Hansard, 1960-09-21

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly:- Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill) - three weeks from 12th August, 1960; and from 21st to 26th September, 1960. Mr Tan Kia Gan (Paya Lebar), Minister for National Development - two weeks from 17th August, 1960. Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson) - four months from 17th August, 1960. Mr G. Kandasamy (Kampong Kapor), Deputy Speaker - two weeks from 8th September, 1960. Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang), Minister for Health - 2lst September, 1960.

Announcement by Mr Speaker

I have to inform honourable Members that on the 12th day of August, 1960, I duly sent a letter to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, containing the Address agreed to by resolution of this Assembly on the 11th day of August, 1960. I received a reply from His Excellency dated the 13th of August, 1960, acknowledging receipt of the kind message of the Legislative Assembly transmitted to him in my letter.

asked the Prime Minister how many Temporary Assistant Markets and Hawkers Inspectors were employed by the City Council as at 31st August, 1960; how many of them were appointed from among former serving officers of the City Council, and how many passed (a) English Standard Eight, (b) Chinese Junior Middle, (c) Malay Standard Seven, and (d) an equivalent standard in Tamil.

Mr Speaker. I have been asked by the Prime Minister to reply to this question. There were 25 Temporary Assistant Markets and Hawkers Inspectors employed by the City Council as at 31st August, 1960. None of these were from among former serving officers. Seven have passed English Standard VIII. Four have passed Chinese Junior Middle, and one has passed Malay Standard VII. None has passed the equivalent standard in Tamil. In addition to the above, three possess the Cambridge School Certificate, and nine possess the Chinese Senior Middle Certificate - these being higher qualifications than those referred to by the Member for the Southern Islands.

I am the Member for the Southern Islands!

It is the Member for Kampong Kembangan.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the information supplied by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, does it mean that the serving officers in the City Council have no qualifications to enable them to carry out these duties?

I do not understand the question.

Will the Member for Kampong Kembangan repeat the question slowly?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, is it true that the officers serving in these posts in the City Council were not eligible?

No. None were selected although many of them applied.

(In Malay): Is it because those serving officers in the City Council who applied did not possess the qualifications?

Mr Speaker, Sir, further notice of that question is required.

asked the Prime Minister (a) whether he personally took action to sack a driver of the City Council Transport Department in March 1960, and on what grounds; and whether the Rules of the City Council were followed in this case; (b) whether he personally directed that disciplinary action be taken against a driver of the Rural Board Cleansing Department who was driving a Cleansing Department lorry along East Coast Road on Vesak Day, and on what grounds; and (c) on how many occasions has he initiated disciplinary action against labourers under his jurisdiction.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by the Prime Minister to reply to this question. (a) The driver was specially employed by the ex-Minister for National Development for the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of National Development. The Parliamentary Secretary found the driver unsatisfactory and he was given one month's notice of termination of service in March. (b) The Prime Minister reported the crew of a lorry of the Rural Board Cleansing Section for disciplinary action for reckless speeding and allowing refuse from their lorry to fall and litter Bedok Road. They were disciplined after due enquiry and received no pay that day. The driver and co-driver concerned were transferred to another section. (c) The Prime Minister's report initiated disciplinary action in this instance.

Mr Speaker, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of any rules in the City Council whereby labourers are engaged for specific jobs, or has there been any labourer engaged by the City Council on specific jobs?

The driver was specially employed by the ex-Minister for National Development on a temporary basis. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the rules of the City Council.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Prime Minister initiated disciplinary action against the second driver in question because he did not recognise the Prime Minister?

It is not a question of whether he recognised the Prime Minister or not. It concerns the attitude of a civil servant towards a member of the public.

Mr Speaker, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware, on (c), that the Prime Minister had either taken disciplinary action against or picked quarrels with almost all the labourers in Changi bungalow?

I am not aware of that.

asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the total number of Government and official cars being used by the Prime Minister, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries; (b) to give details of the cost per month in respect of (i) wages and overtime pay, provident fund contributions and quarters for chauffeurs; (ii) road tax; (iii) petrol and lubricants; (iv) maintenance, such as repairs, replacement of tyres, etc.; and (v) estimated depreciation, or loss of income from hire; and (c) to give the following details of each car:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by the Prime Minister to reply to this question: (a) Ministers, when travelling on official duty, use cars from the Government pool which consists of: 3 State cars (including the former Mayor's car); 1 official car. Parliamentary Secretaries use Government transport only on ceremonial occasions. (b) (i) Wages for chauffeurs - $468.75 per month for three drivers. Overtime pay - $12 per month (average). Provident Fund - $23.43 per month for three drivers. Quarters for drivers - No free quarters are provided. (b) (ii) Road tax - $28 per month for three cars. (b) (iii) Petrol and lubricants - $259.85 per month for three cars (average). (b) (iv) Maintenance such as repairs, etc - $155.82 for the three cars (average). Payment to City Council for use of former Mayor's car - $240 per month (average). (b) (v) Nil. (c) (i) The registration numbers of the cars are S1, S3 and SR2. (c) (ii) S3 and SR2 are normally used by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister respectively. All cars are used by Ministers and visiting dignitaries. (c) (iii) S1 - 8-year old Humber Pull-man 1952 model. S3 - 5-year old Super Snipe 1955 model. SR2 - 5-year old Humber Hawk 1955 model. (c) (iv) The cars are looked after and driven by syces.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Ministers and Assistant Ministers of the previous Government did not use official cars?

We are not responsible for the previous Government.

Mr Speaker, could the Parliamentary Secretary give us the number of cars that are being reserved for the use of Parliamentary Secretaries on so-called "ceremonial occasions"?

No, it is not true.

Mr Speaker, I want the number: either yes or no, or one or five?

Could the hon. Member repeat the question?

Mr Speaker, could the Parliamentary Secretary give us the figure of transport used by Parliamentary Secretaries on only so-called ceremonial occasions?

None.

asked the Prime Minister (a) what was the total cost, giving breakdown details, of the decoration in May, 1960, of "Sri Temasek"; (b) what was the purpose of beautifying and air-conditioning one of the bedrooms, and for whom; and (c) what is the monthly total cost, giving breakdown details, in the upkeep of "Sri Temasek".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked to reply to this question. The total cost of decorating "Sri Temasek" in May 1960 was $194. These decorations were carried out in connection with National Day. In addition, a sum of $29,790 was spent on painting and structural works and repairs, and air-conditioning the lounge. One air-conditioned bedroom was prepared for the use of State guests. The cost is 2,681. The total cost of decorating "Sri Temasek" is $172.50 per month for one houseboy, $14.53 for a telephone per month, and $240 per month for water and light.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House whether these items of expenditure are covered by budgetary provisions?

Further notice of that question is required.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there might be other expenses covered by other votes which are not included?

Does the Parliamentary Secretary wish to answer that question? It appears to be hypothetical.

Mr Speaker, I consider the question to be irrelevant.

The Parliamentary Secretary must depend on the Chair to decide whether a question is irrelevant or not.

Mr Speaker, can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me why only one room is air-conditioned and not all the rooms, if they are meant for guests?

We do not have many State guests visiting us often.

Could a Member of this Assembly use that room?

No, he cannot.

Could a Minister of this Assembly use that room?

No.

asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the total monthly cost of maintaining the golf-links in the grounds of the Istana Negara, indicating details of such cost; (b) what is the nature of responsibility of the Botanic Gardens Department and the City Council Cleansing Department in maintaining these golf-links; and (c) the names of the persons who have played golf there.

the Prime Minister)(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by the Prime Minister to reply to this question. There are no golf-links as such in the grounds of the Istana Negara. The lawn, gardens and flower-beds of the Istana Negara are maintained by the Botanic Gardens. There are several greens in the grounds and no extra cost is incurred to maintain these. The City Council Cleansing Department does the cleansing of the City area, which includes Istana Negara. The Prime Minister, with His Excellency's permission, hits practice balls on the playable greens if and when he is free in the evenings.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Parliamentary Secretary say by which British Governor were these golf-links made? Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed rose -

Does the Parliamentary Secretary wish to assume responsibility?

(In Malay): Because there are no golf-links as such, we cannot go into the matter further.

Mr Speaker, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that it is not only the Prime Minister who plays golf there, but also his British friends?

The question is strictly out of order, being outside ministerial responsibility.

asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the total cost, with breakdown details (whether under Government or City Council votes), of redecorating the Prime Minister's private office in the City Council since 5th June, 1959, including air-conditioners, panelling, carpets, furniture, curtains, etc.; and (b) what is the total cost, with breakdown details (whether under Government or City Council votes), of redecorating the Prime Minister's Visitors' Lounge for the same period.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by the Prime Minister to reply to this question. The Prime Minister has no "private office". The cost of making up the two rooms on the second floor of City Hall in September 1959 for the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister was $21,468.

70. The Prime Minister's room therefore cost half of this, that is, $10,734.

35. Authority for this expenditure came from the Fourth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959, Head 7, Subhead 15, in Command Paper (N.S.) 18 of 1959. The cost of decorating the Prime Minister's Reception cum Conference Room is $8,825.

11. Authority for this expenditure came from the same Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1959, Head 7, Sub-head 15, in Command Paper (N.S.) 18 of 1959.

May I ask a supplementary question on question 6?

It is rather unusual for a Parliamentary Secretary to ask a supplementary question.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister tell the House how this cost compares with the cost of occupying former S.I.T. flats in Upper Pickering Street by the former Minister for National Development where he had a public office and a "secret" room to which even his Parliamentary Secretary and Permanent Secretary had no access?

That supplementary question has no reference whatsoever to the question before the House. Mr Lingam, question No. 7.

asked the Prime Minister (a) what was the cost and the year of construction of the seaside bungalow at Changi Point known as "Changi Cottage", and what is the estimated value of the land; (b) what is the annual cost of upkeep of this bungalow, giving breakdown details of salaries of caretaker and gardeners, repairs and maintenance, and other expenses; (c) whether the rooms are air-conditioned; (d) what was the cost of redecorating this bungalow in May, 1960; (e) before the redecoration in May 1960, who were entitled to stay there, giving dates; (f) who had stayed in this bungalow since May, 1960, giving dates; and (g) how often have Health and other Government personnel been called in to catch flies and destroy ants at this bungalow and by whom, giving an indication of the cost incurred.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I have been asked by the Prime Minister to reply to this question: (a) The cost of "Changi Cottage" was $24,943.83 and it was constructed in 1950. The estimated value of the land is about $1 a square foot. The cottage is in the grounds of Changi bungalow, a Government holiday bungalow. (b) There is no cost to upkeep this bungalow because the caretaker, the bungalow servant and the gardener of the Changi Holiday Bungalow help to look after "Changi Cottage". The estimated cost for repairs and maintenance is $250 a year. Painting is done once in about four years. (c) Two bedrooms are air-conditioned. The air-conditioning was carried out in 1953. (d) The cost of painting and repairs to the bungalow in May 1960 was $1,648.96. (e) The Yang di-Pertuan Negara and his guests are entitled to occupy the Cottage. (f) and (g) There are no records of such domestic details, nor is it part of the Minister's duties to provide such information.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary say which British Governor was responsible for the construction of this seaside bungalow, and was the bungalow used exclusively for that purpose?

The supplementary question is out of order, there being no ministerial responsibility.

Mr Speaker, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that before the redecoration and beautification in May 1960, it was only the Prime Minister who had stayed in that seaside bungalow?

Order. I think the answer to the question has already indicated that that bungalow is occupied by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and his guests, and I do not think that it will be in order for the hon. Member to ask any further questions on that point, as it is out of order to ask questions appertaining to the private conduct of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara.

Mr Speaker, I am by no means referring to the private conduct of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara.

I have ruled. Inche Mohd. Ali, question No. 8.

asked the Minister for Finance to state the number of vacant posts in the Government service as at 31st August, 1960, which were held by officers in an acting capacity, and to give a list of such posts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am unable to supply the hon. Member the information he sought from the data available in my Ministry, but if he so wishes, I will call for returns from all Ministries of Government and compile the figures, which can either be sent directly to the hon. Member or placed before the House at the next sitting. The hon. Member will realise that the total effort involved is quite considerable. If his interest is confined to a particular department or Ministry, I shall be glad if he will inform me accordingly so that an unnecessary burden need not be placed on the administration. I may mention that all acting appointments exceeding the period of two months have to be considered and approved by the Public Service Commission in accordance with section 81 of the Constitution.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, although it will be a burden on the Minister for Finance to supply me with the figures, it is up to him, in his discretion, to table them at the next sitting of this Assembly or to send direct to me the details I require.

Order. The hon. Member must realise that we are on question time. If he has a supplementary question to ask, he can ask it. If there is no supplementary question on question No. 8, then I will call question No. 9.

(In Malay): Yes, I have a supplementary question to ask. I require a positive reply from the Minister concerned as to whether the required details will be tabled at the next sitting of this Assembly or will be forwarded direct to me.

Order. The proper method, of course, is for the Minister to send a copy, when ready, to the Clerk and then the information will be circularised and published in the Official Report. Question No. 9. Inche Mohd. Ali.

asked the Minister for Finance what was the number of temporary officers employed by the Government as at 31st August, 1960; how many of these officers are not citizens of Singapore; and what was the total amount of salaries and allowances paid to all the temporary officers for the period January to August, 1960.

Mr Speaker, Sir -

Order. It is 3 p.m. It is time for the business of Supply to be entered upon. Mr Deputy Prime Minister - Business motion.

3.00 p.m. Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Third and Fourth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1960 of the State of Singapore (respectively contained in Papers Cmd. 18 and 19 of 1960) be taken today."- [The Deputy Prime Minister-Dr Toh Chin Chye].

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

3.02 p.m.

Will the Minister signify the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before we proceed with the consideration of these Supplementary Estimates?

I so signify.

The Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1960 of the State of Singapore as contained in Paper Cmd. 18 of 1960. The summary is at page 4. On Head 34 - Ministry of Labour and Law - there is an amendment standing in the name of the Member for Joo Chiat in relation to the new subhead (Industrial Arbitration Court).

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 34 be reduced by $10 in respect of the new subhead (Industrial Arbitration Court) therein. Mr Speaker. Sir, I speak today in particular reference to the announcement of the Government a few days ago regarding the appointment of the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, the word "Court", I take it, has been deliberately used in the designation of this Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. It was the expectation, I think, in the country that the first President would be a person of some legal experience and qualification. I do not make any personal reference to Dr Gamba except that he does not possess any legal qualification or legal experience. The work of this Industrial Arbitration Court, Mr Speaker, Sir, will draw the attention of a very large number of people of this country. It has been stressed time and time again inside this House and by both sides of the House that the economic situation of this country is a vital factor in the existence of the people of this country. Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been much attention focussed on the industrial relationship between employers and employees, and we have all been expecting that the Industrial Arbitration Court would be the final answer to the numerous strikes which have plagued this country in the past and, in so plaguing this country, have disturbed the equilibrium of the people whose main concern is the betterment of the economic situation of this country. Sir, in the work of the Industrial Arbitration Court, there will no doubt be a great deal of material which does not involve the interpretation of law. Now, such material, Mr Speaker, Sir, would involve a great knowledge of the business of this country. Dr Gamba was the Professor of Economics in the University of Malaya and, as such, we naturally respect his knowledge of economics. But he has no experience of the day-to-day running of big business, and it is my humble submission that a certain amount of knowledge and experience of big business should be an essential qualification of the Judge sitting in the Industrial Arbitration Court. I fail to see how the new appointee can qualify in that respect. As to the knowledge of law, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not need to stress before you that it is no easy matter to interpret the law, and there is a great principle often quoted in the law courts in the administration of law in any country, and that is that justice must not only be done but must seem to be done. Mr Speaker, Sir, the appointment should have gone not only to a person of great legal experience, but should also have gone to a person whose politics cannot be questioned, or, rather, a person who should have no political leanings whatsoever. In the case of this new appointee, there may be some question as to his political leanings. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, it may perturb employers, particularly when they appear before the Court, which should be absolutely impartial to both employee and employer. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to appear to be anticipating the work of this Court, but I hope, when a reply is given to this amendment, that some satisfactory public statement will be made to subdue whatever qualms that may have arisen with the announcement of the appointment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Joo Chiat had been present in this House at the time when the Industrial Relations Bill was debated, he would have been able to inform himself of the functions of this Court. On that occasion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I did take pains to inform Members of the House that the Industrial Arbitration Court is not a Court of Judicature. It is a Court that is concerned with the making of collective agreements between employers and unions, its functions are mainly legislative and not judicial. Mr Speaker, Sir, in any dispute where the parties fail to agree, the Minister can, under the provisions of the Ordinance, refer the dispute to the Industrial Arbitration Court. It will be the function of this Court to make the agreement for the parties when they cannot so agree. That is essentially a legislative process and not, strictly speaking, a judicial process. It is for that reason, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is considered unnecessary that the holder of this appointment should hold accepted legal qualifications. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is provision for the appointment of a Registrar under the Ordinance. It is our intention to ensure that the person who fills that appointment will hold recognised legal qualifications so that he could assist the President whenever points of legal difficulty arise. There is also provision under the Ordinance for the State Advocate-General to be consulted by the Court when points of legal difficulty arise; and when he intervenes, members of the Bar have the right to appear before the Court. There are two sections of the Ordinance which provide that members of the Bar no longer have a right, once this Ordinance has been brought into force, to take part in the process of collective bargaining and members of the Bar also have no right to appear before this Court. I have pointed all that out before. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of the political leanings of Dr Charles Gamba who has been named, I can assure the Member for Joo Chiat that he is not a member of the People's Action Party. He is a person who has played a great part in labour economics in this country. He has appeared on various tribunals dealing with labour problems. As the Member for Joo Chiat must know, this appointment is under the law made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on the advice of the Prime Minister. And the Prime Minister, before he made this appointment, was very concerned that he did make the right choice. Before he made this appointment, he consulted various employers and sounded out their views, and they indicated that this appointment would be acceptable to them. In the same way, he consulted the Trades Union Congress and the Congress informed him that this appointment would be acceptable to them. So we are sure, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Court will be in the hands of a capable and experienced person. 3.15 p.m.

Does the Member for Joo Chiat wish to take this to a vote?

No, Mr Speaker.

Will the Member formally beg leave to withdraw his amendment?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $43,070 for Head 34 ordered to stand part of the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1960. Head 40 -

There is an amendment standing in the name of the Member for Joo Chiat in relation to the new subhead (National Day).

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of the new subhead (National Day). Mr Speaker, Sir, this sum of $52,000 is being asked by the Government to pay for that famous occasion on 3rd June, when rain washed away all the marvellous preparations of the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, we all saw what the procession was going to be like, although nature did not permit it to take place. In fact, it was a procession for the glorification of the People's Action Party. It was to have been a mile-long procession, or something like that.

Two miles long.

Two miles long. But whatever length it was supposed to be, I think about 95 to 98 per cent of the length was to be occupied by banners which say "People's Action Party". Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, the country is being asked to pay $52,000 for this act of glorification. It is monstrous, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this little country of ours should have to pay such a big sum of money. Even if it is not for the glorification of one political party, this luxury could be ill-afforded by a little country like ours. In future, I hope the Government is not going to let us in for any more heavy expenditure. We can remember our National Day. We can send up our prayers, one way or the other. Perhaps a sum of a few thousand dollars could justifiably be spent. But $52,000, Mr Speaker, is - I repeat - a luxury which this country can ill afford to spend.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to enlighten the Member for Joo Chiat. The $52,000 was not spent entirely on the so-called mass parade to glorify the P.A.P. In fact, a good part of the expenditure went to the purchase of decorative material, much of which, through wear and tear, becomes useless after use on an occasion of this kind and had to be replaced. Moreover, the stock of equipment, especially in electrical fittings, with the Public Works Department, was inadequate for big festive occasions of this nature. It is intended to build a pool of such equipment over a period of time and to make it available to meet all requirements. $52,000 is an insignificant figure when compared with expenditure for similar events by other countries. Of the $52,000, $41,320.80 was spent on decorations. We could not stop the rain. But if there had been no rain, the Member for Joo Chiat would have witnessed a performance by the people of Singapore to glorify the self-government that we have attained, not the P.A.P. I am afraid the Member for Joo Chiat has under-estimated the intelligence of the people of Singapore, because all representatives of the people and all sections of communities were represented. Unfortunately, the procession did not take place. Of the $52,000, only $2,403.91 was spent on the Prime Minister's luncheon which had to go on despite the rain. And the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's function at the Istana Negara, which was not interrupted by the rain, cost us $2,673.

61. If the Member for Joo Chiat thought it was a good idea to celebrate our self-government, then he should not have brought up this unnecessary question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not questioning the necessity for celebrating National Day, but I wish to raise two questions of principle. Mr Speaker, you will notice that the National Day celebrations started on 3rd June and ended on 6th June, 1960. When the People's Action Party came into power, they framed a Budget which they presented to this Assembly; but apparently they forgot this particular item in their Budget. Having forgotten it, Sir - perhaps they were hard pressed in framing that Budget, and I accept what the Minister for Finance has said, that they had only a few months in between the framing of the Budget and the actual expenditure of this money - they now come to this House to seek its approval to obtain this money which they had spent. Another point you will observe, Mr Speaker, is that this sum has been advanced out of the Contingencies Fund. You may remember, Mr Speaker, that when it was queried in the House as to how the Contingencies Fund would be used, if I remember rightly, Mr Speaker, the impression I got was that it would only be used on occasions when the Government had to spend money in respect of matters which they could not have foreseen before the actual time of expenditure. This expenditure is a matter which I am sure the People's Action Party foresaw - they not only foresaw it, but they knew it must happen. Therefore, could I suggest to the Minister for Finance that in future an item like this be covered in the Budget?

I certainly welcome the suggestion of the Member for Farrer Park, but a word of explanation may be necessary as to why we adopted the procedure that we did. Members will know that this is the first occasion that celebrations on this scale were attempted by the present Government, and it was not possible to budget in sufficient detail the cost for all the various activities in advance. For instance, in the course of preparation, it was the experience of the Government that more and more associations, groups of people, and cultural bodies volunteered to join in the festivities. Accordingly, it was felt that the method of budgeting in advance would be a difficult procedure to comply with. But with the experience that we have gained, I think it should be possible to budget within fairly close limits for future occasions of this sort.

I take it that the Member for Joo Chiat wishes to put his amendment to the vote?

Yes, Sir.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $52,000 for Head 40 ordered to stand part of the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1960. Head 46 -

No notice of amendment has been received in respect thereof. The sum of $117,170 for Head 46 ordered to stand part of the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1960.

Question, "That the sum of $212,240 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Third Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1960 contained in Paper Cmd. 18 of 1960", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported.

Fourth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1960 (Paper Cmd. 19 of 1960). The summary is at page 4. Head D 22 -

There is an amendment standing in the name of the Member for Joo Chiat in relation to subhead 3.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to proceed with this amendment. [That the sum to be allocated for Head D 22 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3.] The sum of $3,156,880 for Head D 22 ordered to stand part of the Fourth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1960. Head D 48 -

There is an amendment standing in the name of the Member for Joo Chiat in relation to item(4) of subhead 6. 3.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the explanation to this Head, the Government has said that this is in order to implement Government's policy of reorganisation of Ministries and integration of the City Council and Rural District Councils into Government -

I take it that the Member is moving?

I beg your pardon. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (4) of subhead 6 therein. Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Government took office, and particularly in the second half of the Government last year, there have been a good many changes and house removals of Government offices. I question whether these removals were, in fact, necessary. Of course, if the costs of such removals were not the high sum of $50,000, one might be a little bit patient. But when there is such a big sum to play "general post" within the Government, one becomes a bit perturbed. The government of this country has been evolved through decades, and there have been many commissions of inquiries into the working and the allocation of work and the placings of the various Government offices. In one foul stroke, this new Government of ours has started changing things all round, quite apart from the headaches the members of the public have when they want to go to any particular department. We find that there has not been any radical improvement. Where do all these changes lead us to? It is so easy for a new broom to say, "Well, I want to sweep clean, and I want to change everything about." Well, do so by all means, but not, Mr Speaker, Sir, I contend, at the costly expense of $50,000.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to implement the Government's declared policy of integrating the City Council and the Rural Board with the Government Ministries, and also the need to organise the Ministries themselves, and where possible group the various departments under one Ministry together in one building, it was necessary to carry out a programme of reallocation of office accommodation for various Government Ministries and departments. For the information of the Member for Joo Chiat, the major departmental re-groupings and reorganisation are as follows: The Land Office and the Rural Board were moved from the Upper Pickering Street office to the ground-floor of City Hall, the Land Office being a land-user department. The Registry of Titles and the Registry of Deeds have been moved to the ground-floor of the City Hall, whilst the Survey Department will move there shortly. These are also land-user departments. The Treasury, the Establishment Office, the Audit Office and the Accountant-General's Office have been re-grouped together with the Division of Commerce and Industry in Fullerton Building. This enables the departments under the Ministry of Home Affairs, including the Immigrant department, the Registry of Citizenship, the Registry of Persons and the Registry of Births and Deaths to be re-grouped in Empress Place. The City Engineer's Department and the City Chief Architect's Department were earlier regrouped together with the Public Works Department. The City Hawkers' and Markets' Department are to be re-grouped under arrangements by the Ministry of Health. Mr Speaker, the principle of integration was announced in the policy speech by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara at the beginning of this Government's term of office. At that time, there was no appreciable opposition to integration, reallocation of offices, and removal, as the Member for Joo Chiat has said, from one place to another. Since there was no appreciable opposition, it is assumed that the principle of integration has been accepted as the logical process by which we can achieve an efficient and a streamlined administration. As for actual cost, this is in fact negligible, but includes such items as labour, transport, adjustment of office needs and providing facilities for the public and so on. Mr Speaker, the Saving from the public from now onwards, both in time and in transportation, will be immeasurably grater. For instance, it is more convenient for the public, if they have to go to several departments in one Ministry, that they have only to go to one building where business can be cleared possibly with one visit. Similarly, the advantages of regrouping, as for example, by having land-user departments together, will also cut down administrative procedure and costs, and show a considerable financial saving. An expenditure of some tens of thousands of dollars weighed against public time and convenience and the administrative efficiency can, therefore, only be regarded as an essential investment.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $50,000 for Head D48 ordered to stand part of the Fourth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1960.

Heads of expenditure undisposed of. They appear in the Summary at page 4 of the Paper other than Heads D.22 and D.

48. I propose to take those heads of expenditure* en bloc. * Following are the heads of expenditure:- Head Title $ D.34 Labour and Law 47,500 D.45 Police 28,000 D.46 Prisons 188,200 D.49 Colonial Development and 6,000 Welfare Schemes

Question, "That the sums stated for the heads stated in the summary of totals contained in Paper Cmd. 19 of 1960 other than for Heads D.22 and D.48 already disposed of stand part of the fourth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1960", put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $3,476,580 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Fourth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1960 contained in Paper Cmd. 19 of 1960", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the chair of the committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolutions. Resolution read.

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

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

We go back to questions. Inche Mohd. Ali, question No. 9*. * See col. 625.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, question No. 9*. * See col. 625.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have recently in another connection called for somewhat similar information as at 1st August, 1960, and the number of temporary officers in the public service, excluding those in the Ministries of Education and Health, as at 1st August, 1960, are as follows: Division I 13 Division II 51 Division III 164 Division IV 205 These figures include married women officers. Most of the temporary officers in the Ministries of Education and Health are married women officers. As regards non-citizens in temporary posts, I would say that the number is not large. But if the hon. Member wants the exact number, together with the salaries and allowances paid to all temporary officers for the period January to August 1960, I shall supply them shortly, he present regulations on entry qualifications into the public service allow non-citizens to be appointed to both permanent and temporary posts, but for the most part, these are persons born in the Federation.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, were these temporary officers recruited during the term of office of this Government or the past Government?

During both periods. The majority were recruited during the time of the previous government. 3.45 p.m.

asked the Minister for Labour and Law (a) how many community centres have been built since 1st July, 1959, and what is the total construction cost of these centres; (b) whether the construction of all these community centres was given to one private contractor without going to public tender, and why; (c) how does the Government fix the value of the construction; (d) whether the previous architect for the building of community centres was paid architect fees by the Government or was given a cut by the contractor; and (e) whether the Government will request the Board of Architects to make, or will initiate proceedings for, a public inquiry into this matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as to the first part of the question the answer is that 11 community centres have been built since the 1st of July, 1959, and that the total construction cost for these 11 community centres was $306,403.

13. To the second part of the question as to whether the construction of all these community centres was given to one private contractor without going to public tender, and why, the answer is "yes". In August 1959, the P.W.D. was very short of architects and engineers. The ex-Minister for National Development. knows the circumstances under which this shortage arose. The Director of Public Works advised that private contractors should be engaged for this work. A reliable contractor and a private architect were then engaged to do this work. The Shaw Foundation and the Lee Foundation, which provided most of the funds for the building of these community centres, did not require the work to be put out to public tender because of their appreciation of the Ministry's desire not to have any delays in the implementation of the building programme. The People's Association has since taken over the control of community centres from the Ministry and a Tenders Committee of the Board of Management will take over the work of building community centres. The third part of the question: `how does the Government fix the value of the construction;'. Mr Speaker, Sir, the value of the construction was assessed on a certificate from the architect that the price charged for each item of work to be done was fair and reasonable, and scrutiny of the charges was made by officials of the Ministry. The price of the small community centres we have built compares favourably( with that of the small community centres constructed by the former Rural Board. The medium-size community centres we have built at a price of about $40,000 each have the floor space of the large community centres constructed by the former government at a cost of about $130,000 each. I have some details, Mr Speaker, Sir, which would interest, the House. The medium-size centres that we built at Havelock Road and at Banda Street - the cost of the centre at Havelock Road was $42,000, which included piling. The cost of the Banda Street Community Centre was $36,900, and this included an Arcron structure provided by the Department of Social Welfare. The area of the Havelock Road Community Centre is 2,590 square feet, with five classrooms. There is a hail, downstairs and in this hail there is a movable screen in between. If this movable screen is removed, the floor space is increased to about 1,036 square feet, so that the total of the floor space available at the Havelock Road Community Centre is 3,626 square feet. The area of the Banda Street Community Centre is 2,944 square feet, with five classrooms. There is also a hail downstairs with a movable screen in between. If that movable screen is removed, then the area will be increased by 1,254 square feet, making the total area 4,198 square feet. These are what we term medium-size community centres. We will compare these medium-size community centres with the old community centre at Sims Avenue. The total area of the Sims Avenue Community Centre is 2,596 square feet. There are three classrooms and one hail. That centre was put out to tender and the price was $135,000. Now we come to the Changi Community Centre. There are two classrooms and one hall. The total area is 2,456 square feet. This centre was put out to tender, Mr Speaker, Sir, and the cost was $130,000; so that we have built larger community centres which we term medium-size community centres for about one-third of the price that the previous government paid for those community centres. Sir, in the case of the smaller community centres - the Minto Road Community Centre cost us $8,900. That included an Arcron structure supplied by the Department of Social Welfare from the Singapore Constitution Exposition. The Beach Road Community Centre cost us $11,448. That also included an Arcron structure. The Kampong Glam Community Centre cost $14,581. That included an Arcron structure. The Yio Chu Kang Community Centre cost $14,379. This included an Arcron structure. The Maude Road Community Centre which was recently opened cost $15,613. There was no Arcron structure supplied. All the materials for that community centre were supplied by the contractor. If we compare these prices, Mr Speaker, Sir, with the prices for the small community centres built by the Rural Board, we find that the Changi Point Community Centre cost. $16,000 without sanitation. The Ama Keng Community Centre cost $12,500 without sanitation. The West Coast Road Community Centre cost $11,000 without sanitation. The Jalan Eunos Community Centre, which is the most modern of the old community centres, cost $25,000 with modern sanitation as against our prices. If you go round and have a look at these community centres, you will find that in the new small community centres, they are all provided with basketball pitches. badminton courts and so on, which cost more money, while the other community centres have not got those amenities, Sir. That is the comparison between the prices of work that has been done by a reliable contractor with the help of an architect and officials of the Ministry, and work that was previously put out to tender by the previous government. Mr Speaker, Sir, to the fourth part of the question: `whether the previous architect for the building of community centres was paid architect fees by the Government or was given a cut by the contractor;'. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Shaw Foundation and the Lee Foundation received separate bills from the previous architect and the contractor for their work in respect of each community centre, and separate payments were made. Where payments were made from funds made available to the People's Association by the Treasury, the same procedure was followed. Out of this $306,000 about $250,000 of that money came from the Shaw Foundation and the Lee Foundation. The other $50,000 came from the Treasury - the money that was voted by the Assembly for the People's Association. In every case where payments were made - whether the payments were made by the Shaw Foundation or the Lee Foundation, or whether the payments were made by the Treasurer! Secretary and the Deputy Chairman of the People's Association - there were separate bills presented in every case by the contractor and the previous architect, and separate payments were in fact made. To the fifth part of the question, which is: `whether the Government wilt request the Board of Architects to make, or will initiate proceedings for, a public inquiry into this matter.'. I must inform the House that the Treasury tender procedures are not applicable in the case of buildings put up by private organisations for the Government, or in `the case of buildings put up from funds made available to independent statutory bodies. Al-though not put out for public tender, the cost of the work has been carefully scrutinized by professional architects and Government officials experienced in planning and designing community centres. Furthermore, the allegation that the previous architect received a cut from the contractor is groundless. For these reasons, Mr Speaker, Sir, a public, inquiry by Government or by the Board of Architects is not in the least called for.

Mr Speaker, would the Government consider abolishing the public tender system since it is so cheap to build without going to public tender?

It seems to be a different question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think it is fair for me to answer that question, because if it is raised seriously I think it is a matter which really concerns the Ministry of Finance. If I were to relate my personal experience with reference to Government tender procedures, the whole House will be shocked.

I wonder if the Minister could tell the House whether all the sums of money made available by the Lee Foundation and the Shaw Foundation were paid into the Consolidated Fund?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it was not. The agreement that we had was this. The works would be undertaken, the bills would be duly presented to these Foundations, and they would then undertake to pay up to the amounts that they had agreed to pay. There was no actual transfer of cash between the Foundations and the Government. So the position, as has been, I think, correctly stated, is that they were really buildings put up by these organisations on behalf of the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, am I to understand that these funds which have been provided by the Lee Foundation and the Shaw Foundation would not appear in the public accounts of the State of Singapore?

That is so, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thought that that was a very strange way of doing business, but I find that businessmen are more wise in these matters than I myself. They say that if they keep the money until it is wanted, they earn interest on that money.

Mr Speaker, how was this special contractor selected? is it because he had given satisfactory private work to the Prime Minister and other Ministers?

Order. The first part of the question is all right, but if the hon. Member carries on with inferences, he is out of order.

I withdraw the second part of my question, Sir.

You may remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we had an Exposition just after we became the Government. We wanted to show to the public the work of the various Ministries of the Government. The Finance Minister was very strict about expenditure. He limited us to $2,000 each per stand. He is a very astute person in these matters. Mr Speaker, Sir. One day he asked me to call at the Victoria Memorial Hall to see how the work of the stands was progressing. I paid a visit there, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I found that whereas all the other Ministries were using screens for stands, there was a beautiful structure going up at the Victoria Memorial Hall for the Ministry of National Development. I looked around and I found that a contractor was engaged in this work. I duly reported the fact to the Minister for Finance and so I had to go and get another contractor to do our work. The contractor that I employed knew the previous architect. We have employed two architects for the work on community centres. The criticism is that the previous architect is the man who is alleged to have got a cut from the contractor. This previous architect was a colleague of my ex-colleague, the Minister for National Development, in Australia, and he disliked this man intensely.

Order. I am endeavouring to cut out personalities. Perhaps the Minister will assist the Chair by cutting out personalities.

I have lost track of the question at the moment, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I be reminded as to what the question was?

How was the contractor chosen?

He was not chosen. I myself have known him to be a reliable contractor, and I depended on the advice of my good friends. That is how he was selected to do the work. I may add, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when this building was going up, I went round one day with the ex-Minister for National Development to Kampong Bugis and asked him to help the poor people there. We both visited the community centre at Minto Road. He looked at the work and said that it was very good indeed. He also said that we, as the Government, would be well advised to carry on as we did and get this private contractor to give us very good service.

Mr Speaker, I do not know this architect and where he is qualified. But is the Minister aware that the reason why this architect did not continue with the job is that he was dissatisfied with the cut given to him by the contractor who was introduced to the Minister by his good friends?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is completely untrue. If it were not for the fact that libellous statements made in this House are absolutely privileged, I am sure the ex-Minister for National Development would not dare to make those statements outside a place like this forum.

Mr Speaker, would the Government consider making an open inquiry into the whole matter?

We do not usually make inquiries into the activities of people who have done us a very good service.

Mrs Seow, question No. 11.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I ask the question*, may I seek the guidance of the Chair as to whether I should withdraw the last sentence of the question, as it has been announced that this Ordinance has been brought into operation. * 11. To ask the Minister for labour and law what are the reasons for the nearly seven months' delay in bringing into operation the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, which was assented to on the 25th of February, 1960; and when he intends to bring it into operation.

I think the hon. Member will get a reply from the Minister. Perhaps the Member will just ask the question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, question No. 11.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to the first part of the question: `What are the reasons for the nearly seven months' delay in bringing into operation the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, which was assented to on the 25th of February, 1960;', this is the reply. It was necessary to house the Court in the Supreme Court Building to add to the prestige and dignity of the Court. We had to wait until the Estate Duty Office in the Supreme Court Building was vacated, and as soon as the office was vacated, building of the Court was commenced. Building plans were made well in advance so that there was no time lag between the vacation of the Estate Duty Office and the commencement of building operations. The Corrupt Practices Investigation Office below the Estate Duty Office is to serve as the Registry of the Court, and this office will be vacated shortly. Funds for the payment of the President, the Registrar and the subordinate staff have just been voted by the Assembly, and we can get on with the job of making the necessary recruitments. It is obvious that the Industrial Relations Ordinance could not be brought into force until the Court House itself was nearly ready. There was nothing which the Ministry could do to speed up this work. To the second part of the question, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Industrial Relations Ordinance was brought into force on 15th September this year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister then say that the first sitting of this Court is entirely dependent upon the construction of the Court House, or does it depend on legislation which is to be introduced in this Assembly?

The legislation has already been enacted in this Assembly. The Industrial Relations Ordinance has been enacted and it was brought into force on 15th September. I do not quite get the point that the Member for Farrer Park wishes to make.

I will be more explicit. Mr Speaker, Sir. It seems to me that before the Industrial Relations Ordinance could be effectively brought into force, it needed the support provided for in the new Ordinance known as the Trade Unions Ordinance. Now, would it be true to say that the Industrial Relations Ordinance would not be brought into effective operation until a new Trade Unions Bill has been introduced and passed by the Assembly?

No, Mr Speaker, Sir, they are entirely two different Ordinances. The Industrial Relations Ordinance deals with the processes of collective bargaining, trade disputes and the settlement of trade disputes. It has nothing to do with the Trade Unions. Ordinance which is concerned with the registration of trade unions, their organisation, and their structure. There is no relationship whatsoever between the Industrial Relations Ordinance and a Trade Unions Ordinance.

asked the Minister for Labour and Law whether there exists an Agreement between the Government and the Civil Service whereby any dispute can be referred to arbitration at the request of either party; and to state the reasons for not referring the question of Pay Cut to arbitration until the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, has been brought into operation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to the first part of this question: `Whether there exists an Agreement between the Government and the Civil Service whereby any dispute can be referred to arbitration at the request of either party;', the answer is Yes, there is such an Agreement. To the second part of the question: `to state the reasons for not referring the question of Pay Cut to arbitration until the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, has been brought into operation.', Mr Speaker. Sir, the Civil Service Staff Side Council wrote to me for the first time asking for arbitration on 5th September, 1960. By that time plans were well advanced for bringing the Industrial Relations Ordinance into force. In fact, as I have mentioned just now, the Ordinance was brought into force on 15th September. 1960. Under this Ordinance, collective bargaining and arbitration in the Civil Service is subject to the same law as that regulating these activities in private employment, and arbitration under the Agreement referred to would therefore not be possible as it would be contrary to the provisions of section 30 of the Ordinance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is it not within the ambit of the Minister in charge of Staff matters to enable such a dispute to go to any arbitrator?

Mr Speaker, Sir, under the procedures that are available to either side under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, there is a procedure for negotiation - one side must serve a notice to treat on the other, and so on, thereby bringing the dispute to the collective bargaining stage. If they deadlock then there are procedures under the Ordinance for conciliation. When conciliation breaks down, there is the procedure open to them for reference of the dispute to the Industrial Arbitration Court. Those procedures must be followed.

asked the Minister for Culture whether and approximately when a Government Cultural Mission will be sent to Indonesia.

Culture)(In Malay): I have been asked to reply. It is the Government's intention to send a cultural mission to Indonesia, but it is not possible at present to name a date for the following reasons:-

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, could the Government say definitely that they cannot find the money and talents for such a mission? And could they not negotiate with the Indonesian Government in regard to the fixing of a convenient date?

(In Malay): I require notice to reply to the question just raised by the Member for Kampong Kembangan.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the total number of bodyguards, uniformed policemen and detectives employed for the protection of the Prime Minister, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, and what was the total cost of such police protection for July, 1960, giving a breakdown of such cost.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the idea of having personal bodyguards for Ministers was first mooted by the ex-Minister for National Development soon after the P.A.P.'s assumption of office. The idea was taken up at Cabinet level and approved unanimously. However, when instruction was given for the provision of security officers for bodyguard duties, the ex-Minister for National Development posted the security officer attached to him in his office away from public view.

Order. The answer is about 75 per cent out of order! The Minister should confine himself to the points raised in the question. An answer of that nature, of course, invites debate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the total number of bodyguards and uniformed policemen for the protection of all Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries is 23, made up as follows:- Security Branch personnel, 20; Uniformed Police Constables, 3. The members from the Security Branch perform duty as personal bodyguards. The three Uniformed Police Constables perform static guard duty on an 8-hour shift at the Prime Minister's residence. The total cost of police protection for July 1960 was $6,407.46, the breakdown of which is as follows:- Twenty members from the security Branch- $ c. Salaries 4,955 00 Allowances 885 16 Total 5,840 16 Three Uniformed Police Constables - $ c. Salaries 403 50 Allowances 163 80 Total 567 30 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, this is not a supplementary question. It is just a point of clarification.

Order. If it is a point of clarification, then, of course, it is wrong. It must be by way of a supplementary question.

If I was responsible for introducing these bodyguards, then how would the Minister explain the security fencing and the other gadgets which have been employed for the protection of the Prime Minister?

I do not know whether it is a question which the Minister is prepared to answer.

Mr Speaker, this question has never been put to the House.

It is a different question.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what was the total cost, inclusive of the total remuneration and other benefits paid to the police officers concerned, (i) of providing the Special Unarmed Combat Course for Ministers; (ii) of providing the Special Firearms Course for Ministers; giving in each case the breakdown cost of such training; (b) which Ministers have been given such training and how many hours of their office time had they devoted to such training; and (c) whether the Government will consider giving such training to businessmen and other members of the public who wish to undergo such training.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to the question as to what was the total cost of providing the Special Unarmed Combat Course for Ministers, the answer is nil. The police officers concerned conducted the Special Unarmed Combat Course when they were off duty. No cost was involved in respect of remuneration and other benefits. In answer to the question regarding the total cost of providing the Special Firearms Course for Ministers, the answer is that no cost was involved in respect of remuneration and other benefits, as the police officers concerned conducted the Special Firearms Course when they were off duty. The only cost incurred was in respect of the ammunition used, amounting to $461.

40. The following Ministers attended the Special Unarmed Combat Course:- The Prime Minister, The Minister for Finance, The Minister for Home Affairs, Ther present Minister for National-Development. The following Ministers attended the Special Firearms Course:- The Prime Minister, The Deputy Prime Minister, The Minister for Finance, The Minister for Health, The Minister for Home Affairs, The Minister for Labour and Law, The Minister for Culture, The Minister for Education, and The Minister for National Development.

The whole Cabinet!

The Ministers underwent training outside Government office hours and on Sundays. It is to be noted that the ex-Minister for National Development was also provided with a small firearm like the other Ministers until June this year when the small firearm was withdrawn from him. He did not attend the Special Firearms Course because he told me once that -

Order. I do not think the question has pinpointed the ex-Minister for National Development. If the Minister for Home Affairs will concentrate on the question, I think he will be in order.

With regard to the last part of the question, Mr Speaker, Sir, the police will not undertake the training of businessmen and other members of the public in unarmed combat. Where special circumstances exist, the police will provide training in the use of firearms to members of the public, as has been done for several years past.

Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister use his good offices in persuading the members of the police force to provide Members of this Assembly with a Special Unarmed Combat Course, including the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Farrer Park?

asked the Minister for Education to state, with reference to the National Language Evening Classes run by the Government, the total number of classes, teachers and students (a) when such classes were originally started and (b) as at 31st August, 1960; the number of examinations held since these classes were started and the number of passes and failures in each of these examinations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the National Language Night Classes were first instituted by the Ministry of Education in September 1959, there were 339 classes, 220 teachers and an enrolment of about 12,750 students. By the time the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa was established in May 1960, which then took over the responsibility of running all literacy night classes from the Ministry of Education, the student enrolment for the National Language classes had unfortunately gone down to 7.900, although both the number of classes and teachers had increased to 372 and 297 respectively. As at 31st August. 1960, there were 401 classes and 331 teachers with a student enrolment of 6,500. Two examinations or tests have been conducted so far. In December 1959 by the Ministry of Education, 5,750 sat for the examination and 5,280 passed. In July 1960 by the teachers themselves, when 3,860 sat for the examination and 3,140 were successful.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, concerning the figures of students learning the national language, could the Minister for Education explain to this House the reasons for the reduction in the number of students? Or was it through a major fault that the teachers did not receive proper training in the national language? Or are there any other reasons?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to the Member for Kampong Kembangan, there are a number of reasons for the regrettable decline in the number of students attending the national language classes. The main reason is, of course, the lack of sustained interest of the students. Like every other enterprise of a voluntary nature, there are many who join in the first flush of enthusiasm, but who abandon the course when they find that the going is not so easy. The present numbers probably represent the hard core of persons genuinely interested in gaining proficiency in the national language. There is scope for a further increase in enrolment for the national language night classes, but the efforts of the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa in this field are necessarily circumscribed by the availability of suitable and qualified instructors in the national language, of which fact I am sure the Member for Kampong Kembangan is aware. But the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa is sparing no effort in its endeavour to spread knowledge of the national language, and once its teething troubles are over, a rise in the number of students may be expected. The hon. Member for Kampong Kembangan is probably aware that the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa is presently conducting special courses for teachers to teach the students. It takes some time to produce a good teacher. 4.42 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to implement an Agreement between the Governments of the Federation of Malaya, the States of Singapore and Brunei and the Colonies of Sarawak and North Borneo relating to currency and for matters incidental thereto." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on item 2 on the Order Paper.

So be it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Currency Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Yes. Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

4.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend and consolidate the law relating to Customs." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Currency Bill.

So be it. May I have the Certificate of Urgency?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Customs Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Yes. Printed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

"to amend the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Chapter 2 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Thursday, 20th October, 1960, and to be printed.

"to repeal the Imperial Light Dues Ordinance (Chapter 206 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Thursday, 20th October, 1960, and to be printed.

"to amend the Singapore Sailors' Institute Incorporation Ordinance (Chapter 321 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Thursday, 20th October, 1960, and to be printed.

"to amend the Singapore Asian Seamen's Club Incorporation Ordinance (Chapter 319 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Thursday, 20th October, 1960, and to be printed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to introduce the Transfer of Powers Bill at this session of the As sembly and beg leave that this item may be withdrawn from the Order Paper.

The Bill will not be introduced?

Yes.

4.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That an Address be sent to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in the following terms:- "This Assembly has learned with deep sorrow of the death of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of the Federation of Malaya, and pray that Your Excellency will be pleased to convey to the Government of the Federation of Malaya this Assembly's deep sense of the loss which the whole country has sustained, and their profound sympathy with the Raja Permaisuri Agong and the late Yang di-Pertuan Agong's family and with the Government and people of the Federation of Malaya.". Although the late Yang di-Pertuan Agong held office for only five months, nonetheless in that brief period he has enhanced the dignity of the position of the Constitutional Head of State and so in this way advanced the cause of parliamentary democracy. To the people of the Federation in particular, the death of the late Yang di-Pertuan Agong has been a severe loss. In less than one year the Federation has lost two Rulers who were held in high esteem not only by the people of Negri Sembilan and Selangor, from where their Highnesses came, but also by the people throughout the Federation itself. On behalf of the people of Singapore, I would like to extend the sympathy of this House to the Raja Permaisuri Agong and the late Yang di-Pertuan Agong's family and to the people of the Federation of Malaya over the loss of an esteemed and respectable Head of State. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.42 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a Member of the Opposition, it is my duty to offer my condolences over the recent loss of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of the Federation of Malaya. We are fully aware that this is a great loss to the Raja Permaisuri Agong and her family in particular and the people throughout the Federation in general. His late Majesty held the post of Yang di-Pertuan Agong for only five months. Therefore, we, the people of Singapore, not only those of the Islamic faith but others too, feel a deep sense of sorrow over the loss of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who was held in high esteem by the people of the Federation of Malaya. It is hoped that the late Yang di-Pertuan Agong would be a shining example to the future generation.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That an Address be sent to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in the following terms:- "This Assembly has learned with deep sorrow of the death of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of the Federation of Malaya, and pray that Your Excellency will be pleased to convey to the Government of the Federation of Malaya this. Assembly's deep sense of the loss which the whole country has sustained, and their profound sympathy with the Raja Permaisuri Agong and the late Yang di-Pertuan Agong's family and with the Government and people of the Federation of Malaya.".

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I request you to declare whether the motion has been agreed to nemine contradicente?

I so declare.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation to proceed with the Bill. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Owing to the changes in the political status and economic circumstances of the five Participating Governments represented on the Board of Commissioners of Currency, Malaya and North Borneo, it was felt necessary to revise the 1950 Currency Agreement, which was the working basis of the Currency Board. Representatives of the five Participating Governments accordingly met in Kuala Lumpur in February this year, and after considerable discussion, settled and initialled a new Currency Agreement as set out in the Schedule to this Bill. Each Government then undertook to enact the appropriate legislation to ratify the new Currency Agreement as early as possible so that the new Agreement could be brought into force. The Federation of Malaya, Sarawak and North Borneo have already enacted appropriate legislation, and a similar purpose is intended for Singapore by the Currency Bill now laid before the House. I do not think I need explain the provisions of the Bill itself, which are simple or will be clear from the Explanatory Statement. But in regard to the Currency Agreement set out in the Schedule, I should point out some of the major provisions. Firstly, as is befitting the sovereign nation of the Federation of Malaya, the self-governing State of Singapore, the State of Brunei, Sarawak and North Borneo, the new Agreement provides that the Currency Board should be responsible to only the five Participating Governments. Under the old 1950 Currency Agreement, a Participating Government could abrogate the Agreement only with the approval of the United Kingdom Secretary of State for the Colonies. Another clause provided that the Secretary of State should be the arbitrator in any dispute between the Participating Governments, and his approval had to be obtained even for relatively less important matters such as the design of new notes and coins. Under the new Agreement, no reference whatsoever is necessary to the authority of the Secretary of State, as all references to him have been deleted in the new Agreement. The essence of the Agreement is that the Board of Commissioners of Currency is now responsible to the Participating Governments, whose decisions on almost all important points must be unanimous. Secondly, for reasons which the Singapore Government is in agreement, the Federation of Malaya is now given increased representation on the Currency Board. Of the seven members on the Board, two will the appointed by the Federation of Malaya Government, and one each by the Governments of Singapore, Brunei, Sarawak and North Borneo, together with one independent member whose appointment must be with the unanimous consent of the Participating Governments. The Singapore and Federation representatives will have three votes each, while the other members will only have one vote each. It can, therefore, be seen that the Federation Government will have a predominant voting strength of six votes, and it also provides the Chairman of the Board in the person of probably the Honourable the Finance Minister as well. The Singapore representative would be the Deputy Chairman of the Board. Thirdly, which is probably the most important in our viewpoint, is that the new Agreement provides for the investment of a portion of the assets of the Currency Fund in the territories of the Participating Governments. The 1950 Currency Agreement provides only restricted avenues of investment, and we saw the strange phenomenon of the assets of territories which needed development finance urgently being invested overseas and used for financing the development of other countries, some of which are financially more affluent than ourselves. Although it is recognised that reserves of the Board should at all times be adequate to maintain confidence in the Malayan dollar, it was felt that at the same time assets of the Currency Fund should be mobilised to some extent in initiating the economic development of the countries the Board serves. Hence clause 10 (4) of the new Bill provides for the investment of not more than $300 million of the assets of the Currency Fund in securities guaranteed by any of the Participating Governments, to be spread over a period of three years from the date when the Agreement comes into force. The distribution of assets for local investment is governed by the Third Schedule to the Agreement, which provides that the reserves available to a Participating Government shall be determined directly by its share in the profits of the Currency Surplus Fund in the preceding financial year. In turn, the share of profits is governed by the Second Schedule to the Agreement, where, broadly, the formula for distribution is based on the amount of currency circulating in the three territorial divisions of Borneo, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. On the basis outlined above, Singapore's share of the $300 million of the assets of the Currency Fund available for investment in the securities of the Participating Governments is about $60 million. An important provision in the Second Schedule to the Agreement is that under section (iii) the method of profit apportionment may from time to time be varied by agreement between the Governments concerned, and with the unanimous approval of all Participating Governments. The door is therefore open for Singapore and the Federation of Malaya to undertake discussion to review the method of profit sharing between the two territories. Any change in the profit sharing formula would in turn affect the assets available for investment in Singapore. Fourthly, clauses in the new Currency Agreement provide for, and anticipate the future, when a Participating Government may wish to withdraw from the Currency Agreement, thus leading to the dissolution of common currency arrangements provided by the new Agreement. Clause 17 of the Agreement stipulates that when any Participating Government wishes to withdraw from the Agreement, a notice must be lodged with the Currency Board 18 months prior to the date of actual withdrawal. This period is regarded as the minimum time during which other Participating Governments can make alternative arrangements. The clauses that follow up to clause 20 are clauses providing for the winding-up of the Board should any Government withdraw. At this point, I should perhaps say that while the Federation Government has agreed to the new Currency Agreement, it at best contains provisions for a transitional period from a common currency arrangement to one where she will be able to control and regulate her own currency. It is thought unlikely that she will continue a common Currency Agreement indefinitely. However, the new Agreement is a working basis to gradually transform the present currency structure to a more independent one. To sum up, the new Currency Agreement will at one and the same time ensure the stability of the Malayan dollar and enable a part of the Currency Fund's assets to be used for financing our own economic development. It also provides for the future through the winding-up clauses, and yet is solidly linked to the present. In conclusion, I need not Stress that it will secure the maintenance of a sound, stable and respected currency which is a prerequisite for economic stability and prosperity. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Is it a convenient time to suspend?

Yes.

I therefore suspend this Assembly. I shall take this Chair again at half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.56 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation to proceed with the Bill. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, I should perhaps explain why Government considers it necessary to take the Bill through all the three stages today. The House will be aware that, with effect from today, the Government has imposed protective duties on the import of washing soap. At the same time, the Government has liberalised the imports of washing soap. Previously the imports of washing soap were placed under special licensing. On the 29th October, 1959, the report of the Committee to consider the imposition of duties on the imports of hard soap and detergents was presented to the Assembly. The Committee recommended the imposition of import duty on washing soap as a measure to protect the local industry. It was not possible, for reasons which I shall explain later, to introduce such duties forthwith. Accordingly it was decided to place the import of washing soap on special licence with quota ceilings based on previous performance. Now this action could be justified under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade only as a temporary measure. It was necessary to regulate soap imports principally to prevent speculative hoarding of a commodity on which an import duty was expected to be imposed. Certain amendments have to be made to existing legislation before proper administration of the duty could be enforced. At the same time, the Customs Ordinance was due for a general overhaul, and it was thought that this new amendment should go into the general revision of the Ordinance. Thus what was intended as a short-term temporary expedient turned out to have a longer life than was originally anticipated. Before the introduction of these duties, Government was faced with two alternative courses of action regarding the mechanics and timing of this Bill. The first alternative was to wait until the new Bill was introduced, and to impose a duty under the powers derived there-from. It would still have been necessary to take the Bill through all three stages at once because of the complaints that the Government's regulation of the import of washing soap was contrary to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to which we are bound. It was felt that under these circumstances to take the Bill through all three stages without at the same time giving the House sufficient reason therefore would be unreasonable. However, because the interval between the passing of the Bill and its coming into force would take several days, to give reasons justifying such action may lead to the hoarding and rapid increase in the price of imported washing soap. The second alternative which the Government has chosen is to impose a duty under powers derived from the existing Ordinance and then introduce a new Bill in order that the implementation of these duties may be made easier. Now why is this so? Under the existing Ordinance, the Comptroller has no power as such to decide whether a commodity is dutiable or not until an order has been made under section 11 of the Ordinance, although such powers are implied, for example, in section 42 and section 73 (1) . By contrast, clause 23 of the Bill specifically provides that the Comptroller has the power to decide. This is of particular importance in the case of soap, because, at present there is an import duty only on washing soap and not on toilet soap or synthetic detergents. Again, the existing Ordinance does not provide for duty drawback except on tobacco. Thus, if an importer imports washing soap, pays duty thereon and subsequently re-exports such soap, the law does not provide for duty drawback. Clause 69 of the Bill provides for the possibility of duty drawback under conditions in which the goods are identifiable. Clause 20 of the Bill also amplifies the definition of "value" for Customs purposes. At present the duty on soap is a specific duty, and, therefore, the need for this amplification does not arise. But in future it is conceivable that some duties would be fixed on an ad-valorem basis. For this reason, it is necessary to have a clearer definition of "value" for Customs purposes. The present rather limited definition of "value" is contained in section 3 of the Ordinance. The Bill also provides for additional powers, including - the power for the Minister to appoint all members of the Liquors Licensing Board which is to replace the present Board of Licensing Justices of which three members are at present elected by the Justices of the Peace from among their number; the power for the Comptroller to determine whether any goods come under the dutiable or prohibited categories presented to the Minister's order, so that possible delays due to the necessity of frequent references to the Minister may be avoided; the power for senior Customs officers to issue search warrants and to conduct searches. This will replace the present practice of appointing Customs officers to be Justices of the Peace as and when they require such power. This practice is administratively undesirable. And then there is the power for proper officers of customs to determine the proportion of goods which are to be opened and examined and tested, and to remove the confusion regarding the interpretation of a 10 per centum tax as is required at present. Other major amendments include the transfer of the responsibility for the collection of a special tax on heavy oil engined vehicles from the Comptroller of Customs to the Registrar of Vehicles to facilitate the payment of tax by the owners of such vehicles, and the reduction of the amounts of drawback duty paid on tobacco allowed to the manufacturer from the whole of the duty paid to seven-eights of the duty paid to allow for the recovery of administrative cost. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 5.42 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a consolidating Bill of the Customs Ordinance (Chapter 160) and all other subsequent Ordinances which have amended Chapter 160 of our laws. While consolidating the Ordinances, the Government has availed itself of the opportunity to introduce new clauses which, in its view, help to clarify the Customs Ordinance or to give to the Comptroller of Customs certain definite added powers which would enable him to administer the Customs Ordinance more effectively. Mr Speaker, Sir, on a number of occasions I have spoken in this Assembly against the increasing practice of the Government to introduce Bills on Certificates of Urgency. In this instance, the Opposition is obliged to the Government for having sent this Bill two days earlier. On other occasions we were faced with Bills being laid on the Table when we got here. I am glad that the Minister for Finance in his Second Reading speech, has explained why it has been necessary to take this Bill through all three stages today. Mr Speaker, Sir, my own view is that no consolidating Bill, with certain amendments put into it because the Government wants to avail itself of the opportunity to tidy up the Bill, should be put through in this Assembly, or any other Assembly for that matter, in one day. The Minister says that if this Bill had not been taken through all its three readings today, the Government might have been faced with the possibility of hoarding in soaps which have now come under taxation and, therefore, that would lead to loss of revenue. With great respect to the Minister, I beg to differ. I think the Comptroller has sufficient powers under the existing Ordinance to declare soap of the kind which has been declared dutiable today as dutiable, and to see that duty thereon is collected as from today. The proposed Bill will not give the Government any further powers in that matter. Sir, I take it that it is under section 11 (2) of the existing Ordinance that this new declaration that duty is payable on soap has been gazetted. The clause in the new Bill is identically the same. It has given the Government no greater powers. The question of hoarding only arises when people know that the Government is going to bring in a particular category of goods on the taxation list. Then they rush to hoard those goods before the Government puts them on its taxation list. In this case, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has the power to put any article which it so wishes under section 11 (2) of the existing Ordinance. Therefore, I submit, with great respect to the Minister, that. it was completely unnecessary to move this Bill through all its three stages today merely to defeat the hoarders. Sir, I agree that substantially the Bill is exactly the same as the Customs Ordinance as it now is. But there are a number of new additions on which I feel I am not competent to speak because they are matters which affect the trading community and the system of carrying on a business or a trade. I would have felt happier if this Assembly could have been able to pass it after all responsible views with regard to trading and mercantile matters had been consulted and given effect to. I understand, Mr Speaker, that there is a Trade Advisory Council. I wonder whether the new amendments have been put to the Trade Advisory Council and what their views are on the amendments put to them. I believe such a Council exists. If I remember rightly, the Government has said that in all matters affecting trade and business interests, this Council would be consulted before any legislation is put through. There is one other point on which I wish to touch in this speech, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I will elaborate on that point in the Committee stage. In respect of this point I have filed an amendment, a copy of which I have already given to the Minister for Finance. As I see it, Mr Speaker, there are at the moment only two classes of goods which are liable to taxation under the existing Ordinance. Section 11 (1) reads: `There shall be charged, levied and paid such duties on intoxicating liquor, tobacco and petroleum imported into or manufactured in the Colony as may be prescribed from time to time by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara by order published in the Gazette.'. So that we get under subsection (1), Mr Speaker, the goods, "intoxicating liquor, tobacco and petroleum imported into or manufactured in the Colony". These three types of goods are taxable. Then under subsection (2) is another class of goods. The subsection reads: `Where, on consideration of the report of a committee of not less than three persons appointed for the purpose by the Minister, by notification in the Gazette, in respect of any goods specified in that notification, it appears to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that, having regard to the need for protecting any industry which is established or is about to be established for the manufacture of any goods in the Colony...'. Then to protect those interests the Government can list certain goods in a Gazette notification. It is under that subsection (2) that the Government has this morning listed soap as dutiable. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will try to convince the Minister that, although he says that this is a consolidating Bill, it does not take the powers of the Government any further than it has today. I will try to convince him that under the proposed clause 11 (1) , the Government has brought in yet another category, perhaps unintentionally. But I will not elaborate on that at the moment, Mr Speaker. I will do so when we are in Committee. Other than that, Mr Speaker, I have nothing to say about this Bill. This is substantially a consolidating Bill, as the Minister has said, except perhaps for this over-sight and for certain matters to which, if he has consulted trading interests and if they have agreed, we will certainly have no objection. 5.52 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems to me that this very important Bill marks a major change in the economic policy of the State of Singapore. I may be wrong, Sir, but it looks as if this Bill will mean that the Government is beginning to shift, shall we hope gradually, from a policy of free trade to that of protective tariffs. Sir, we are at one with the Government in wanting to encourage industrialisation in Singapore. But if in the process of encouraging industrialisation it is in such a hurry that it spoils the entrepot trade before we are ready to have enough industries, then the results may not be as advantageous as we have expected and may even be injurious. We know, Sir, that even among the traders the question of protection and free trade has aroused a great deal of controversy. From the consumers' point of view, of course, nobody wants to pay more for an imported product on which increased duties have been imposed, or for a local product which may be inferior in quality. I would suggest, Sir, that with the implementation of this new policy great care should be taken that we do not cause more unemployment, because if due to imposition of new duties we put out of employment a certain number of people and industries created or protected are not able to give employment to more people, then in the long run we shall have a bigger unemployment problem. Sir, in view of .the controversial nature of this new policy of increased protection, we on this side of the House think that an important Bill like this should not be rushed through on a Certificate of Urgency. In the past, whenever very important Bills had to be passed, the public were given a chance to study the clauses of the Bills so that if they thought the clauses should be amended, they would have the chance at least to put forward their views to the Government. But as it is, of course, we have just got to accept a fait accompli. We hope, Sir, that this procedure of getting Bills through on Certificates of Urgency will not become the normal procedure in this House, because thereby we defeat the very purpose of having an Assembly. Sir, although the Government will be able to push through this Bill, we hope that in the implementation thereof great care should be taken so that where increased duties are suggested which may be of a controversial nature, they should go slow on it. It is no use giving up a bird in the hand in the hope of getting two birds in the bush, if we cause unemployment among those who depend on the entrepot trade in the hope of giving employment to those to be employed in factories.

Dr Goh, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall first deal with the comments of the Member for Tanglin because I think he is labouring under a complete misconception of what this Bill is about, it will not take me long to correct this misconception. The hon. Member is under the impression that this Bill introduces a major change in the economic policy of the Government of Singapore. Further, he seems to labour under the impression that the act itself of passing the Bill would introduce new taxes. I do not think he has been very diligent in his homework, because it would have been very obvious from the explanatory notes that this Bill does not in itself introduce any new duties. For the most part, it consolidates the existing Customs Ordinance, but it allows a certain modification of the administrative procedures so that new duties as and when they are imposed by the Government could be effectively administered. As regards the new duties that would be imposed under clause 11 (2) of the Bill, the one immediately before the State, of course, is that on soap. I have referred to the Report of the Tariff Advisory Committee on Soap. And it is this procedure that will be followed by the Government before any new import duty is imposed. That is to say, a Committee will be set up under clause 11; the public will have an opportunity to make representations to the Committee either in favour of or against any new import duty. That was the procedure we adopted before we decided upon the imposition of duties on washing soap. So much for the hon. Member's misgivings. Indeed they are all based on a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of this Bill. Now, to reply to the Member for Farrer Park. He was in some doubt as to whether it was really necessary to pass the Bill through all stages today. He quite rightly pointed out that there could be very little fear from the point of view of loss of revenue. We are not so much worried about the loss of revenue because the import of washing soap is already regulated, and it is not possible for any importer today to import greater quantities than his quota. What we are concerned with are the repercussions that this Bill could have on the market for soap. There would be some uncertainty as to the amount of duty and the timing of the imposition of the duty. By and large, this would have a disturbing and upsetting effect on the market for soap. Therefore, in order to avoid any possibility of this, we decided to act quickly and carry it through - the two operations of imposing the duty and passing this Bill today. The Member for Farrer Park has stated that, in his opinion, the existing Ordinance is quite adequate. It is adequate for the imposition of duties on washing soap, but it is not adequate for the effective administration, because when you come to particular commodities, there may be doubt as to whether a particular brand of soap is to be considered washing soap, or toilet soap, or any other form of soap. In this Bill, clause 32 (2) gives the Comptroller power to make a decision on the subject so that the administration of revenue collection will not be bogged down. As regards the need to refer to mercantile interests, I have already explained, in my remarks on the views of the Member for Tanglin, that commercial interests have adequate opportunity to make their views known to the Tariff Advisory Committee on Soap. As regards the general provisions of this Bill, they concern largely the administration of this Bill. There is nothing controversial at all about these provisions because they are, by and large, adopted from the corresponding Ordinance which has already been in operation in the Federation of Malaya for a long time.

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

6.05 p.m. Clauses 1 to 10 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 -

Sir, I have drafted an amendment and have handed it to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. I believe he has made copies of it. May I therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, formally move, In page 8, lines 8 and 9, to leave out "any goods made dutiable on import or manufacture and", and there to insert "imported into or manufactured in Singapore and on".

Perhaps the Member would like to consider this a little further. I think what he really wishes to do is perhaps to reinstate more or less the wording of the original subsection of the Ordinance, which reads: `(1) There shall be charged, levied and paid such duties on intoxicating liquor, tobacco and petroleum imported into or manufactured...'. So that, if the Member would agree, the words to leave out would be - `petroleum, any goods made dutiable on import or manufacture and' and insert - `and petroleum imported into or manufactured in Singapore and on.' That would then bring in all the words of his amendment.

I am obliged to you, Sir. The purpose of this amendment is merely to bring the proposed clause into line with what I consider are the provisions of the existing law. The provisions of the existing law, Mr Speaker, Sir, are in section 11 of the Ordinance - `(1) There shall be charged, levied and paid such duties on intoxicating liquor, tobacco and petroleum imported into or manufactured in the Colony as may be prescribed from time to time by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara by order published in the Gazette.' That, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the first category of goods in respect of which duty may be charged. And it is the law itself which says that, intoxicating liquor, tobacco and petroleum shall be chargeable with duty. And the quantum of duty is also provided for in that section. Subsection (2) of section 11 of the Ordinance, Mr Speaker, Sir, provides that - `Where a committee of not less than three persons appointed for the purpose by the Minister...' have made certain recommendations which have been forwarded to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, and if on perusal of that document it appears to him that - `having regard to the need for protecting any industry which is established or is about to be established for the manufacture of any goods in the Colony and to the interests of the entrepot trade of the Colony in respect of such goods, it is expedient to impose duties on the import of such goods, he may by order published in the Gazette prescribe the duties to be levied and paid on such goods imported into the Colony and such duties shall thereupon be charged, levied and paid: Provided that no duties shall be charged or levied under this subsection on any textiles imported into the Colony.' So that in addition, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the first category set out in subsection (1), subsection (2) sets out that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara may go beyond intoxicating liquor, tobacco and petroleum. Therefore, the goods in respect of which the Yang di-Pertuan Negara may go over and above subsection (1), Mr Speaker, Sir, are goods in respect of which a report has been submitted to him by a committee of three. Now, if the Minister accepts that position, and if that is the correct expose of the present position, let us now therefore look at the present proposed new clause. The proposed new clause, as I read it, Mr Speaker, Sir, seems to set out three categories: `(1) There shall be charged, levied and paid to the Comptroller such customs duties on intoxicating liquor, tobacco, petroleum,' that is the first category, Mr Speaker. Sir, as set out in subsection (1) of the existing law. Then - `any goods made dutiable on import or manufacture'. This, in my view, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the second category which is not provided for in the xisting law. And then, the third category - `and any goods made dutiable by an order under subsection (2) of this section which are imported into or manufactured in Singapore, as may be prescribed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara by order published in the Gazette.' This third category here, Mr Speaker, is the second category provided for under subsection (2) of the existing Ordinance. So that if this clause as it stands becomes law, we will get the position where the Government can impose duty on intoxicating liquor, tobacco and petroleum by virtue of sub-clause (1). And Government can also impose duty on any goods made dutiable on import or manufacture, and such goods need not be goods which come under sub-clause (2). So we get to the position where we have three categories of goods - intoxicating liquor, tobacco and petroleum; any goods made dutiable on import or manufacture; and any goods made dutiable under sub-clause (2). But we could quite easily delete the whole of the clause and say - `There shall be charged, levied and paid to the Comptroller such customs duties on any goods as may be prescribed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara by order published in the Gazette.'; because the greater must include the, less. "Any goods made dutiable on import or manufacture" is the greater. Therefore, it must include the less, in respect of which a report has been submitted to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. If the Minister is with me up to now, then I think he will agree with me, Sir, because he has said in his reply on the Second Reading that the intention of the Government, is not to impose duty on goods in respect of which the public have not been allowed the opportunity to make their representations. Subject to what the Minister has to say. Mr Speaker, I think the intention was not to extend this new Bill beyond the ambit of the existing law. Perhaps this has been wrong drafting, and I will therefore let the Minister speak on that for the moment.

In regard to the imposition of new duties, it is as I have said in my Second Reading speech. And in view of the comments made by the Member for Farrer Park, I will accept the amendment if it is as amended by you, Sir. 6.15 p.m. Mr Thio Chan Bee rose -

Does the Member wish to speak on the amendment?

Yes. Mr Speaker. Sir, I was regarded as having misapprehended the Bill because of what I said. But I was apprehensive about this particular clause because in the Explanatory Statement it is stated that the power to levy customs duty has been extended to include all goods. I am glad indeed that the Minister for Finance has accepted the amendment proposed by the Member for Farrer Park. Amendment agreed to. Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

I propose to take clauses 12 to 22 inclusive, unless there is any Member who wishes to speak on any particular clause in between. Before I do that. I wonder if the Minister for Finance will be able to indicate any consequential amendments which may have to be made in view of the amendment to clause 11. When I come to clause 23, I will point that out. Clause 22, I think, is all right. Clauses 12 to 22 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23 -

Perhaps the Minister would like to look at this clause to see whether there should be an amendment. I am just wondering whether in line 33 the words `under subsection (1) or' ought to be deleted.

May I say something on that, Sir?

Yes.

I had considered the possibility of the ramifications of one amendment, and I did think, in the first instance, that possibly clause 22 and clause 23 should be amended. But on further reflection, I found that it was not necessary because it is under sub-clause (1) of clause 11 that intoxicating liquor, tobacco and petroleum come. You have two types of goods on which duty may be levied, tinder sub-clause (1) of clause 11, it would be liquor, tobacco and petroleum: and under sub-clause (2) of the same clause it would be in respect of matters on which there is a recommendation by a three-man committee. You still have the two categories - one category leviable under sub-clause (1) and the other under sub-clause (2). Possibly because of that, Sir, I did not suggest that clause 22 and clause 23 should be amended.

I am just trying to indicate to the Minister that perhaps in so far as clause 22 is concerned, it is all right because this cause concerns custom duty; whereas clause 23 deals with the question of goods deemed to be dutiable, and that is different. Clause 23 reads: `If any question arises as to whether any particular goods are or are not included in a class of goods appearing in an order made under subsection (I) or under subsection (2) of section ii of the Ordinance, such question shall be decided by the Comptroller.' In view of the amendment to clause 11, there does not seem to be any order of that nature which could be made under subsection (1) . Perhaps I might also draw attention to cause 32 along the same line of thought. Clause 32, sub-clause (2) now reads: `If any question arises as to whether any particular goods are or are not included in a class of goods appearing in an order made under subsection (1) of this section, such question shall be decided by the Comptroller.'

I speak subject to correction by such legal illuminati that may be in the House today. It looks to me that it would be an order made under subsection (1), and that would relate not to the class of goods but to the rate of duty that would be 1.eviable on liquor, tobacco and petroleum. So an order would be necessary to give effect to subsection (1). Clause 23 gives the power to decide whether any particular goods would come under the classes of intoxicating liquor, tobacco and petroleum.

If the Minister is satisfied, I will put the Question on clause 23 then. Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 24 to 31 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 32 -

Clause 32. Of course the Minister will consider sub-clause (2) to see whether he is satisfied. To fall in line with clause 23, ought not the words `or under subsection (2)' be added after `subsection (1)'?

`Subsection (1)' here refers to subsection (1) of section 32 and not subsection (1) of section 23. I misled the House when I quoted this section.

I see. Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 33 to 125 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. 6.30 p.m. Bill reported with an amendment: read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 6.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Land Acquisition Ordinance (Chapter 248) lays down the procedure to be followed when land is required for a public purpose. Briefly the procedure is that after the declaration under section 5 of the Ordinance that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a Company under Part VII of the Ordinance, the Collector of Land Revenue causes notices to be posted at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land and that claims to compensation for all interests therein may be made to him. This notice under section 8 (1) of the Ordinance fixes a date for the enquiry, not earlier than 21 days after publication of the notice. Possession of the land can only be taken after this enquiry is held and an award made under section 10 of the Ordinance. However, section 17 (1) of the Ordinance provides that in cases of urgency when the Minister so directs, the Collector, though no such award has been made, may on the expiration of 15 days from the publication of the notice under section 8 (1), take possession of any waste or arable land needed for public purposes or for a Company. Thus this section, which seeks to provide for a more expeditious acquisition procedure in cases of urgency, nevertheless has been rendered virtually meaningless, by limiting this power to only waste or arable land. In view of the increased expansion of public works, e.g. housing, community centres, schools, roads and industrialisation, it is considered that this power to take possession in cases of urgency should not be limited. This Bill will provide for expeditious action in all cases of urgency. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 6.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a short and simple Bill to dispense with the statutory requirement of having to revise the registers of electors in 1960. Section 15 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance requires the electoral register for each electoral division to be revised annually before 15th September in each year, or such later date in that year as may be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the purpose. The last revision of these registers was completed in December 1959. As the next general election will be in 1964, it is considered by the Government that with a view to economy, the revision of the electoral registers in 1960 be dispensed with. About $50,000 will be saved by dispensing with the revision. The non-revision of the registers does not mean that no work will be done on the registers. Work will continue to keep the records of the registers up to date by making changes of address, additions of new voters, deletions of those no longer qualified to vote, apart from restoring to the registers the names of those who failed to vote at the last general elections and so forth. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker. Sir, while the Opposition sees no objection to the course proposed by the Government, we on the Opposition do not agree with the reasons given by the Minister for not carrying out the provisions of section 15 of the Ordinance. The reason appears to be that the Government is so firmly convinced that it will remain in office till 1964 that it does not think that the electoral registers need revision and, on that basis, they would save $50,000. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are certain types of expenditure which the Government must incur. Our view is that this is one of those types which must be incurred and we do hope that we will not be met with another Bill that electoral registers for 1961 also should be dispensed with.

I wish to support the objection raised by the Member for Farrer Park, because, although we support economy in many fields, we do not think that economy when it comes to stopping or interfering with the electoral machinery is a wise move. It creates a bad precedent for the future. If a government could say, on the grounds of economy, that the revision of electoral registers could be dispensed with, then later on somebody might say that if it is economy, well, elections perhaps could be postponed for one or two years. However, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether he could clarify for me two points. A member of my constituency has asked whether, in his particular case, if there should be a by-election anywhere, a person like himself would be allowed to vote. He was out of the State of Singapore when the last election took place, and he has since asked for reinstatement because he was out of the Colony -

Colony?

- out of the State of Singapore. Would he and people like him be allowed to vote, although the registers have not been in a way properly revised? Now in the case of those who have since the last elections moved to new districts, would they be voting in their new districts or would they have to vote in the old districts?

Mr Ong Pang Boon, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the information of the Members for Farrer Park and Tanglin, there will be a revision of the electoral registers in 1961. As for the two questions raised by the Member for Tanglin, the first one about a voter being away when the register was compiled, I will say that in his case he would not be eligible to vote if there should be a by-election, because his name would not be in the register. In the second instance, the voter will have to vote in his old district.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 6.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill -

Order. May I have the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara?

I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation under Standing Order 49 (1) . Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill, which seeks to amend the Singapore Telephone Board Ordinance, has three purposes. Firstly, to enable the Director of Audit, Singapore, to be the Board's auditor. Secondly, to empower the Minister to appoint to the Telephone Board persons who are in the public service when suitable for appointment. And thirdly, to impose the payment of stamp duties on the Telephone Board. The Director of Audit, Singapore, at present is not an auditor within the definition under section 2 of the Singapore Telephone Board Ordinance, although under a different Ordinance, the Audit Ordinance, he is empowered to audit the accounts of any public authorities and bodies administering public funds. The fee for such audit in each case is charged to the authority or body concerned. By amending the definition of "auditor" under section 2 of the Singapore Telephone Board Ordinance, the Director of Audit is now authorised to act as auditor for the Telephone Board. Under the provisions of section 5 (2) of the Ordinance, no person in the public service of the State can be appointed to the Telephone Board. This restriction on public servants is now removed by clause 3 of the Amendment Bill. Statutory bodies which perform duties in the nature of social services are exempted from payment of stamp duties, while other bodies whose operations are of a commercial character are liable to payment of stamp duties. Since the Telephone Board is being run more as a commercial body, the Board can no longer be exempted. Clause 4 of the Amendment Bill seeks to repeal section 25 of the Ordinance, and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation under Standing Order 49 (1) has been obtained in respect of this clause.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 6.52 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That, the Bill be now read a Second time." The best known and effective international agency providing long-term development finance and expert economic assistance to countries has been the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, known more simply as the World Bank. Its loan and other operations in the immediate postwar period have helped to set many countries on their way to economic recovery from the aftermath of war. The major economic problem and challenge to the world today is the development of the less developed countries in Asia and Africa. In seeking to provide development finance to these less developed countries, the World Bank is at, times circumscribed by certain provisions in its Articles of Agreement. For instance, the Bank would only make loans for specific revenue producing projects, and it also requires loans to be repaid in strong currencies. Therefore, to meet more specifically the needs of less developed countries, a new body called the International Development Association has been formed. By 15th September, less than a week ago, its Articles of Association would have been signed by representatives of member Governments whose subscriptions would have totalled more than 65 per cent of its overall initial capital of $3,000 million. The purposes of the Association are to promote economic development, increase productivity and thus raise standards of living in the less developed areas of the world included within the Association's membership. How would it carry out its stated aims and in what ways would it be different from its older partner, the World Bank? Firstly, the Association would seek to provide long-term development loans at low rates of interest or even free of interest. Secondly, the Association would shape its financing to meet actual needs of countries as they arise. For example, though the Association is required to finance specific projects, which is a criterion based on the sound and tried principles of the World Bank, provisions in its Articles allow the Association to finance any projects which are of high developmental priority, that is, projects which will make an important contribution to development of areas whether or not such projects are revenue producing or directly productive. Therefore, projects such as water supply, sanitation or pilot housing which would not qualify for finance from the World Bank, would be eligible for financing by the Association. Thirdly, in the case of loans from its freely convertible fund of currencies, repayment can be either wholly or partly made in local currencies. This is of advantage to borrowing countries which are faced with the balance of payments problem. Thus, though the Association has been formed on the sound principles of its older associate, the World Bank, the Association would be a more liberal and flexible international financing agency. Membership of the Association is open only to World Bank members. However, as Singapore is a territory where international relations are the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government, she would have access to the resources of the Association under section 3 of Article XI of its Agreement, which provides that - `By its signature of this Agreement, each Government accepts it both on its own behalf and in respect of all territories for whose international relations such Government is responsible except those which are excluded by such Government by written notice to the Association.' The only obligations falling on a territory whose international relations are the responsibility of a member Government, namely, the U.K. Government in our case, are those of giving the Association the immunities and privileges set out in Article VIII of the Agreement. The International Development Association Bill has been introduced to so grant the Association the privileges and immunities as set out in the Schedule to the Bill. The immunities and privileges, which are proposed to be given to the Association, are the normal immunities and privileges granted to international agencies, as honourable Members may well see from the Schedule. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 7.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Banishment Ordinance to take cognisance of the law and to be more in keeping with the spirit and significance of the creation and international status of Singapore citizenship as distinct from other Commonwealth citizenship, and the emergence of Singapore as a fully internal self-governing State. Under the present law, only aliens are liable to be banished or expelled from Singapore. The existing Banishment Ordinance is not applicable to British subjects and Commonwealth citizens. However, since we have amended our citizenship laws to confine Singapore citizenship only to those who really belong to Singapore and have given it their undivided loyalty and allegiance, it is considered that we should also bring our banishment law into line with this conception of Singapore citizenship. Singapore citizenship must transcend all other loyalties and citizenships in Singapore, and it is only just and proper that only a Singapore citizen has the right to be here, and that the Government must retain the right to banish or expel from its territory anyone who is a danger to the State, unless he has the right to be in Singapore as a Singapore citizen. Therefore, while the present banishment procedures as laid down in the existing Ordinance have not been amended since these procedural provisions are considered appropriate and satisfactory for conditions in Singapore, the Ordinance is being amended to enable the Government to banish or expel any person, whether British subject or alien, whose subversive or criminal activities make him an undesirable resident and whose continued stay in the State is not conducive to the public good, unless he has the right to be here by virtue of his being a Singapore citizen. The Government has to be ever vigilant and resolute against any disruptive force undermining the authority and the well-being of the State, and banishment or expulsion is one of the weapons we must have in this fight, where criminals and other undesirable elements opposing the State and its laws are not Singapore citizens. This amendment Bill brings about the new change in the banishment law by deleting the words "alien", "aliens" and "British subject" and substituting therefore the words "a person who is not a citizen of Singapore", "persons not citizens of Singapore" and "citizen of Singapore" respectively, wherever they appear in the Ordinance. The other amendments introduced in the Bill are mainly drafting amendments, with the exception of the amendment proposed by paragraph (c) of clause 4 of the Bill. This is to correct a mistake in the Ordinance. At the Committee Stage, I shall move a further amendment, of which I have already given notice, to delete the word "nationality" wherever it appears and substitute therefore the word "citizenship". Sir, I beg to move.

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

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 8, after "line", to insert "and in the eighth and ninth lines". This is purely a drafting amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 12, to leave out from "amended" to the end of line 16 and insert -

Order for Second Reading read. 7.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," This Bill provides for the repeal of the Deportation (British Subjects) Ordinance, which deals with the deportation of British subjects from the State and lays down the procedure to be followed in deportation. It is a concurrent measure taken together with the Banishment (Amendment) Bill. Since under the latter Bill, which has just been passed, no distinction will be made between aliens and British subjects and Commonwealth citizens who are not also Singapore citizens for banishment purposes, there is no longer any necessity for the Deportation (British Subjects) Ordinance, which is both involved and protracted as regards the procedure laid down for deporting British subjects out of the State remaining on the statute book. Its repeal is, therefore, now sought. Sir, I beg to move.

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

I believe the Leader of the House has a Business Motion.

7.14 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, under Standing Order 4(1) , That the proceedings on the remaining item of business on the Order Paper, be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the remaining item of business on the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1.

7.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name in the Order Paper, namely, That this Assembly urges the Prime Minister to fight in the Internal Security Council for the unconditional release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government. It is a pity, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in a debate on a motion of such great importance, the Prime Minister should conveniently absent himself from the State of Singapore. I also note the strange absence of the Member for Cairnhill at today's sitting. The present detainees, Sir, were the result of two purges during the Lim Yew Hock Government, The first was in October 1956 and the second in August 1957. After the first purge in October 1956, the Prime Minister, who was then only an Assemblyman - the Member for Tanjong Pagar - moved a motion in this Assembly on 5th of November, 1956, Please refer to Hansard, Vol. 2, No, 7, col. 475. The Prime Minister moved: `That this House deplores the further action of the Labour Front Coalition Government under the Banishment Ordinance, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, and the Societies Ordinance against persons and organisations without producing any evidence to justify its action.'. I shall quote extracts of the Prime Minister's speech on the great debate of 5th November, 1956. This is what he said concerning those detained in the first great purge in October 1956. Hansard, Vol. 2, col. 484, reads: `If the Government wants to retain the slightest pretensions to democracy, it must bring the Member for Bukit Timah to open trial. If it cannot then it must release him. And that goes for all the other persons who have been detained.'. I am giving emphasis to the last sentence, "And that goes for all the other persons who have been detained," Mr Speaker, in col. 489, the Prime Minister in the same debate continued: `I [Prime Minister] may not always have agreed with some of my friends who are now in prison in Changi but I agreed with them on one thing: the determination to wreck the present colonial system as soon as possible. For I agreed with them that the colonial system is evil.'. In col. 490, the Prime Minister continued: `That [the purge] was the Labour Front's tactical miscalculation of the position. There should never have been this miscalculation. But the errors having been made, the least that the Labour Front can do is to bring these men to trial, prove the charges against them and satisfy the public conscience, they cannot, then they have no alternative but to release them.'. In col. 584 [Hansard Vol. 2, No. 8, dated 6th November, 1956] the Prime Minister in his reply continued: `The first task is not fighting the Communists. The first task is to wrest the rifle barrel from the hands of the British. When you have done that, then you decide what kind of Malaya you are going to have. That has been the stand of the People's Action Party and will continue to be the stand of the People's Action Party.'. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us refer to the second batch of detainees. On the second batch of detainees who were taken in during the second great purge in August 1957, let us hear what the Prime Minister said in this Assembly on 12th September, 1957. Please refer to Hansard, Vol. 2, No. 37, col. 2602. He said: `The Government [Lim Yew Hock Government] has chosen to act in the way it did. Now it is up to them to explain their actions and what is more important to show that they have not arrested innocent people. If the Government thinks that because some of these men arrested have opposed us in the past we are not going to fight for their rights under the law, they are mistaken.'. Going on to col. 2606, he said: `Those who fought with us on the agreed Party policy we stand by. But even those in our Party who tried to undermine our policy we do not abandon. It is up to the Government to show that they are Communists or Communist agents. Until then, we shall press for their rights under the law,'. Mr Speaker, all these words were said in September 1957. As the months passed by, and as victory was almost in sight on the horizon, and the post of Prime Ministership was within striking distance due to the active support of the unions and other mass organisations on the one hand and the concrete work of the P.A.P. in the City Council on the other, the basic stand taken by the Prime Minister in November 1956 and in September 1957 was gradually and skillfully altered step by step. I will only quote the major shifts and changes in the basic stand of the Prime Minister. On the 4th of December, 1958, which was not long after the victorious Kallang by-election and the P.A.P. was then recognised even by its enemies as the party of the masses and victory was already assured, the Prime Minister said in this Assembly, in Hansard, Vol. 3, No. 12, col. 1188 - Mr Speaker, please note the alteration in the Prime Minister's basic stand - `Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is only one point worth answering, and it is the question which the Chief Minister has posed me about my ex-comrades in Changi. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is one thing about the P.A.P. which perhaps those who form, uniform and re-form political Parties do not understand. When we form a Party, there are certain abiding principles that bind us together. They were my comrades in 1954 when I formed that Party. They are my comrades now in 1958. They will be my comrades next year. If and when anyone departs from the Party programme and Party policy, then he ceases to be my comrade.'. Mr Speaker, there are a lot of adjectives and a lot of qualifications from now onwards. Mr Speaker, distinction is now being made between detainees who are P.A.P. members and detainees who are not P.A.P. members. I am only quoting extracts of speeches of the Prime Minister, and it is not my purpose here to impute that there are improper or dishonourable intentions or motives on his part. Let me give one example so that this change in basic stand can be better understood. Mr Speaker, allow me to take the case of Soon Loh Boon. When the Prime Minister required the active support of Soon Loh Boon, who was the President of the Chinese Middle School Students Union, before his detention in October 1956, the Prime Minister even took the troub1e of escorting Soon Loh Boon home. He parked his Studebaker by the roadside in Hillside Drive and slowly escorted him home. I understand he now refuses to grant interviews to the parents of Soon Loh Boon now that he has become the Prime Minister, I can quote more of such examples. Believe me, the Prime Minister will still offer such courtesies any time when he requires the services of any particular person. Mr Speaker, what is the effect of this skilful change? As I have said, for illustration I have taken the case of Soon Lob Boon. In his speech of 5th November, 1956, the Prime Minister fought for the rights of Soon Loh Boon. But in his speech of 4th December, 1958 - remember that this was after all the work in the City Council when he was equipping himself to become the Prime Minister - Soon Loh Boon had been placed under a different category because he was not a P.A.P. member. Now, there had been brought in two categories of detainees compared to September 1957, or October 1956. P.A.P. members and non-P.A.P. members - in other words, detainees who are P.A.P. members and detainees who are non-P.A.P. members. Mr Speaker, however, as the days passed by very quickly and as V-Day was approaching nearer and nearer, a further distinction was being made. It was the 22nd of May, 1959, which was a week before polling day. It was at the height of the election campaign, when the P.A.P. was already confident of at least 40 seats. It was then stated that the P.A.P. would not take office unless former members of the Party who were intimately connected with the Central Executive Committee and who were then in gaol were released. Mr Speaker, Sir, note the change. There are now three categories of detainees. Firstly, in class number one are P.A.P. members intimately connected with the P.A.P. Central, most of them ex-Central members; secondly, class number two, detainees who are P.A.P. members, but not so intimately connected with the P.A.P. Central; and thirdly, Mr Speaker, class number three, non-P.A.P. detainees. Mr Speaker, I shall just quote an example to illustrate again the difference. For instance, take the case of Tan Bok Teng, who I remember was the Chairman of the P.A.P. Paya Lebar Branch. His rights would have gone through these different stages, three different periods of transmutation, in the skilful but systematic toning down of the basic stand of the Prime Minister which he had taken in the two purges. It is necessary to quote extensively from Hansard and elsewhere former speeches of the Prime Minister to show the rightward trend of the political stand of our Prime Minister; and in order to refute any argument he may make that he had fought for these detainees in the Internal Security Council, Mr Speaker, of which I was a member. From all this, one can notice the pattern of the trend in the political stand of our Prime Minister. During the first meeting of the Internal Security Council on 28th August, 1959, I made my stand clear. The motion in my name today was my stand at that Internal Security Council meeting: the detainees must be released. Since that meeting, the Prime Minister has made it clear that he, being the Prime Minister and the person who appoints or removes the other two Singapore members of the Internal Security Council, only shall speak. Mr Speaker, he is His Almighty the power to be! Let me refer to section 64 (1) which describes the organisation and the representation of the Internal Security Council: `There shall be in and for Singapore an Internal Security Council (in this Part referred to as "the Council") which, subject to the provisions of section 70 of this Order, shall consist of the following members:-

Fortunately, we have an impartial Speaker. I must congratulate you in this connection, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Order. I think the Chair should be considered to be completely impersonal in these matters in that he should really be ignored as an individual but not ignored as an authority on Standing Orders.

Mr Speaker Sir, these detainees have fought British colonialism despite the fact that their methods have differed from those of the Prime Minister who fought the British once upon a time. Of course, there is now no more in him the anti-colonial fight. The British have been forced to grant certain constitutional concessions as embodied in the 1958 Singapore Constitution because of the mass participation of all sections of the people in the anti-colonial struggle. Out of one phase of this anti-colonial struggle, a new Government under a new Constitution was formed in June 1959, but the result of the common fight against the British came out in striking contrast for different people. The answers to the questions asked by the Member for Aljunied (Mr S. V. Lingam) are still fresh in our minds, Mr Speaker. Some are now enjoying life to the utmost, having enormous political "power" and immense social "prestige", driving about in fleets of chauffeur-driven cars with ample bodyguards and escorts, with State flags fluttering in the wind, with special Traffic Police on duty at strategic junctions to enable "S1" to glide and pass by without obstruction. Oxley Road, where the Prime Minister stays -

Order. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Hong Lim can assist me by relating all these remarks to the motion before the House. We are talking about a fight in the Internal Security Council. I cannot see how his remarks have reference to the motion.

Mr Speaker, in my next paragraph you will see - and this is the pattern of my argument - that I am trying to compare the results of the common fight on which the Prime Minister had spoken in 1956. Could I refresh the memories of the Members of this House as to what the Prime Minister said: `I may not always have agreed with some of my friends who are now in prison in Changi but I agreed with them on one thing: the determination to wreck the present colonial system as soon as possible. For I agreed with them that the colonial system is evil.' `The first task is not fighting the Communists. The first task is to wrest the rifle barrel from the hands of the British.' And nobody denies that the British still control the rifle. `When you have done that, then you decide what kind of Malaya you are going to have.' Mr Speaker, I am trying to draw a pattern. It was a common fight on which the Prime Minister agreed, but the results were different for different people. The homes, the seaside bungalows and the golf-links once used exclusively by colonial Governors are now the favourite haunts of the Prime Minister. We promised the people during the elections that we would convert the domains of Government House into a public park for the benefit of our l� million people.

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but I do not know how the personal conduct of the Prime Minister has anything to do with his having to fight in the Internal Security Council. I must try to bring the debate back to its proper course.

Mr Speaker, if at the conclusion of my argument you rule that what I am saying is irrelevant to the motion, you can then ask me to withdraw and I shall withdraw without question. All have gone into empty air. Mr Speaker, Sir, Government House is a nice sanctuary not far from Oxley Road. One of the bedrooms in "Sri Temasek" -

Order. Then I think I must rule that all those remarks are irrelevant to the motion, because the hon. Member has not satisfied me that they are, in fact, related to the motion. Those remarks are irrelevant.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the anti-colonial struggle has come out differently for different people. What is the other side of the picture? In other words, what do the people on the other side get? The people who have fought harder than the Prime Minister are still languishing in gaol. Perhaps there are some striking similarities. The calm sea surface is their golf-links. They also have special seaside accommodation. They also have special bodyguards. They also get free meals at public expense. But there the similarities end. Is that not relevant, Mr Speaker? That is what I am trying to arrive at in my conclusion. So we have one of the most expensive Prime Ministers in the world. His extravagant expenditure on great luxuries and comfort comes from the pay cuts of the civil servants and from the taxes on the poor which should all be devoted to building more roads, clinics, schools, and so on. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have brought in what the Prime Minister said on the occasion of the two great purges, and I have related how he has shifted his stand most skillfully - like a professional lawyer - so that there are now three categories of detainees. He has tried to prove that he has no obligation to the second and third classes of detainees, I have also tried to give an account to this House of the two very strikingly different results for two sets of people fighting a common enemy - the British colonialists. Mr Speaker, Sir, arising from this debate, it is only decent that the Prime Minister who is today the guest of honour of British colonial governors should fight for the immediate and unconditional release of these political detainees. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 7.46 p.m. Mr Ng Teng Kian (Punggol) rose -

I have to enquire, of course, whether or not the hon. Member is making a prepared speech, because I have indicated in a circular that hon. Members who are speaking in a language other than English should try as far as possible to cooperate with the interpreters by giving them a copy of any prepared speech that would be made. If the Member for Punggol assures me that he has not got a prepared speech, then perhaps he can carry on. But if he has a prepared speech, I would rather that he first supply a copy of that prepared speech before I call him. Perhaps he could let me know.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is only a short speech which I did not prepare earlier.

Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Hong Lim. Before the P.A.P. came into power, during the time of the Lim Yew Hock Government, the British colonialists arrested many political detainees during the two purges. How many of these political detainees have been released since the Lee Kuan Yew Government came into power? These people who were arrested were anti-British colonialists. Although we do not agree with their tactics but because we believe in truth and justice, we must request the unconditional release of these arrested political detainees. Let us speak frankly. Without these people who supported the struggle against the British colonialists and without the success of the P.A.P.'s work in the City Council, the Prime Minister would not be holding the position he now holds today. What has he shown to secure his present position? In the past, the colonial Governors were the objects of his attack but now these people are his hosts. Those detained by him were political workers. The Mayor of the City Council, Mr Ong Eng Guan, was his good friend, but now the Prime Minister attacks him. When he needs a person to help him, his purpose is to make use of such a person to benefit him. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has now cut himself off from the people who were once on his side. For example, Mr Soon Loh Boon. The Prime Minister was once the adviser to the Chinese Middle School Students' Union. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Prime Minister wants to face the people, he must fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of these political detainees. Today he must make his stand clear in this Assembly. 7.53 p.m.

Mr Speaker, first let me on behalf of the Prime Minister disabuse the mind of the Member for Hong Lim that the Prime Minister is afraid to attend the debate today to exchange cudgels with him. The invitation from the Sultan of Brunei to the Prime Minister was fixed for today. Today's sitting of the Assembly was fixed last month. If the Member for Hong Lim had given earlier notice that he was going to move this motion, I can assure him that the Prime Minister would have been only too glad to alter the date for today's sitting so as to be present and to listen to all that has been uttered against the person of the Prime Minister. And I would like to inform the House that the Prime Minister had urged me to postpone today's sitting of the Assembly so that he could be present at the debate, but as Leader of the House I had to consider the fact that last month we had announced that we were going to move a number of Bills today and so I proceeded with today's sitting. I would assure the Member for Hong Lim that he should thank his lucky stars that the Prime Minister is not present today, otherwise he would be at the receiving end of it. Mr Speaker, at the sitting of the Assembly on 14th October last year, I made a statement on the internal security position and our relationship with the Federation on behalf of the Singapore Government. In that statement, I clarified to the House the rights, powers and duties of the Internal Security Council and our part in the Internal Security Council of which the Federation Government is a member. If you will permit me, Mr Speaker, let me refresh the memories of Members of this House, and in particular the memories of the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Punggol, on the role of the Singapore Government in the Internal Security Council. In Hansard of 14th October, 1959, Vol. 11, No. 11, at column 660, I said: `The competence of the Singapore Government to formulate and implement the policy affecting internal security is subject to the overriding powers of the Internal Security Council. In addition to consultation and decisions on questions of policy, the Internal Security Council is competent to make executive decisions for the maintenance of internal security in Singapore, and any such decision which has been communicated to the Singapore Government must be given immediate effect. The Singapore Government is competent to take executive action on its own authority in matters of internal security. For its part, the Internal Security Council is competent to take decisions in these same matters, and in so far as it does those decisions, by virtue of section 66, paragraph (2), endorse, supplement or override any decisions which the Singapore Government may itself have taken -' Let me repeat the words "endorse, supplement or override any decisions which the Singapore Government may itself have taken ..." "...and constitute binding directives with which toe subsequent decisions and actions of the Singapore Government must conform. The Singapore Government should not take any action in any field which would be contrary to policy already agreed by, or decisions already taken by, the Council or would be likely to raise policy issues, or would have repercussions affecting internal security, without prior reference to the Council.' What I have just said was fully endorsed by the Member for Hong Lim, the ex-Minister for National Development, when he stood up to support the Preservation of Public Security (Amendment) Bill introduced by the Prime Minister. Ninety-five per cent of his speech on that day as well as today was devoted to a lengthy quotation of what the Prime Minister had said at that time in the Opposition in this House in October 1958, We know that the Prime Minister has a tape-recorder but not until the Member for Hong Lim and his two colleagues moved over to the Opposition Benches did we know that the Prime Minister also keeps a parrot. Apart from miscasting or paraphrasing what other people have said -

Order. I was not quite certain whether the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister meant to liken the Member for Hong Lim to a "parrot". If he did mean that, I think he ought to withdraw, because the word "parrot" in this context is offensive.

I was thinking of Aesop's Fables.

I think the Deputy Prime Minister ought to withdraw that word.

I beg to withdraw. The only contribution by the Member for Hong Lim to the debate on the Preservation of Public Security (Amendment) Bill, recorded in the same Vol. 11, No. 11, col. 673, was this: `It is being fully recognised, under the new Constitution granted to Singapore by the British masters, that the decisive say in internal security in this Island is the Internal Security Council.' When he uttered those words, the Member for Hong Lim was one of three members representing the Singapore Government in the Internal Security Council. It was his experience in the Internal Security Council which led him to conclude that the decisive say in the internal security of Singapore rests on the Internal Security Council and not on any single member of the Council. Or does he wish to say now that the decision of the Internal Security Council rests on the Prime Minister only, or on the Minister for Home Affairs only, or on him, Mr Ong Eng Guan, the third member of the Internal Security Council? If the Member for Hong Lim wishes to place the responsibility of decisions taken by the Internal Security Council solely on any single person, then surely the responsibility must also rest on him. Although the Member for Hong Lim has not demonstrated any great love for collective leadership and collective action, I am quite sure he will be the first person to deny that his role in the Internal Security Council was an individualistic role. It is not that the Singapore Government has not fought for the release of those detained under the Lim Yew Hock Government. It was I who said those words quoted by the Member for Hong Lim a moment ago - that the P.A.P. would not take office unless former members of the Party who were intimately connected with the Central Executive Committee and who were then in gaol were released. We can be responsible only to our colleagues and to those who work with us. We cannot be responsible for the activities of those unknown to us, or be responsible to those who carry out activities for which we have not given any request to be done. We have fulfilled our pledge to release those members of the Central Executive. Committee who were detained. There were eight of them, and at our insistence,, on 4th June they were released before we assumed office on 5th June. On 1st June, 1959, immediately after the elections and before forming the Government, the Secretary-General of the Party,, now the Prime Minister, stated that the record of the other detainees would be reviewed and justice done on the merits, of each case. There were 60 persons detained on 2nd June, 1959. From the day the People's Action Party assumed office,, 3rd June, 1959, up to date 32 persons have been released. Of those who were detained by the previous Government, there are now only 28 persons still under detention. It is not that the Singapore Government has not reviewed the records of these detainees. In fact, these detainees have written letters to the Prime Minister. However, it is not for the Prime Minister alone, or for that matter the Singapore Government, to release these detainees. It is the Internal Security Council whom these detainees, must convince that they are sincerely renouncing and repudiating the methods and aims of political forces which seek to overthrow the democratic system not only of Singapore but of Malaya, by means of subversion and violence as a whole, The efforts of the Singapore Government to work for their release will be in vain if the attitude of these detainees continues to be equivocal. Let us recognise one simple fact. The Federation Government has been compelled today to adopt an anti-Communist stand because of militant Communist insurrection. After passing through 12 years of Emergency, it is hardly likely, therefore, that the Federation Government, who has the deciding vote in the Internal Security Council, will agree to the release of those persons who, by their actions, it is convinced, are advancing the cause of the Malayan Communist Party. It is our business to look after the welfare and well-being of the people which we know can only be advanced through ultimate merger with the Federation. We have no intention to jeopardise the welfare of the people as a whole for the benefit of a small group. The P.A.P. was founded on a rising tide of nationalism in Singapore. However, it is one thing shouting anti-colonial slogans, and another thing knowing how to fight in the present context the forces of colonialism. The P.A.P. has carried the fight against colonialism to the present stage, and today we have internal self-government. In the next stage against colonialism, we will have to consider not only the prospects of political independence but also economic independence. If Singapore were the size of an island like Ceylon, or even the State of Johore, or Pahang, the possibilities for a completely independent Singapore exist. But it is not so, and therefore the key to political as well as economic independence for Singapore is a merger between Singapore and the Federation. That key is not with the British Government today, but it is with the Federation Government, it is the Federation Government and the people of the Federation whom we must convince that merger with Singapore will not lead to Chinese domination, or Communist conquest of Malaya and overthrow of the Federation Constitution. Merger between Singapore and the Federation is the prime consideration in our political thinking. And we shall not allow anybody to disrupt the good relationship which we have established with the Federation Government, or to endanger the prospects of a merger. There is one thing that Singapore has in common with the Federation, and that is that both territories have a parliamentary democratic system. It is because the parliamentary democratic system exists in Singapore today that the Member for Aljunied can stand up in this House to ask the puerile questions that he has brought up this evening. But I do not credit the Member for Aljunied with even that degree of puerility, and therefore we must believe that he is only a mouthpiece. The Member for Hong Lim talks of secret trials within the P.A.P., and that this is the fourth round of secret trials in this. Chamber. Let the Members for Hong Lim, Aljunied, and Punggol ponder well. Let them thank their lucky stars that the liberty of speech exists in this House. In other countries with different systems of government, these three birds would be made to sing a different tune. Mr Speaker, I will assure the House and the people of Singapore that the Singapore Government will continue to fight, as it has done in the past, for the release of those, persons who can convince not only the Singapore Government but also the Internal Security Council that they have abjured not only the methods but also the aims of political forces which seek to overthrow the democratic system by subversion and violence. Sir, I beg to move an amendment to the motion by the Member for Hong Lim as follows:- To leave out the words "the Prime Minister", and there to insert - "the Government to continue"; to leave out the word "unconditional", and at the end to add - "and the House urges the detainees to assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence." The final amended motion, if you will permit me, reads as follows:- That this Assembly urges the Government to continue to fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and the House urges the detainees to assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence. Sir, I beg to move.

May I have the amendment? Amendment handed in. 8.15 p.m.

It is a matter for regret that the Deputy Prime Minister has not consulted me when drafting this amendment, because a point has occurred to me, which I think I ought to look into before. deciding whether or not the amendment is in order. I therefore propose to suspend this sitting for 20 minutes. I will take the Chair again at 8.40 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.20 p.m. until 8.40 p.m. Sitting resumed at 8.40 p.m.

Order read for resumption of debate on motion.

The original Question was, "That this Assembly urges the Prime Minister to fight in the Internal Security Council for the unconditional release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government." Since which an amendment has been moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. I have had an opportunity of looking at that amendment and I rule that when it seeks to ask this Assembly to urge the detainees to do something, that amendment, in so far as it seeks to do that, is out of order, because the Assembly cannot hope to urge anybody who is not responsible to this Assembly to do anything. So I have suggested an alteration to the amendment to the Deputy Prime Minister, and if he will move the amendment as altered, then he will be in order. I have made copies for him.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the guidance. I beg to move an amendment to the motion moved by the Member for Hong Lim as follows, To leave out from "urges" in line 1 to the end and there to insert, "the Government to continue to fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and this Assembly endorses the Government's view that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence".

The original Question was, "That this Assembly urges the Prime Minister to fight in the Internal Security Council for the unconditional release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government." Since which an amendment has been moved, To leave out from "urges" in line 1 to the end and there to insert, "the Government to continue to fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and this Assembly endorses the Government's view that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." Of course, hon. Members know that the debate may range over the words proposed to be inserted. Mr Chan Sun Wing rose -

Does the Member wish to speak on the amendment?

On the amendment. In Mandarin.

Order. Could I inquire whether the hon. Member has supplied a copy of his speech to the Interpreters?

Yes.

Very well, Mr Chan. 8.50 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I second the amendment moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. We, being an elected Government and an anti-colonial Party, must solemnly answer the question - should we strive for the release of those detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government for political reasons? Our reply is positive and has never been otherwise. As early as 14th October, 1959, the Deputy Prime Minister, when making a policy speech concerning the problem of national safety and challenge from Communism, quoted the Prime Minister and pointed out that the P.A.P. has no intention to become the hand-maid of the Communist Party. But we also do not have the intention to soil our hands wearing the same gloves used by the old Government. In our rebuttal of the so-called 16 resolutions by Ong Eng Guan on 22nd June, 1960, we again stated our stand: "All those detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government in the two purges should be released." Our stand on this problem is unchanged today. The P.A.P. Government will still persistently request for their release in the Internal Security Council. Those who are easily excited by this problem should weigh the Government by looking at concrete facts and figures. Of the 60 person detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government for political reasons, 32 have been released since the P.A.P. came into power. Of those still under detention, our attitude is still this - to deal with each case on its merits. All those within and without this House know that the key to the release or the continued detention of these people is held by the Federation representative to the Internal Security Council. That is to say, the decisive factor is whether or not the detainees can supply sufficient grounds to help the Singapore Government convince the Federation representative, whose vote is decisive on the matter. Unless we decide not to follow the peaceful and constitutional way to fight for the ultimate aim of merger and independence, we must accept the limitation imposed by the new Constitution. The new Constitution does not give us the sovereignty and liberty necessary for an independent country. Everybody knows this. But since we have accepted the new Constitution, no one can deny the fact that the people of Singapore have pushed history towards the right progressive path - the only correct path. The Member for Hong Lim has again raised the question of political detainees. Will the release of political detainees negative the constitutional struggle? If so, and if he wants to be considered as a real revolutionary, then he ought to tell the people of Singapore in this House how bad and hopeless the new Constitution is and show them the way, the outcome and the prospect of such step. He should not merely talk of the release of the political detainees. If he is really earnest in engaging in social revolution and not pursuing his aim of individualistic heroism, then he should persuade the people to follow him in his cause. To win the support of a section of the community who are directly concerned with those political detainees is not enough. With regard to the question of releasing the political detainees, our policy is that the rights and wrongs of every case should be dealt with in a just and fair way. But, if among those who are now detained there are some who do not believe in peaceful constitutional struggle and who harbour the design of replacing the democratic parliamentary system with a Communist regime, then the P.A.P. has no obligation to fight for their release and their freedom. Even if we do so, we will not succeed in our endeavour. But no matter how, we will still endeavour to convince these people to accept the idea of constitutional democracy to enable them to be released early. On the subject of the three-cornered fight waged between the Communists, the British colonialists and the P.A.P., the Prime Minister has dealt `with it very clearly at the last Assembly sitting. Of course, what the Prime Minister said on the topic is not pleasing to the ears of the pro-Communists and Left-wing adventurers. However, I think they should seek solutions to the problem in concrete reality and not base their method on their subject wishful thinking. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to point out that there was no such word as "unconditional" in the Member for Hong Lim's motion proposed at the Party Conference in June this year. If at that time the people were not confused by his slogan, the addition of the word "unconditional" now would be of no use also. Another motive behind the Member for Hong Lim's motion was to put the entire responsibility of releasing the political detainees on the shoulders of the Prime Minister, so as to show that his expulsion from the Party arose out of his personal quarrel with the Prime Minister, and that he is the only person who is really anti-colonialistic. Anyone who is able to see the true colour of his individualistic heroism will understand the real facts of the event. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I deem it necessary to amend the motion proposed by the Member for Hong Lim. 9.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, speaking on the amendment, I was very glad to hear the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House speak in the manner he did this evening. Sir, in this country and in our neighbouring country, Malaya, we are both committed to a democratic parliamentary system, and the objective of the Government here and the Government across the Causeway is to work this democratic parliamentary system to the best of both our abilities. Anybody who seeks to destroy this system and to disrupt and destroy the State is an enemy of the State. Therefore, the State must take action to see that it is not destroyed by its enemy. It is only with that intent and for that purpose that it then becomes rightful for a democratic system such as ours to bring in such an Ordinance which will put away from society people who are enemies of the State and who wish to destroy it. It is on those grounds, and on those grounds alone, Sir, that an Ordinance like this is permissible in such a system as we are seeking to operate. I think there can be no doubt in the mind of any Member in this Assembly, or anybody outside, that there are such persons in the Federation of Malaya and Singapore who are seeking to do that. In those circumstances, therefore, their detentions are justified and justifiable. The original motion, Mr Speaker, Sir, dealt with only the question of detainees who were detained .by the Lim Yew Hock Government. Since the P.A.P. came into power, a certain number of people have been detained by the present Government - I do not know the exact number, Mr Speaker, Sir. So I was somewhat disappointed when I read the motion by the Member for Hong Lim, who has specifically asked the Government to use its best endeavours in the Internal Security Council only for those detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government. I remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, that on the last occasion when we met, the Member for Hong Lim was loud in his condemnation of the Government for having detained two members of the Press. They were also detained under the P.P.S.O. Sir, I was somewhat surprised that the persons whom he had made use of for his own purposes in the debate against the Government had conveniently been forgotten by him in this motion. Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister, in the course of his speech, said that when the PAP, came into power there were about 60 persons under detention, having been committed there by the Lim Yew Hock Government. I hope I am quoting the right figure, Sir - I think he said that 32 have been released up to now and that 28 still remain where they were. Sir, let us look at it this way. Assuming that the P.A.P. did not agree with the Lim Yew Hock Government that all 60 should have been detained (on the basis that the Lim Yew Hock Government had made a mistake), then I think we have now certainly reached the position that, on 21st September, 1960, the P.A.P. Government does certainly agree that in so far as the 28 detainees are concerned, the Lim Yew Hock Government had not made a mistake; whatever its views may be on the other 32 who had been detained. Sir, I welcome the amendment of the Government and I support it. But I think the amendment does not go far enough. I think the Government is taking the correct view that if the Lim Yew Hock Government detainees mend their ways and satisfy the Government that their ways have been mended, then, of course, the Government will fight for their release. Sir, I think the position which applies to the Lim Yew Hock Government detainees should also apply, in all fairness, to the detainees who have been detained by the present Government. I do not think the Government can say, "We will apply one set of standards to those detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government, and another set of standards to those detained by us."

Why not?

Therefore, I say this to the Government: the only basis on which the 28 are being detained is because they are enemies of the State, and the only basis on which the present Government is detaining people off their own bat - if I may use the colloquialism - is also because they are enemies of the State. So if the 28 enemies of the State previously detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government can be mercifully treated by the Government, the Government should equally treat those detained by them mercifully. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I move an amendment to the amendment -

Order. We are now, of course, on the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." If that is agreed to, then the next Question will be, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted." When we come to that Question, the Member for Farrer Park could rise and move simpliciter. Of course, he must say what he wishes to say on the subject now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said all that I could say on this subject, and therefore I will wait for the appropriate moment to move my amendment. 9.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the House. We on this side of the House are dedicated to the cause of the creation of a democratic, socialist, non-Communist Malaya. The Opposition, of course, are entitled to their own beliefs and convictions, if any. But whatever their beliefs, they must surely possess at least some semblance of honesty and responsibility in their political endeavours. It must not be forgotten, Sir, that the democratic system of government, which we on this side of the House cherish and which the Opposition claim' to uphold, can only work and operate if everyone in this House, nay, everyone in this State of ours, is aware of his civic responsibility; and that fanatics and opportunists should be confined to where they really belong. The motion of the Member for Hong Lim came as no surprise to us, for we had anticipated such a move from him ever since he has been disowned by and expelled from our Party. To him political manoeuvres should be geared to serve the selfish needs of petty politicians and not for the benefit of the masses.

Order. That expression with reference to the Member for Hong Lim or any other Member of this House is out of order. Will the Member withdraw that expression?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think this remark was meant to apply to the Member for Hong Lim. Perhaps if you may be kind enough to allow me to repeat what I have said - may I carry on, Sir?

Please, then I can rule again.

To him, political manoeuvres should be geared to serve the selfish needs of petty politicians. Can that be allowed, Sir?

I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary will now agree with me that that is an unparliamentary expression to use with reference to any Member of this House. Will he please withdraw?

I withdraw that remark, Mr Speaker, Sir. We on our part believe that political movements must be geared to serve the needs of the masses, otherwise such political movements must and certainly will be doomed to failure. It is for this very reason that the Member for Hong Lim has found himself cold and lonely, outside the warm spirit of comradeship within the P.A.P. The tactics of the Member for Hong Lim, Sir, are too well known to merit elaboration. Suffice it to mention that he has failed completely and utterly within the ranks of the Party, and he is now trying very desperately to attract attention by irresponsible and sensational slogans and motions. Just as a drowning man would clutch at a straw, an eclipsed and disgraced politician would snatch any trick so long as it could give him an unnaturally prolonged span of life, though such artificially boosted longevity may prove to be excruciatingly agonising in the end. When the Member for Hong Lim moved his motion, I expected some brilliant dissertation on the need for the Prime Minister to do as he has suggested. However, I was completely disappointed and, if I may be permitted to recall his speech made just a few moments ago, I might say that other than quoting a few remarks of the Prime Minister, which he was wont to quote at all times, he was himself unable to make any genuine political contribution by way of political statements. Other than such repetitions and quotations, there is really nothing in the motion or in the speech that he has made in respect of that motion. He does not seem to be aware or to be able to understand that with the achievement of independence in the Federation of Malaya, the political analysis of this country has changed. Before the Federation achieved independence, it was our duty and our responsibility to fight the colonialists, to fight the British at all costs. With the achievement of independence by the Federation of Malaya, it is our responsibility now to light for merger with the Federation if we are to accept that independence for Singapore alone is not viable and not feasible, and that independence for Singapore can come and will only come after merger with the Federation. The stress and the emphasis of the fight has therefore changed. It is therefore our duty to lead the people of Singapore to fight actively for a merger and not for quixotic pursuits as suggested by the Member for Hong Lim. We have exposed the Member for Hong Lim for trying to embarrass and discredit the Government in any way he can for little transient advantages. After all, weaker characters have sold their souls to the devil for similar ephemeral advantages. To the Member for Hong Lim, the P.A.P. has totally failed to serve his own personal nefarious purposes.

Order. I think the Hon. the Parliamentary Secretary does realise that he is skating on very thin ice. When he alleges that a Member of this Assembly is doing something to suit his nefarious purpose, he is completely out of order. That expression cannot be used.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will withdraw the word "nefarious" and -

Unconditionally.

May I make a remark, Sir, that it is in relation to the motion that he has moved that I was tempted to use such a word to describe him?

That does not mean to say that the Member is in order. Please continue.

I will withdraw it unconditionally, Sir. The Member for Hong Lim has failed utterly and completely to win over the loyalty of the rank and file of the Party. He now therefore embarks upon the destruction of the Party that had suckled and nurtured him, not for any scruples or principles, but because he was excluded from participation within the Party. The honesty, the integrity and the collective leadership of the P.A.P. is unquestioned by any sincere person. The cleanliness and the dedication of the Party is unchallengeable. The P.A.P. represents a genuine movement of the people of Singapore for a better way of life and a more egalitarian society.

Order. It seems to me that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is gradually going further and further away from the motion. I do not think the motion, or even the amendment, suggests that there should be a debate on the People's Action Party. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is possibly wandering a little too far.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in his speech supporting his motion, the Member for Hong Lim analysed the stand of the P.A.P. and submitted that throughout the days of the struggle against the colonialists, that stand was changed. I was merely trying to show him that the basic stand has not changed, but that the circumstances have changed. The political objectives of the P.A.P. have never been changed and will never be changed. Yet the Member for Hong Lim is prepared to destroy this movement and put the clock back for many years to suit his own purpose. What kind of a revolutionist does he claim to be? Does he want chaos? Does he want riots and bloodshed for the people of Singapore all over again? Fortunately, Sir, the people of Singapore have seen through his scheme. They have turned a deaf ear to his sensationalism and his antics. Even more fortunately, Sir, the collective leadership of the Party is able to expose him everytime he tries a new stunt. Truth has a very funny way of bobbing up everytime the Member for Hong Lim tries to hoodwink the people and is himself exposed. Sir, we all know that the Member for Hong Lim has one out-standing talent.

Order. I think I must put a stop to this. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is embarking on a debate on the Member for Hong Lim. I do not think this Assembly should debate the Member for Hong Lim, as the Member for Hong Lim, in this particular motion. I have indicated before that if that is to be done in this Assembly, it must be done by a substantive motion. Let us try and confine ourselves to the amendment.

Thank you, Sir. I shall now read the original motion of the Member for Hong Lim which states: `That this Assembly urges the Prime Minister to fight in the Internal Security Council for the unconditional release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government.' Running through this motion, we are able to read in and between the lines the false premises messed-up with paranoic tendencies of a persecution complex. The Member for Hong Lim is still trying to persuade the people that his quarrel is not with the P.A.P. but with the Prime Minister, as indicated by the wording of his motion. Perhaps politicians with mental aberrations are unable to see their true selves as others see them. The Member for Hong Lim has worded his motion with vengeance towards the Prime Minister in a very personal way. He has intended the motion to be a double-edged sword to cut deeply into the Prime Minister on the one hand, and into the front and back benchers on this side of the House on the other. He has hoped to give the impression, through the motion, that the Prime Minister is the dictator of the Party, and all the rest of us here are mere stooges. He has also aimed to discredit the Prime Minister in the eyes of the progressive elements and to embarrass the front and the back benchers when it comes to voting. We have seen thoroughly through his mischief, and it is for these reasons, Sir, that the Leader of the House has amended the motion to read the "Government" in place of the "Prime Minister". Perhaps it is because when the Member for Hong Lim was the Minister for National Development he was so preoccupied with his selfish schemes of empire building that he was unable to believe in the principles of collective leadership. Where he had himself failed, he could not believe that others could succeed. Going through the original motion, Sir, we can see glaring and deliberate errors both of commission and omission. As an ex-member of the Internal Security Council, the Member for Hong Lim must surely know and must surely realise that the British and the Federation Governments have the decisive vote in the Internal Security Council, and that however hard the Singapore Government fights in respect of the release of the political detainees, it would be in vain, unless the British and the Federation Governments are fully satisfied, `by the detainees themselves, that their release would not be detrimental to the interest of the Federation of Malaya. Hence the amendment `.this Assembly endorses the Government's view that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence.' This kind of deliberate errors of commission, Mr Speaker, Sir, cannot be forgiven. I might add, Sir, that the original motion was worded to make it appear that the Singapore Government had never fought for the release of the detainees. Nothing can be further from the truth. Even before the P.A.P. formed Government the wheels were set in motion for the release of political detainees by the collective leadership of the Party. It is indeed true to say that the P.A.P. kept its promises fully that it would not assume Government unless and until our friends and colleagues detained by the previous Government were given their freedom. Last June, eight of our colleagues came out of Changi gaol. Since then we have unrelentingly fought for the release of the remaining political detainees, and will continue to fight for their release. And I say here that all of us on this side of the House support full-heartedly the amendment of the Leader of the House. The Member for Hong Lim may not be aware of the fact that since June 1959, we have fought for and have secured the release of 32 political detainees cut of a total of 60. It is up to the detainees themselves now to fight their own battles, and to help themselves. I believe that they have no need for people like the Member for Hong Lim to fight, unsolicited, their battles for them, and they have indicated so in no uncertain terms. The conspicuous and deliberate error of omission of the Member for Hong Lim lies in his failure to state his stand on the most fundamental political issue. When he was with us in the People's Action Party, he believed in the creation of a democratic, socialist, non-Communist Malaya. Now that he has been expelled by the Party, does he still believe in the creation of a democratic, socialist, non-Communist Malaya, and Mr Speaker, Sir, I challenge him to make his stand. That is important, Sir, because that is the basic and fundamental political stand of any politician. And if he still believes in the creation of a democratic, socialist, non-Communist Malaya, let him say so in this House, Sir, so that he may take into consideration his own political beliefs whenever he is struck by the anxiety to rant and to sensationalise again. If he agrees that the creation of a democratic, socialist, non-Communist Malaya is in the best interest of this country, then surely he must agree with us, Mr Speaker, Sir, that any power that seeks to overthrow this democratic system by subversion and by violence must be squarely met and boldly dealt with. He must, therefore, support the amendment of the Leader of the House, so ably reamended by you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The motion -

Order. I hope that remark does not indicate to anybody that I have taken part in the debate. The amendment is the amendment of the Leader of the House, and I only assisted in drafting it.

Perhaps I might be permitted to thank you for your assistance in drafting and your guidance. Perhaps it is uncalled for, since the Leader of the House has already expressed his thanks just now. Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion of the Member for Hong Lim appears very much to be and indeed is a bid for political support by progressive elements. He is doing it unashamedly despite having been told off in the most unmistakable terms. But then he has no alternative. Having been expelled by the P.A.P. from the left and being unacceptable to our friends on the opposite benches who represent ineffective political movements on the right, he has to crawl back to the very elements who kicked him out of the P.A.P. in 1957. Very few politicians, Sir, except those bankrupt of ideas and ideals, have had the pig-headedness to steer through dead-ends in similar circumstances. This is not the first nor the last time that the Member for Hong Lim will try to bamboozle the people with empty slogans. The collective leadership of the Party will deal effectively with each and every one of such motions that he may introduce into this Assembly, and will see to it that all his schemes will boomerang back to him and expose him for what he really is.

The original Question was: "That this Assembly urges the Prime Minister to fight in the Internal Security Council for the unconditional release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government." Since which an amendment has been moved: To leave out from "urges" in line 1 to the end and there to insert: "the Government to continue to fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and this Assembly endorses the Government's view that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence".

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to.

The Question now is, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted." Mr Rajah to move simpliciter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move simpliciter, That the words "who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government" be left out. The motion will then read without that particular phrase.

It has been proposed that the following words be inserted to replace the words which have been left out. These words are: `the Government to continue to fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and this Assembly endorses the Government's view that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence'. Now an amendment to the amendment has been proposed, to leave out the words, "who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." Until that amendment to the amendment has been disposed of, the debate must be confined to that amendment only. If no Member wishes to speak, I will put the Question on that amendment. Mr Byrne rose -

Mr Byrne, on the amendment?

Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, the ex-Minister for National Development is indeed a very strange -

Order. I do not think I have made myself clear. At the moment we are debating whether the words proposed by the Member for Farrer Park to be left out should be left out, i.e. the words, "who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government". In other words, the issue is whether or not the motion should include all political detainees instead of being confined to detainees being detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government. I might also assist hon. Members by indicating that those Members who have already spoken can still speak on this particular issue. If nobody wishes to speak on that issue, then I shall put the Question. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 3; Noes, 33; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 15. Ayes. Nose. Rajah, A. P. Baharuddin bin Seow Peck Leng Mohamed Ariff. Mrs. Byrne, K. M. Thio Chan Bee. Chan Choy Siong, Miss. Abstention. Chan Sun Wing. Nil Fung Yin Ching. Miss. Absent. Goh Chew Chua. Abdul Hamid bin Goh Keng Swee. Haji Jumat. Hoe Puay Choo Ahmad bin Ibrahim Madam. Ahmad Jabri bin Lee Khoon Choy. Mohammad Akib. Lee Siew Choh. Bani, S. T. Lee Teck Him. Buang bin Omar Leong Keng Seng. Junid. Lin You Eng. Chan Chee Seng. Lingam, S. V. Chor Yeok Eng. Low Por Tuck. Kandasamy, G. Mammen, John. Koh, C. H. Mohd. Ariff bin Lee Kuan Yew. Suradi. Lim Cheng Lock. M. Ismail Rahim. Lim Yew Hock. Ng Teng Kian. Mohamed Ali bin Ong Chang Sam. Alwi Ong Eng Guan. Rajaratnam, S. Ong Pang Boon. Wee Toon Boon Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Tao Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan Tee Kim Leng. Teo Hock Guan. Toh Chin Chye. Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Amendment to the amendment accordingly negatived.

We are now back to the amendment moved by the Leader of the House, the position being that in the original Question the words "the Prime Minister to fight in the internal Security Council for the unconditional release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government" have now been omitted. The Question is, "That the following words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted:- `the Government to continue to fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and this Assembly endorses the Government's view that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence'." I might remind hon. Members that the debate now must be centred on the words that are proposed to be inserted. We have done with the words which have been omitted. Mr Low Por Tuck rose -

Mr Low Por Tuck.

In Mandarin, Mr Speaker.

May I ask the same question: whether the hon. Member has supplied a copy of his speech to the Interpreter?

No. Sir.

If it is to be a lengthy and involved speech, then of course there will be difficulty with the interpretation. If the hon. Member can assure me that his speech will not be too long and not too involved, then he can speak. We have had difficulty with interpretation in the past.

It is quite a short one, Mr Speaker. (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the suggestion of the Member for Hong Lim on the unconditional release of these political detainees -

Perhaps I had better make myself clear. In so far as the words that were proposed to be left out are concerned, the debate is at an end. We are now debating the words that the Leader of the House proposes to insert. Any reference to the words that have been omitted will be out of order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, concerning the Member for Hong Lim's motion to release the political detainees, that motion, in my opinion, is to be expected, because I have been with the Member for Hong Lim for several years. That is not strange at all.

Order. I think the hon. Member has missed his opportunity. He is now going back to the motion moved by the Member for Hong Lim. We have, in effect, disposed of his motion. The Question before the Assembly now is the motion by the Leader of the House, that is, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," and the debate must be confined to those words.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. I fully support the Deputy Prime Minister's amended motion. What I have said just now is this: this problem has arisen because the Member for Hong Lim raised the question and, in my opinion, it is not surprising at all, because just now I have said that I have been with him for many years and I know his character very well. Personally I do not attack him or have any criticisms against him, but I feel that from this motion raised, we can see that the Member for Hong Lim shows that he is both anti-colonialistic -

Order. I think the hon. Member has lost his opportunity. What he is saying is completely irrelevant to the Question now before the Assembly. What he is saying could have been said perhaps when we were dealing with the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." Now we are dealing with the Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted." That is all there is before the House.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, concerning this question, it is necessary for me to get to the root of the problem. On 14th October, 1959, our Deputy Prime Minister said in this Assembly - if you will allow me to read the text in English, it will be a correct quotation.

Order. Since the Hon. the Parliamentary Secretary has chosen to speak in Mandarin, he must continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Then let me read from a newspaper what our Deputy Prime Minister has said. It is the Sin Chew Jit Poh, a local paper, dated 15th October, 1959. On page 1, it says [Hansard, 14th October, 1959, col. 661]: `We agreed to the provisions for an Internal Security Council in June 1957, giving the Federation Government representative a deciding vote on our Security Council, because we recognised that that was better than giving the British Government the decisive say and that, in fact, if we achieved independence we can only do so as a Member State of the Federation, in which case the Federation Government would have a decisive voice in our national policies anyway. Therefore, until independence through merger is achieved, we accept the position of the Federation Government having a deciding vote in the Internal Security Council.' Mr Speaker, today we are debating this question. The important point is this: when we struggled for a new Constitution, the Member for Hong Lim was at that time in the P.A.P. He also agreed that we ought to use the Constitution as a stepping-stone to a new stage. But unfortunately today our ex-colleague, that is, the Member for Hong Lim, completely ignored the basic source of this problem. He did not point out the basic source of the problem. He only led the people to believe the present circumstances. Concerning the problem of the political detainees, I believe it is not necessary for me to reiterate what my Party colleagues outside the Assembly House have expressed on our Party's stand. Being courageous and determined to fight against colonialism, the Member for Hong Lim ought to analyse the real cause of the problem and to point it out. He must not make this a superficial problem, and he must not confuse the people.

Will the hon. Member please relate those statements to the Question before the House, which is, that the words proposed by the Leader of the House to be inserted should be inserted in the place of the words which have been left out? That is all there is before the House. If the Member can relate his remarks to the words which are proposed to be inserted, then he is in order. If he cannot, he is out of order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, just now I have said that it is relevant to the problem, because, being responsible socialists, we must be able to untie the knot of this problem, and to tell the people today the real facts about the problem of the political detainees who were detained under the Lim Yew Hock Government. It seems that the Member for Hong Lim is very sympathetic to those detainees. He acts as if he is afraid of losing their help. He thinks that he could use this motion to revive his position. If a person -

Order. I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary is not having regard to the ruling of the Chair. We are now debating the words which the Leader of the House has proposed should be inserted. We have done with the words which the Member for Hong Lim sought to include in his motion. All the remarks that are now being passed would have been relevant if the Hon, the Parliamentary Secretary had chosen to catch the Speaker's eye when the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," was before the House. He is now too late. He must now concentrate on the words which the Leader of the House has proposed should be inserted.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, concerning our Deputy Prime Minister's amended motion, just now several of my colleagues have expressed their points of view. Here, I do not have anything to add. From this amended motion, we can say that our attitude towards those political detainees detained under the Lim Yew Hock Government is very clear. From the beginning, our attitude towards these detainees has been clearly expressed by our colleagues. The release of these political detainees is positively being considered, but just now I have pointed out that the important point at present is this. In our struggle for constitutional self-government, we were restricted in many ways. At that time, we did not receive any motion or criticism by the Member for Hong Lim. Therefore, being responsible socialists, we must be able to analyse clearly this problem, and to tell the people the facts accordingly. If a person now shows himself to be different from what he was many years ago, by his point of view and by his speeches, then he may confuse the people's vision. Mr Speaker, I support this amended motion by the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although a certain part of this amendment reads: `...that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence.', I take it that Government does not mean that any effort to overthrow the democratic system by means other than subversion and violence should be tolerated. I take it for granted that any effort to overthrow the democratic system should be prevented. Now if Government accepts that the democratic system must be upheld, then this whole amendment is a farce. Let us look at these two words, Sir, "sincerely repudiating". By using those two words, the Government is admitting that these people who are detained had been justifiably detained. In other words, as the Member for Farrer Park has put it, they were enemies of the State. Let us look at it this way. They were enemies of the State, and so they were detained, no matter by whatever government. But the mere fact that the Lim Yew Hock Government had put them in -

Order. Here again the hon. Member is wandering away from what is before the House. We have already dealt with the amendment by the Member for Farrer Park to delete the words, "who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government". There can be no further reference now to those words, or any criticism of those words. The hon. Member has lost the opportunity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I was trying to do was not so much to deal with those words as to show that if this amendment goes in as it is, then it is not upholding the democratic system. That is why we cannot support it, because it is not democratic. It is making a division of the enemies, of the State. A certain section of them are more favoured than another section merely for the first two reasons, and that is not democratic. That was what I was trying to point out.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the debate proceeds, the issues have become clearer and clearer. We thought that the P.A.P. in power wanted justice and mercy for all detainees. But the rejection of the amendment -

Order. The hon. Member for Tanglin perhaps knows the Standing Orders better than I do. But he must know that he had the opportunity of debating that particular point when the Member for Farrer Park moved an amendment. He did not choose to debate that point and he cannot now seek to debate it or to revive it.

I withdraw that, Sir. But as the amended motion stands, it shows that the Government is not interested in justice and mercy for all, but that there is a struggle for control between the P.A.P. in power and the P.A.P. in the opposition. It looks as if the Government is only interested in those who are willing to signify that they have undergone such a change of heart that they are prepared to support the P.A.P. in power. But if they refuse to support the P.A.P. in power, and they are still inclined to support the Member for Hong Lim's group, then they cannot be forgiven. And all others who refuse to support the Government in power or disagree with them and are detained cannot be treated with justice and mercy. Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted be there inserted," put and agreed to.

The original motion as amended. The Question now is, "That this Assembly urges the Government to continue to fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and this Assembly endorses the Government's view that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence." Mr Ong Eng Guan, in reply to your amended motion? 10.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is nothing much in the speeches of Government Members and Members from the Singapore People's Alliance that are concrete enough for me to give a substantial reply. As far as the Government speeches are concerned, how I wish they were made before the general elections! In today's debate we have seen the two basic stands taken by Assemblymen in this House. One of them is taken by the three of us which is stated in our original motion, which is: `That this Assembly urges the Prime Minister to fight in the Internal Security Council for the unconditional release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government.'. That is our stand and it will always be our stand. The other 48 Members have one common basic stand, that is, the detainees should be released subject to certain conditions and qualifications. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a further development of the Prime Minister's original stand in 1956 and 1957 which I made in the speech at the beginning of this debate. This amendment is another alteration of or deviation from their original political stand since October 1956 and September 1957. However, there are some slight differences of opinion between those Members in the Government and those belonging to the Singapore People's Alliance. There is no difference in their basic political stand. The difference is shown in the amendment moved by the Member for Farrer Park. They do not want to be embarrassed by any mention of the arrest of these detainees by their colleague, the ex-Chief Minister, who is at present the Member for Cairnhill.

Order. I think if the hon. Member wishes to mention it in passing, he is quite in order. But if he wishes to expand on it, then, of course, he is out of order. He should have expanded on it when the amendment was before the House. But he can just mention it in passing.

The S.P.A. would vote today with the Government if it did not embarrass them too much. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I should have explained why the motion was to urge the Prime Minister instead of the Singapore Government. It was because the Prime Minister made all the decisions without prior consultation with myself and the other member on the Internal Security Council as far as I know, nor the Singapore Government as represented in the Cabinet, nor the People's Action Party as represented by the Central of the Party. That is why the motion was to urge the Prime Minister instead of the Singapore Government. It was because, having been on the Internal Security Council for many months, I found out, to my great shock, that the Prime Minister took decisions, some of which are of vital and fundamental importance, without prior consultations. I just had to keep quiet then. Mr Speaker, Sir, one issue brought up in my motion today is whether the Prime Minister has, on the Internal Security Council, ever fought for the unconditional release of these detainees. I know he has not. Excuses about merger with the Federation and the powers of the Internal Security Council were "good" excuses, but I was long enough on the I.S.C. to watch the antics of the Prime Minister there. There is no doubt that many detainees have been released; but as we all know, they were released on conditions. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister fought for the release of those eight in category one: he had no choice. Mr Speaker, Sir, mention has been made of my personal conduct and I think I need reply in only one sentence. If I had wanted, I could have accepted all the offers of trips overseas, I could have been contented; remain Minister, with all the departments under my control; that is, if I had decided from the beginning to go along with them in their pro-colonial course. The speeches which have been made by the Government Benchers show that the departures are very serious departures indeed from their original stand. The issue today is not an issue of whether the democratic system will survive or not. I think the Government is trying to exaggerate and shift the issue. Mr Speaker, Sir, we support the democratic system and I believe everybody in this House does. The point today is, as I have quoted at the beginning of my speech from Hansard, that these are the people who fought with the Prime Minister against a common enemy-the British. That was before the Secretary-General of the P.A.P. became the Prime Minister. And we have two results for two sets of people. The issue today is a question of honour. It is a matter of people fighting against a common enemy and on principles that had often been enunciated by the Prime Minister in this Assembly. The Prime Minister should come to their aid at this moment and fight for their unconditional and immediate release, it is not as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health has said, that it is now up to the detainees to fight for themselves, or as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has said, to persuade, convince and brainwash these people. The issue is primarily an issue of honour. I agree with the Member for Tanglin that there are two P.A.P.'s in this House. One is the P.A.P. in power, which is in name only and does not represent the P.A.P. which was known to the masses before the general elections. The Member for Tanglin, without any hesitation, would support the P.A.P. in power on this vital issue if the amendment of the Member for Farrer Park was carried. Mr Speaker, we are the other P.A.P., the P.A.P. not in power - the real P.A.P. as the masses knew it before the general elections. Question put.

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 6; Abstentions, Nil; Absent, 16. Ayes. Noes. Baharuddin bin Lingam, S. V. Mohamed Ariff Ng Teng Kian. Byrne, K. M. Ong Eng Guan. Chan Chee Seng. Chan Choy Siong, Rajah, A. P. Miss. Seow Peck Leng Chan Sun Wing. Mrs. Fung Yin Ching, Thio Chan Bee. Miss. Goh Chew Chua. Goh Keng Swee. Hoe Puay Choo, Absent Madam. Lee Khoon Choy. Abdul Hamid bin Lee Siew Choh. Haji Jumat. Lee Teck Him. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Leong Keng Seng. Ahmad Jabri bin Lin You Eng. Mohammad Akib. Low Por Tuck. Bani, S. T. Mammen, John. Buang bin Omar Mohd. Ariff bin Junid. Suradi. Chor Yeok Eng. M. Ismail Rahim. Kandasamy, G. Ong Chang Sam. Koh, C. H. Ong Pang Boon. Lee Kuan Yew. Ramaswamy, S. Lim Cheng Lock. Sheng Nam Chin. Lim Yew Hock. Tan Kia Gan. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Tee Kim Leng. Rajaratnam, S. Teo Hock Guan. Sahorah binte Toh Chin Chye. Ahmat, Madam. Wong Soon Fong. Tan Cheng Tong. Yaacob bin Wee Toon Boon. Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Abstentions Nil Motion, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn to 20th October."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'clock p.m. to Thursday, 20th October, 1960.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin, with reference to the reply given by his Parliamentary Secretary on his behalf to the following supplementary question on 3rd August. 1960 (Official Report, 3rd August, 1960, Volume 13, No. 2, Column 42):

(In Malay): Mr Speaker. Sir, could the Parliamentary Secretary enlighten us what schools were erected in 1959, the date of their commencement, and the date on which they were completed?, supplied the following additional answer on 15th September, 1960: Norfolk School: Work commenced on 12th May, 1959, completed 24th March, 1960. Ayer Rajah Malay School: Work commenced on 14th September, 1959. completed 28th March, 1960.