main object, the running of a mutual benefit scheme. I was not. I was pleading, as the representor, Mr Rayner, had pleaded before the Select Committee, for those who are already registrable under the Societies Ordinance and whose activities are not of the mutual benefit society kind to be exempted. For instance, a religious organisation has the worship of God as its main object. Then, as an ancillary object, it has a benevolent section. Now, such an organisation, I believe, must register a second time. 4.15 p.m. In the case of Chinese temples which operate mutual benefit schemes on a big scale as the principal object, they should be registered. We are not asking that such temples be exempted. But in the case of other organisations where the benevolent section is an ancillary object, they should be put on an equal footing with that of the trade unions and cooperative societies.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendment moved by the Member for Tanglin. I understand that the object of the Government is to control undesirable organisations for our own benefit. I believe that the purpose of this Bill is to abolish secret societies, which run illegal benefit schemes for their members. No one can oppose these objects. But I fear, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the extent to which the Government is attempting to control these illegal activities will cause considerable hardship and difficulties to innocent and honest citizens. From the explanations given by the Minister for Labour and Law in reply to the questions raised by Members of the Opposition, I am not confident that religious organisations will receive exemption from registration. In the past, the majority of these religious organisations were exempted from registration and, as I have said, the object of these organisations is primarily to assist and look after the welfare of the members. The form of the assistance is varied and wide in scope. In difficult circumstances, these organisations come to the aid of their members. Mr Speaker, Sir, if these organisations have to be registered, I am afraid that they will not have the means to do so, unlike other organisations. Some of the members of these mutual benefit organisations are aged people. Some of them go to mosques (surau); they are not active and they are very poor. It is difficult for them to comply with the provisions of the law, as they cannot actively participate in the running of their organisations. It is possible that they may even be afraid of becoming members of such organisations, and this will lead them to believe that they have no freedom to practise their own religion. For these reasons, the Opposition Members are pressing for the amendment moved and we hope that the Government will look thoroughly into this matter. As the Government has reconsidered its attitude towards the Pawnbrokers (Amendment) Bill, I hope that the Minister for Labour and Law will give special consideration to this amendment in the interest of the welfare of the people of Singapore. Perhaps the Government will put forward an excuse saying that such religious organisations did not put up representations to the Select Committee. In the Report of the Select Committee on the Mutual Benefit Organisations Bill, it appears that the Buddhist temples sent a representative who was completely in the dark about the functions of Buddhist temples. Similarly, the members of other religious organisations who are old people do not know the provisions of the law, and I am afraid that the freedom of the people to engage in religious activities will be restricted. I have no doubt that it is not the intention of the Government to restrict religious activities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it was pointed out in the Select Committee by a learned lawyer, Mr L. Rayner, that in his opinion it would be undesirable and dangerous if the definition of "mutual aid organisation" were to be narrowed down. I remember the witness telling us how well versed he was to get round awkward portions of legislation. If the definition were narrowed down, many organisations which would be caught by this Bill would escape registration, and this would defeat the very purpose which this Bill is trying to implement When this Bill is implemented, certain bona fide voluntary charitable and religious organisations would also be affected. The argument put forward by the Member for Tanglin is that registration of these bona fide voluntary charitable and religious organisations would cause immense difficulties and hardship. We on this side of the House do appreciate the additional work that is required to be done to comply with the provisions of the Bill, but we do not believe that this additional work would discourage these organisations from continuing to do the good work they have been doing. These organisations have gone through more difficult times, and I am sure the additional work would not deter them from continuing to do their good work. After all, it is agreed that this Bill is a good one. There is a need to control and register mutual aid organisations. It is accepted that such bona fide voluntary charitable and religious organisations are very few in number, and they are either registered or exempted societies. If provision is made in this Bill for exemption for this type of organisation, it would also open the door and give opportunity to others not so bona fide organisations to seek exemption. There were about 110 cooperative societies, 150 trade unions, 1,024 exempted and 1,027 registered societies at the end of 1959. There can be no justification in involving the Government in additional expenditure to recruit additional staff for the work when it is accepted that perhaps only a very few would get exemption.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek clarification on this clause from the Hon. the Minister for Labour and Law, because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development - who is of the same religion as mine - is not with us this afternoon. And I hope the other Members will follow what I have to say. Mr Speaker, we have just approved the Muslims (Amendment) Bill. I would like to support my colleague, the Member for the Southern Islands, on the question of the welfare of mutual benefit organisations which have been registered according to the existing law or those organisations which are to be registered. 4.30 p.m. So the big problem which I think the Minister for Labour and Law can clarify is the position of the suraus and the mosques, the majority of which are administered by the kampong folks themselves. I would like to ask the Minister for Labour and Law this question: is it the policy that the special privileges of the Malays, which include their religion, will be implemented? If so, they can go further in the matter of the upkeep of the suraus and mosques. Could they be exempted for a certain time to avoid corruption which all of us know? I agree that we should control their financial affairs, because it is found that there are many people who exploit such organisations. So what I think is important, Mr Speaker, is the position of the suraus and the mosques, the majority of which are being managed and assisted by the kampong folks who themselves are not members of any organisation at all. So this is a big and serious question to me and maybe to my colleagues also, and in order to overcome this will the Minister for Labour and Law put into effect certain rules such as bait-ul-mal in order to upkeep the suraus or mosques? Because this is included in the Muslims (Amendment) Bill which we have discussed, but nothing can be done Singapore because we know that the laws of Singapore are not based on Islamic law and we know that we are prepared to face realities today. Therefore, as to what kind of action will be taken by the Muslim Advisory Board on the problems which I have raised and whether such representations have been brought to the notice of the Minister or not, I do not know, but I think it is most important to uphold one of the religious precepts of Islam.

Mr Speaker, Sir, some of us can be very grateful to the Almighty that we were never born stupid. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has got nothing to do with suraus and masjids. No surau or masjid will ever be required to register under this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanglin was talking about a religious society or a society that is formed to worship God. Well, so be it. Form a society to worship God. But if you collect subscriptions and run a benefit scheme for members of that society, then we require it to be registered under this Bill. That is the right thing to do. One must realise that there has been a lot if fiddling about with such funds, which properly belong to the persons who contribute to these organisations. We are trying to do the right thing for the people of Singapore and to see that these associations are brought under proper control. I referred this House just now to clause 46 of this Bill. We show the distinction there between the fraudulent type of organisation and the honest organisation. The fraudulent type of organisation is able at present to produce a certificate of registration under the Business Names Ordinance to claim that that is its authority to defraud the public. We say to such organisations, "You must register within three months and you must comply with the rules that are laid down in this Ordinance. Otherwise you are an unlawful organisation." There are also fortunately hundreds of the good type of mutual aid organisations. They are really first-class mutual benefit organisations. They have a real history and tradition of their own. Now they would, within one year, have to register under the Mutual Benefit Organisations Ordinance if they have benefit schemes. They will also have to register under other Ordinances if their activities are more than mutual aid. If they are, in fact, societies and are registered as such, they will then continue to be on the register of societies as societies. That is what we are trying to do. We are not harassing religious bodies or trying to put charitable organisations out of business. We are trying to be reasonable. We want to see that there is effective control over the activities of these organisations, and that is why we have introduced this legislation. This is not something new. The provisions of the Bill are founded on the Friendly Societies enactment in England, which has a long history behind it. We are not trying to introduce new legislation to harass or to make it difficult for the law abiding people of Singapore, or for that matter religious organisations or those who are associated with charitable organisations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to answer the Member for River Valley first. I think he read only part of Mr Leslie Rayner's statement. May I quote from Question 798? Mr Rayner said: "It is a good thing to have the definition as wide as possible, leaving the power to exempt with the Registrar, with an appeal to the Minister." Sir, he made the suggestion. All right, make the definition and then you exempt. Sir, the Government accepted that suggestion apparently, the definition was made wide, and the Government then proceeded to exempt certain categories and to leave out certain categories. Sir, our point, and that of Mr Leslie Rayner's, was that if the Government agree to exempt, why not exempt the honest type, as the Minister for Labour and Law has said - the type that is doing good work? Why does the Government not also exempt them as it has exempted the trade unions and the cooperatives? I am only asking for the same thing.

For the simple reason that trade unions and co-operatives come under special trade union Ordinances and certain co-operative Ordinances. They are already under control. If the Member for Tanglin wants to produce a Bill for the control of his churches and Methodist missions which run the Anglo-Chinese School, by all means. Then we will exempt them from these mutual aid provisions. Have the controls under the Anglo-Chinese School Ordinance then.

The only amendment which has been proposed is to clause 2. But might I remind hon. Members that we are also discussing the amendment to clause 45 which is in the name of the Member for Tanglin? When this discussion ends, there will be no further discussion on the amendment, which is proposed to clause 45.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask whether in the case of religious organisations they are to be registered under the Societies Ordinance? If they are, then they have to register twice if they have a benevolent section.

Sir, the point that I made for the benefit of the Member for Tanglin is this: that there are special legislations to control the books and the finances of trade unions and cooperatives. There is no legislation in the Societies Ordinance to control the accounts and the finances of any society. If you will remember, when we made amendments to the Societies Ordinance recently, the Registrar will not even be able to call for certain thing if they happen to belong to political associations. Under the Societies Ordinance, there is no power to look into the books and the accounts. Under the trade union laws and the laws of co-operative societies, there is power to do so. There are no laws at present for the registration, control and scrutiny of the accounts of any religious body or it religious order. Mr Wee Toon Boon rose -

Probably the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to correct a misunderstanding, and I think I know what the misunderstanding is. Mr Wee.

Mr Speaker Sir, the point raised by the Member for Tanglin has been replied by the Minister and the Prime Minister. I would like to say this about his wrong impression of my attitude in the Select Committee. The Member for Tanglin is so simpleminded that he has overlooked the fact that the main purpose of hearing evidence in the Select Committee is to find out what constructive ideas the witnesses can tender to the Committee. And it is up to the Committee to decide whether to accept their ideas or not. Amendment negatived. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 45-

Will the Member for Tanglin move his amendment formally?

Sir, I beg to move, In page A17, line 16, after "1960", to insert ", or to such bona fide voluntary charitable and religious organisations as may be exempted by the Minister after investigation". Amendment negatived. Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 47-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page A18, line 18, at end, to add - Shall I read the amendment*, Sir? * The amendment reads as follows: In page A18, line 18, at end, to add- "(3) All rules made under this section shall be published in the Gazette and shall be presented to the Legislative Assembly as soon as may be after publication and if a resolution is passed pursuant to a motion notice whereof has been given for a sitting day not later than the first available sitting day 01 the Assembly next after the expiry of three months from the date when such rules are so presented annulling the rules or any part thereof as from a specified date, such rules or such part thereof as the case may be shall thereupon become void as from such date but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new rules.".

If the paragraph sets out the terms of the amendment correctly, then the Parliamentary Secretary need not read it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of the amendment is to give the Assembly the power to approve any regulation that is to be made under this section. 4.45 p.m.

I do not know whether the amendment is correctly reproduced here. It only provides for the annulling of rules, not variation. Is that confirmed? It is a question of annulling, not variation?

Yes. Amendment agreed to. Clause 47, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill Bill reported, with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

4.47 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), resolves that the Federal Land Development Authority and the Local Land Development Boards and Corporations, set up under the Federation Land Development Ordinance of 1956, be added to the First Schedule to the said Ordinance with effect from the first day of January, 1959. 4.48 p.m.

Section 106 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance gives power to the Legislative Assembly, by resolution, to add to, vary or revoke the whole or any part of any Schedule to the Ordinance. The First Schedule to the Ordinance specifies the institutions, authorities, persons or funds whose income is exempted from income tax under section 13 (1) (e) of the Ordinance. The Federation Government is now seeking to include its Federal Land Development Authority, established under the Federal Land Development Ordinance, No. 20 of 1956 of the Federation of Malaya, in the First Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance and so exempting its income from income tax. With regard to Local Land Development Boards and Corporations, Part III and Part IV of the Federation Land Development Ordinance provide for their establishment to further the main objects of the Ordinance. These Boards and Corporations will themselves have funds which may produce an investment income before the money is fully absorbed in development schemes. The money, which the Federal Land Authority has invested and the Land Development Boards and Corporations may invest in Singapore, is in fact Federation Government money employed temporarily to earn interest until needed. As such, it is justifiable to exempt from income tax the interest from these investments, on the general principle that Governments do not seek to tax each other. In this connection, I may point out that the Governments of Singapore and the Federation appear respectively in the First Schedules of the Federation and Singapore Income Tax Ordinances. The Comptroller-General of Income Tax, Malaya, and the Malayan Board of Income Tax have recommended that the Federal Land Development Authority and its Boards and Corporations be included in the First Schedule and the Government has accepted the recommendation of the Board. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), resolves that the Federal Land Development Authority and the Local Land Development Boards and Corporations, set up under the Federation Land Development Ordinance of 1956, be added to the First Schedule to the said Ordinance with effect from the first day of January, 1959.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.50 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Because of accidents of history and by virtue of its geographical position there exists in Singapore a large number of immigrant population. Since they have been denied a stake in the State, and as a result of the neglect and the short-sighted policy of the colonial rulers in the past, this large number of immigrant population has always orientated their political thinking and outlook towards the countries of their birth. They live in a world all by themselves and their ways of living and attitude of mind have in no way been identified with the country and its people. The introduction of the citizenship law in 1957 has undoubtedly given many of the immigrant population a stake in the country, and to date more than 400,000 people have obtained Singapore citizenship. Nevertheless, it would be foolish for us if we think that all these 400,000 new citizens have identified themselves completely with the political aspirations of the people of this country. A large number of new citizens have taken advantage of the very liberal citizenship law to obtain citizenship for the sake of convenience in order to enjoy rights and privileges of citizenship, such as employment, public assistance and other social services, with little obligation on their part. However, this position cannot be maintained for an indefinite period of time, particularly at this critical stage of nation building. The continued increase in the number of unassimilated new citizens, whose loyalty lies elsewhere or who have not shown by words or actions to be likely to identify themselves with the destiny of the country, cannot be tolerated. The possession of dual citizenship, the ease with which a citizen of the U.K. and Colonies and those born in the Federation can obtain citizenship must cease, particularly at this time when the Government is also facing the terrible problem of finding employment for its large number of unemployed citizens. The purpose of this Bill, therefore, is to confine citizenship rights to those who have demonstrated their undivided loyalty to the State and intention to reside here permanently, and to debar those who seek to obtain citizenship for reasons of convenience or expediency thereby hoping to enjoy the best of two worlds. Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, which by virtue of this Bill will be deemed to have come into operation with effect from 6th April, 1960, the date this Bill was introduced in this Assembly, have been drafted to provide for a more effective test of loyalty, for the opportunity to make a genuine declaration of real regard for this country, and for the chance to identify oneself in common unity with the people of Singapore. Clause 2 now provides that the period of residence required in Singapore before a citizen of the U.K. and Colonies, or of the Republic of Ireland, or a Commonwealth citizen, or a person born in the Federation, can become a citizen of Singapore by registration is not less than 8 years out of the 12 years preceding the date of the application. Previously, the period was two years for a citizen of the U.K. and Colonies, a citizen of India and a person born in the Federation and 8 years for other Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Republic of Ireland. A common eight-year period is now made applicable to all these categories of persons. An eight-year period would enable a person to demonstrate more tangibly and genuinely an intention of permanent residence and regard for Singapore. The former two-year period is often in actual fact less than two years, since absences for less than six months are counted as residence. This increased period for application by registration will bring our legislation into line with the citizenship laws in the Federation. As the Explanatory Statement states, the Minister shall have a discretion to accept applications by registration other than those from persons born in the Federation. Except also in the case of persons born in the Federation of Malaya, applicants for Singapore citizenship by way of registration will also be required, like those applying for citizenship by way of naturalisation, to make a declaration of intention to reside permanently in Singapore. When this Bill comes into operation, the Citizenship Rules will be amended to provide for two recommenders, who must be Singapore citizens, in support of such applications. This provision already exists in the case of application by way of naturalisation and could help the Minister to ascertain whether the applicant intends to reside here permanently or not. In clause 3, the period of residence required in Singapore before a person can become a citizen of Singapore by way of naturalisation is increased from 8 years to 10 years out of the preceding 12 years of the application. This is also in line with the citizenship laws of the Federation. This ten-year period is a more effective test of loyalty and regard for this country especially for those who originally came from foreign countries as defined in the Ordinance. They have much to benefit here by becoming citizens, and a further increase of two years in the period of residence is not unreasonable. Furthermore, in order to inculcate a sense of Malayan consciousness and a sense of belonging in future would-be applicants, it is now provided that with effect from 1st January 1961, an applicant for naturalisation shall satisfy the Minister that he has an elementary knowledge of the Malay language, unless he is over 45 years of age. It is not the intention that the standard of the test will be such that the majority of the applicants will find it difficult to pass it. Those who have been residing here for a number of years and can speak some Malay should experience little difficulty in passing the test. In clause 4 as it stands in the Bill, the intention is to enable the Minister to terminate by way of declaration the citizenship of a person who has after 6th April, 1960, acquired the citizenship or nationality of a country outside Malaya, or who has voluntarily claimed and exercised the rights of a citizen or national of a foreign country. But at the Committee stage of the Bill, I propose to introduce an amendment to clause 4 to provide that in so far as claiming and exercising rights are concerned, a person who voluntarily claimed and exercised any rights of a foreign country accorded exclusively to citizens or nationals of that foreign country shall, by virtue of such action, cease to be a citizen of Singapore. In clause 4 as it stands, provision is also being made to the effect that citizens of the U.K. and Colonies or of the Republic of Ireland and Commonwealth citizens, who are also citizens of Singapore and who exercise rights of any country outside Singapore and the Federation of Malaya for the time being included in section 3 (1) of the British Nationality Act, 1948, not being rights available to all Commonwealth citizens, might be deprived of their Singapore citizenship. In this respect, Singapore is following the Federation's practice in the matter, and, like the Federation, is not insisting on such citizens renouncing their existing citizenship, as in the case of those applying for citizenship by way of naturalisation, on becoming Singapore citizens. In Clause 5, the opportunity has also been taken to provide for the Minister to deprive a person of his citizenship if his activities are prejudicial to the security of Malaya or to the interests of the public safety, peace or good order. At present, section 22 (c) does not bring within its scope the criminal activities of secret society thugs and hoodlums and the nefarious activities of other criminals like big-time smuggling operators, for instance, who have been able, through intimidation, fear, bribery or conspiracy, to escape being convicted in Court to prison sentences of not less than two years. I am confident all decent citizens of Singapore will agree with me when I say that these scum's of society should not enjoy the status of Singapore citizens. Clause 6 amends the Schedule to the Ordinance by modifying the form of Oath of Allegiance and Loyalty to be taken by those applying for citizenship by way of registration. This modified form of Oath is a declaration of their undivided and unequivocal loyalty to Singapore and is also complementary to the provision in clause 4 which renders citizens of the U.K. and Colonies, of the Republic of Ireland, and Commonwealth citizens liable to be deprived of their Singapore citizenship if they exercise rights not available to all Commonwealth citizens outside Malaya. The other amendment in clause 6 is a consequential amendment in keeping with the new Constitution of Singapore to the Oath of Renunciation, Allegiance and Loyalty taken by those applying for citizenship by way of naturalisation in that the words "Her Majesty's Representative in Singapore" are substituted by the words "His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara". These then are the implications of the Bill before the House. It will be our citizens who will be the final arbiter of the shape of things to come in Singapore. They will dictate what and which kind of government they want and what policies should be pursued. It is only reasonable, therefore, to expect that in guiding and shaping the future destiny of Singapore the compelling urge and motive force which should influence its citizens in their work, actions and desires is the bond of common unity generated and sustained by an undivided loyalty and deep affection for Singapore. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 5.06 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Home Affairs has submitted the Singapore Citizenship (Amendment) Bill to the House to amend the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance, 1957. There are only six amendments to be discussed by this House. After detailed examination, we will find that these amendments are very necessary. They can close the loopholes of the previous Ordinance, so that they will be more effective. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, under the Rendel Constitution, the Singapore constitutional delegation went to England to negotiate with the British Government and, as a result, an agreement was reached between Britain and Singapore whereby self-government was granted to Singapore. When the new Constitution came into force, the old Rendel Constitution was repealed. On the 21st of October, 1957, a citizenship law was passed in the Legislative Assembly. Those who have the necessary residential qualifications are entitled to become citizens of this country. I am glad to say that those who have qualified as citizens of Singapore have carried out their duties as citizens of Singapore, and they have enjoyed the rights that they are entitled to. A great majority of the citizens of Singapore have not changed their loyalty to this country. They obey the laws of this country. They have the interest of the country at heart. They should deserve our commendation and our admiration. There are only a few citizens who do not obey the laws of this country. They engage in all sorts of criminal activities. This, we must stop. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in a hurry to register the people of Singapore, we passed a Singapore citizenship law in this House. There are many detailed provisions in the law which are not appropriate and proper. They are not applicable now. Therefore, they should be amended so that they can be in keeping with the present situation. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to give fair treatment and to protect the interests of the citizens of Singapore has been the consistent policy of this Government. I am sure the Members of this House will not forget or overlook the fact that both our Minister for Labour and Law and the Minister for Finance have been working day and night to find employment for these citizens. According to the Labour Exchange, there are about 50,000 Singapore citizens who are jobless. This number does not include those who are not registered. There are about 60,000 children who are of school-going age and who, on completing their education or when they leave school halfway, will have to find work. This is a problem, because Singapore is not yet industralized, and to find employment for them is not simple. However, we must take immediate steps to alleviate this situation. Therefore, we should see to it that all the existing vacancies should be filled by Singapore citizens only. That is to say, all vacant posts should be reserved for the citizens of this country only, except those posts which require higher qualifications. This policy and this decision are necessary and correct. For example, if the proprietor of a shop has children who are jobless, we cannot expect him to engage employees from outside. I am sure the Members of this House will have the same feeling. Mr Deputy Speaker, there are many people who are jobless, but judging from the income of the people here, Singapore is still one of the countries which enjoy a high standard of living. That is why many people want to come to this country to earn a living. On the other hand, Singapore is one of the greatest trading ports in the world. That is why many people of various racial origins reside here. As time goes on, they will become endeared to this country, because of the fact that it is easy to find a living here. They have abandoned their nationality and now look to this country as their homeland. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government does not object to those with good character applying for citizenship. That is why the Citizenship Registration Office is still accepting applications. The amendment Bill that is being discussed here today has some very important changes. Citizens of the U.K. and Colonies and Commonwealth countries must have lived here for at least 8 of the 12 preceding years before they qualify to become citizens of Singapore. This is correct and necessary, because one's loyalty can only be tested after one has stayed here for quite a long time. One can then decide which country to be loyal to. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is ridiculous for a citizen of a country not to know its national language, unless he is uneducated or for other special reasons. Therefore, the basic qualification for citizenship of a country is to know its national language. In Singapore, it is necessary for a person to know the national language before he can apply for citizenship. But those who are 45 years old and over will be exempted from this test. Mr Deputy Speaker, these six amendments will not hamper those who want to become citizens of this country if they are not engaged in any criminal activity. The Government will be glad to accept such people as citizens. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. 5.18 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, credit should be given to many of the clauses in the Singapore Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, especially to those which stipulate the qualifications for those who intend to be citizens of Singapore, and the extension of the residential period from 8 to 12 years for foreigners. I give praise, Mr Deputy Speaker, where it is due, but it is also my duty to make healthy criticism where I consider it to be necessary. Mr Deputy Speaker, it can truly be said today that all the Hon. Ministers were born in the Federation of Malaya with the exception of two or three. Similarly, it can be said that many of the Government Members of the Assembly come from the Federation of Malaya. We are now separated from the Federation of Malaya because of colonial conditions. U.M.N.O. does not support the clause, which imposes a restriction on those born in the Federation from becoming citizens of Singapore. We should not hit back at the Federation just because they have imposed similar restrictions on us. I still remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Minister for Health - he is not in the House today - issued a challenge to the effect that if U.M.N.O. were to bring about a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, the People's Action Party would accept all conditions and policies in line with those of the Federation of Malaya. I regret to say that it seems that many of the Ministers of the Government of Singapore do not like their native land. We cannot deny that we want to see more employment. Can it be possible that the problem of employment will be overcome if we are to impose restrictions on persons born in the Federation from becoming citizens of Singapore? In my opinion, we should not do anything to offend the Federation of Malaya, as they might help us to achieve independence. We should be patient in this matter for the good of the future. The imposition of restrictions on Federation citizens from becoming citizens of Singapore will make things more difficult for us in Singapore. But what is more strange, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that the qualifications set out in the clause concerning persons born in the Federation of Malaya are different from those concerning persons who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or of the Republic of Ireland. One additional qualification concerning the latter is that they should satisfy the Minister that they intend to reside permanently in Singapore. I do not understand why there is this discrimination. It is not specifically mentioned that a person born in the Federation of Malaya should state whether he "intends to reside permanently in Singapore" if he wishes to acquire Singapore citizenship. I hope the Government will clarify this matter, which I, as a Member of the Opposition, have raised. Mr Deputy Speaker, if circumstances force the citizens of Singapore to seek their everyday livelihood in this manner, the Federation Government may impose a border check or institute a visa system at the Causeway for people wishing to enter the Federation of Malaya. What will be our position then? It will then be necessary for Singapore to issue her own passports. As I have mentioned earlier, we have been separated from the Federation of Malaya because of colonialism, with the result that we have to face all this hardship today, but I know that one day we will merge with the Federation of Malaya. Therefore, let us not keep ourselves further aloof from the Federation of Malaya. There are many secret things in connection with the maintenance of peace in Singapore, which do not come to our knowledge, but we should realise that we are still not yet independent. We should not hit back at the Federation of Malaya because she might in turn retaliate. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope the Government will consider this matter with the thoroughness that it deserves if we are ever to hope for a merger with the Federation of Malaya on the basis of the challenge issued by the Minister for Health. 5.27 p.m.

Sir, no one regrets more than the Ministers who have had to introduce this Bill, the necessity of having to make this amendment in the law against those who have been born in the Federation and are seeking Singapore citizenship. It is our intention, which has been declared consistently, that if it were left to choice, we would wish that there was no distinction between citizenship of the State of Singapore and citizenship of the Federation of Malaya. Our difficulty arises from certain very painful economic facts. Citizenship carries with it certain privileges and imposes upon the State serious financial obligations. The first is employment. The citizen comes first. The second is housing. State-subsidised houses, or houses subsidised by the Housing and Development Corporation, must go first to citizens. Then social welfare relief's, and so on. For the time being, whilst we are distinct and separate entities, if the Federation laws were reciprocal in that they allow persons from Singapore to be citizens of the Federation as quickly and easily as we allow Federation citizens to be citizens of Singapore, then the number of people who are flowing from Singapore to the Federation would reasonably cancel out the numbers who conic from the Federation to Singapore. But because there is not this reciprocity - not from any want of political determination, conviction or resolution to bring the two territories together, but purely from the difficulties arising out of economic facts - we have had to introduce this amendment in order that we can avoid some of the difficulties which might otherwise come primarily from large numbers of children who do their schooling here, and who automatically qualify in a very short time. So, not only do they come here and learn in our schools, but at the end when they graduate, we have got to get them jobs. Then, once you say, "Jobs first to Singapore citizens", you cannot discriminate between the Singapore-born and the naturalised or the registered. Otherwise you are creating two classes of citizens. The very essence of citizenship is that it is one and all-embracing. He who says, "I am a Singapore citizen", has got the same rights; whether he is born here, registered or naturalised. All that we want to avoid is a situation where large numbers of our own students - Senior Middle III Certificate, School Certificate, or Form VII now - are unable to get jobs because fairly considerable numbers of students from the Federation have come here, passed examinations and at the same time qualified for citizenship. The reason - there is no special secret why we wish to hide this from Members of this Assembly or from the people of Malaya - is quite simply just to try to lessen the burden, which would otherwise fall upon us. We regret it, but it cannot be helped. Sir, the reason for the slight apparent discrepancy between Federation-born persons and the U.K. and Colonies citizens as to why we do not require a person to state that he intends to reside here permanently is that if he was born in the Federation, then we do not have to ask him that question. It does not make any difference. But if a man comes from Trinidad, Mauritius or South Africa, then unless we ask him this question, it might wall be that all he really wants is to qualify for a job. 5.32 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, when I read this Bill, I thought of making an amendment with regard to the position of the citizens of Singapore. My opinion is that in Singapore there are two types of citizens. But after being advised by my colleagues, it appears to me that this matter could be overcome by the Minister carrying out his powers under the citizenship law. The category I referred to just now concerns thousands of Singapore citizens who today are deemed to be citizens of Singapore. They have the franchise to become candidates and stand for election. This was because when the electoral registers were compiled in 1958 they were compiled according to the identity cards. If the identity card of a person states that he was born in Singapore, he automatically becomes registered as a voter and is entitled to become a candidate. This is a true fact, which I myself know. Many persons, more than a hundred or so, have gone to the Immigration Department to apply for passports and they were asked, "Are you citizens of Singapore?" They then produced their identity cards, which state that they were born in Singapore. That was not enough from the point of view of the Controller of Immigration. The applicants were then asked to produce their birth certificates. Mr Deputy Speaker, the matter of birth certificates to our young generation does not present difficulty. But in the case of my own mother, she is without a birth certificate, having been born 50 years ago. It might be that her birth certificate could not be traced in the Register of Births and Deaths. So, when asked by the Department of Immigration for their birth certificates, the majority of the applicants for passports could not produce them. So they were unable to obtain passports to go abroad. Mr Deputy Speaker, this means that a person, from the point of view of the Citizenship Ordinance, is deemed to be a citizen, and from the point of view of the election by-laws, he is considered a citizen, and he can vote and can become a candidate. From the point of view of the immigration laws - he is not recognised as a Singapore citizen. That is one point, which I hope the Minister responsible will explain. I think this is a big question, and if the Immigration Department cannot approve passports for these citizens of Singapore from the point of view of the immigration laws, then it is possible that the Department of Social Welfare would not render assistance to them, although they are considered citizens of Singapore but they do not possess birth certificates. 5.38 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the purpose of introducing the eight-year residential qualification for persons born in the Federation is to bring Singapore in line with the legislation of the Federation of Malaya. It is desirable, in view of our aspiring for an eventual merger with the Federation, that laws of this nature should be similar as far as possible. As pointed out by the Prime Minister, the amendments are also prompted by hard economic realities. Unlike the Federation, Singapore has no space for expansion nor natural resources to sustain the mounting population. The Government's prime concern is the livelihood of its people. Until reunification with the Federation materialises eventually, it is the Government's aim, however regrettably, to provide employment and other social services for Singapore citizens first. We cannot ignore the keen competition for employment from those coming from the Federation. Over the last 10 years there has been a steady flow of persons from the Federation into Singapore to seek employment and education facilities. There is no sign of any likely reversal in the population trend in the near future. Until we can cope with the demand for employment and education of our own citizens, those persons born in the Federation who intend to apply for citizenship for the purpose of enjoying these benefits must necessarily be restricted. The problem is dictated by sheer economic facts. There is no choice in the matter.

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

5.43 p.m. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4-

Mr Kandasamy, may I have your consent and the general assent of Members present to dispense with notice to enable me to move amendments to clause 4? The Chairman (Mr G. Kandasamy): I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendments be moved? Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr Kandasamy, I beg to move, In page 3, line 17, to leave out "a" and insert "any". This is purely a drafting amendment. 5.45 p.m.

Has the Hon. Minister copies of the amendments for distribution to Members?

Yes. Copies of amendments distributed to hon. Members. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Kandasamy, I beg to move, In page 3, line 18, after "Singapore" to insert "by birth, descent, registration or naturalization". The amendment is to make it clear that the provisions of this clause apply to all categories of citizens. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Kandasamy, for the same reason, I beg to move, In page 3, lines 25 and 26, to leave out "If the Minister is satisfied that a citizen of Singapore" and insert "Any citizen specified in subsection (1) of this section who". Amendment agreed to.

Mr Kandasamy, I beg to move, In page 3, lines 31 to 33, to leave out "the Minister may declare such person to have ceased to be a citizen of Singapore" and insert "shall cease to be a citizen of Singapore. If any question arises as to whether any such person has ceased to be a citizen of Singapore under this subsection the same shall be determined by the Minister whose declaration thereon shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court". The amendment is self-explanatory. It is to provide, as stated before in my previous speech, that in the case of a citizen who has voluntarily claimed and exercised any rights available to him under the law of any foreign country, being rights accorded exclusively to the nationals of that foreign country, such action on his part will mean that he shall cease to be a citizen of Singapore. It is considered desirable that there should be these provisions for loss of citizenship in respect of such acts in foreign countries. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Kandasamy, I beg to move, In page 3, to leave out lines 34 to 44, and insert- '(3) If the Minister is satisfied that any citizen specified in subsection (1) of this section has at any time after the 6th day of April, 1960, voluntarily claimed and exercised any rights available to him under the law of the United Kingdom or of the Republic of Ireland or of any other country, other than the State of Singapore or the Federation of Malaya, for the time being included in subsection (3) of section 1 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, being rights not available to other Commonwealth citizens, the Minister may declare such person to have ceased to be a citizen of Singapore."; and'. Mr Kandasamy, since clause 4, subsections (1) and (2) have been amended just now, it is also necessary to make a further amendment to this clause in order to preserve the original intention that the Minister may terminate the Singapore citizenship of the citizens of the U.K. and Colonies or of the Republic of Ireland and Commonwealth citizenship by way of declaration if they exercise the rights of any country outside Singapore and the Federation of Malaya for the time being included in subsection (1) of section 3 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, not being rights available to all Commonwealth citizens. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed. 5.58 p.m.

Mr Kandasamy, Sir, I beg to move the motion* which stands in my name. * The motion reads as follows: "That this Assembly, pursuant to section 36 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, resolves that the salary of the Speaker with effect from 1st June, 1960, shall be $2,825 a month. Members are aware that under the Constitution, for one year from the date of the promulgation of the Constitution, the emoluments of the Speaker cannot be altered by this Assembly. The Constitution was promulgated on the 3rd of June, 1959, and on the 3rd of June this year, if we follow the exact letter of the Constitution, the office of Speaker will fall vacant and the emolument of the Speaker will then have to be determined under section 36 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council. Sir, the present emolument of the Speaker is a sum of $3,000. I think Members are aware that some painful reductions were made from civil servants, Ministers and all those who served the State. Since then certain allowances have been awarded to professional officers. The reason for the sum of $175 being taken off the $3,000 is simply this. If Members will look at the debate fixing the original salary at $3,000, they will find that the sum was arrived at by taking into account the variable allowances which were then paid to Judges and other officers of the State. Therefore, in that $3,000, there was a built-in variable allowance of $400. As we all hope the next incumbent will be properly qualified to discharge his duties properly, if we are to treat him with fairness and justice, as we have treated all other officers of the State, we have to take away the sum of $400 and return the sum of $225, which is the professional allowance paid to all professional officers of the State. Hence the figure of $2,825 arrived at. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to section 36 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, resolves that the salary of the Speaker with effect from 1st June, 196,0 shall be $2,825 a month.

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