Hansard, 1961-05-24

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten) - from 17th May to 3rd June, 1961.

31 p.m. Mr Ong Eng Guan (Member for Hong Lim) made an Affirmation of Allegiance.

I have to report to hon. Members that I received information from His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that, on the 4th day of May, 1961, he assented to the following Bills :-

I have also to inform hon. Members that, under the provisions of Standing Order No. 95, I did on the 27th April, 1961, nominate the following Members to fill the vacancy in each of the following Select Committees in place of the late Member for Anson. Inche Baharuddin Bin Mohamed Ariff:-

2.35 p.m.

asked the Prime Minister what was the total cost of the damages to the St. James Power Station caused by the fire which broke out on 9th May, 1961.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by the Prime Minister to answer this question. A survey of the fire damage to St. James Power Station is still in progress, and is being undertaken by the contractor's insurance company. The installation at St. James Power Station is still on trial and has not yet been taken over by the City Council. The contractor has full insurance cover for the plant and property and is entirely responsible for making good the damage to City Council property which at present is estimated at $45,000.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, could the Department concerned say when the damage to the St. James Power Station will be put right?

Order. I take it the hon. Member means the Parliamentary Secretary and not the Department. We are not dealing with departments in this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the answer given just now is that the survey of the fire damage to the St. James Power Station is still in progress, I therefore consider that the supplementary question put by the hon. Member is a different question, and I require further notice.

asked the Prime Minister when will kampong street lights be installed in all the "lorongs" from Lorong Marzuki to Jalan Sentosa and in the other unlighted parts in Alsagoff Estate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by the Prime Minister to reply to this question. Kampong street lighting schemes are being systematically introduced throughout the Island according to priorities based upon population density and availability of electricity. In the area Paya Lebar to Jalan Alsagoff, street lighting was installed last year. In the area Jalan Alsagoff to Jalan Eunos, known as the Malay Farm, a proposal to light five streets at a cost of $15,000 has been submitted for consideration of the Planning Development Committee. The five streets are Jalan Betek, Jalan Tebu, Jalan Penggaga, Jalan Bayam, and Jalan Ubi. Proposals for the area Jalan Eunos to Jalan Sentosa will have to take their place alongside other proposals under the kampong lighting scheme. These particular areas have the added complication of being private property.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, could the Parliamentary Secretary say whether street lighting could be installed in the area from Lorong Marzuki to Jalan Sentosa, which is considered to be private property?

The answer is yes, but it will depend on the estimated cost.

(In Malay): Could the Parliamentary Secretary say whether street lighting facilities could be installed this year for the areas mentioned?

Action will be taken to put up an estimated cost for lighting those streets, and we hope to do our best.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he will make a statement on the progress made in the talks with the Federation of Malaya Government on the Common Market.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposal to establish a Common Market arrangement in respect of a limited number of commodities produced either in the Federation or Singapore was first mooted by the Singapore Government in September 1959. As a result of subsequent discussions both at official and ministerial levels, the two Governments agreed to form a Joint Committee of Officials to discuss the proposal submitted by the Singapore Government for the establishment of a Common Market. Three meetings of the Joint Committee of Officials were held between 10th June, 1960, and 25th August, 1960. In the course of these meetings, the officials of the Federation Government sought elucidation on certain points, and both sides examined in detail the implications of the proposal. After the conclusion of the first series of meetings, the Federation representative asked for time to consider these proposals. It is hoped that talks on this question will be held shortly between Ministers of the Governments of Singapore and the Federation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister not agree that there has been no progress at all, and that in view of the Federation Government's attitude it would be better to drop the whole matter?

I do not agree that no progress has been made, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I remind the hon. Member that in the case of the European Common Market, it took nearly ten years before the proposals were finally put into shape? I see absolutely no cause for pessimism in regard to this scheme that we propose.

Would the Minister then give an indication whether the talks will be successful, since there have been no talks from August 1960?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Cairnhill is asking for an assurance which, in the nature of things, just cannot be given. But I would say that we are trying our best. The next step - and it is a significant advance - will be that discussions will be held at a higher level, that is to say, it has progressed from discussions between officials on purely technical matters to discussions between Ministers where the wider implications can be examined.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not asked for an assurance. I have asked for an indication. Will the Minister please give an indication whether the talks are going to be successful?

The Minister probably is not a pessimist.

asked the Minister for Labour and Law how many members of the Work Brigade have passed the School Certificate Examination and how many of such members have been found employment outside the Brigade.

Mr Speaker, Sir, two members of the Work Brigade out of a total enrolment of 1,800 have passed the School Certificate Examination. These two members have not been offered employment outside the Brigade for the time being, as there are no jobs available at the moment which are commensurate with the level of their education.

asked the Minister for Labour and Law why the Pulau Brani Community Centre has not yet been opened, and when will it be opened.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Pulau Brani Community Centre was built by the former Rural Board and was completed some time in May 1959, just before the general elections. This community centre has been taken over by the People's Association, and a team from that Association is now investigating the activities of all the community centres situated in the island with a view to organising more worthwhile activities there.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, could the Minister say why for over two years the Pulau Brani Community Centre has been neglected?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the community centre has been functioning all this while. There is no reason why it ought to have been opened by this Government since it was completed by the previous Government.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister. What I know is that only the building stands there. There is no committee or body to organise-

Order. The hon. Member is entering into a debate. If he wishes to proceed with this topic by way of debate, he has to file notice of a motion, or crave leave to speak on the topic on the Adjournment. But if he has a supplementary question, he can ask it.

(In Malay): I wish to say that I am not satisfied with the answer given by the Minister.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs to state the number of persons involved in the "Artis" Affair who are now under detention.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of persons involved in the "Artis" Affair who are now under detention is 14.

Could the Minister indicate how soon these people will be released?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as soon as they are no longer a danger to the State, they will be released.

Will the Minister confirm that releasing these people now would be a security risk to the people of Singapore?

Certainly, Mr Speaker; otherwise they would have been released.

Will the Minister not confirm that four members of the "Artis" group were released by him during the course of this year?

Mr Speaker, Sir, four persons have been released on suspension orders. In fact, for his information, it is just possible that there may be a further release of 2 persons on suspension orders in the very near future.

Would the Minister agree that the four who were released were no security risk?

The answer is obvious; otherwise they would not have been released.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in that case, why were they arrested?

We are entering into a debate. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to put down notice of a motion?

asked the Minister for Home Affairs what steps have been taken to hold the by-election for the electoral division of Anson.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Nomination Day has been fixed for 10th June, 1961.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, with reference to Government Gazette Notification No. 993 dated 12th May, 1961, prescribing the rates for the services of police officers employed for private purposes, if he will explain the circumstances under which he would allow such police officers to be so employed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the circumstances under which the services of police officers would be approved for employment for private purposes include (a) circumstances of serious potential danger to persons or property which cannot otherwise reasonably be avoided for which there is sufficient justification for precautions but not sufficient to warrant depriving the public of the services of a trained guard and escort police officer without compensation to Government. For example, the guarding of a potential kidnap victim or of valuable property at a function to which large numbers of the public may have admission; (b) circumstances in which a crime might be committed on private premises to which large numbers of the public may have admission. For example, betting, gambling or pick-pocketing at the Singapore Turf Club meetings; (c) circumstances in which inconvenience might be caused to large numbers of the public by reason of traffic congestion at a private function or in its vicinity. For example, traffic control at large private functions or at the Singapore Turf Club; (d) circumstances in which valuables, bullion, pay-packets, etc, are transferred in public or stored in premises.

Mr Speaker. Sir, does the Minister realise that the morale of high-ranking police officers would be adversely affected if they are treated like mercenaries liable to obey new masters with changing situations?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the first point is that the question does not arise. The second point is that I am not aware of the fear the Member has expressed.

In any event, it is a matter of opinion. It is out of order. Is there any other supplementary question?

Yes.

Mr Thio.

Could the Minister assure us that there is a sufficient supply of police officers so that Government could afford to release them for these purposes?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not aware of any shortage of supply.

asked the Minister for Education what steps have been taken to overcome the transport difficulty of school-children in Blakang Mati and Pulau Brani who attend schools in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 12th October, 1960, the Ketua of Telok Saga, Pulau Brani, wrote to the Minister informing him that, owing to a change in ferry schedules, children from Pulau Brani and Pulau Blakang Mati attending morning session schools in Singapore were unable to reach school in time. The Ministry took the matter up with the General Officer Commanding, Singapore Base District. Through the good offices of the latter, the War Department agreed to bring forward the RCL ferry timings in the mornings leaving Pulau Brani at 6.25 a.m. and Pulau Blakang Mati at 6.35 a.m. for Jardine Steps with effect from 21st November, 1960. Coincidentally, since notice of this question was received from the hon. Member for the Southern Islands, the Minister received a further petition dated 18th May, 1961, on this matter. This petition, purporting to have been signed by 75 residents of Pulau Brani, seeks the Ministry's assistance to get the Army authorities to revert the ferry service back to pre-October 1960 schedules. The Ministry is looking into this matter now and hopes to resolve it to the satisfaction of all concerned, as soon as possible.

asked the Minister for Education whether he can indicate approximately when will the building of the school at Blakang Mati be started.

Mr Speaker. Sir, two sites are under consideration for the building of a 6-classroom primary school on Pulau Blakang Mati. The matter is now under consideration by the Planning Committee, and it is hoped to have the school ready early in 1962.

asked the Minister for Education whether he is aware that the new Malay school at Pulau Sakijang Pelepah has been closed for a long period, the reasons therefor, and when will it be reopened.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason why the new school at Pulau Sakijang Pelepah is closed is that the school is built on a level space cut into the hillside. On the hill slope overlooking the school are some very large granite boulders which are considered a source of danger to the school. It is not advisable, therefore, for the school to start until these boulders have been removed. In Gazette Notification 852 dated 21st April, 1961, a tender was accepted for the removal of the boulders. It is hoped that the school will open by July 1961.

asked the Minister for National Development to explain his plans regarding the Toa Payoh Housing Scheme; where and how will he resettle the displaced residents of Toa Payoh, the terms of compensation and the conditions for alternative accommodation; whether there will be alternative employment for those who will lose their means of livelihood because of the enforced removal; and whether he is aware of the general dissatisfaction among those affected by the proposed scheme in Ah Hood Road and Boon Teck Road, and what steps he proposes to take to remove their grievances.

Mr Speaker, Sir, briefly the Toa Payoh Housing Scheme envisages the development of a satellite town in about 600 acres of land in the Toa Payoh area. This is a scheme of considerable magnitude, and will have to be planned for implementation in stages; when completed, the scheme will provide a total of some 50,000 units, which will house a total of about 300,000 persons. There are at the moment about 2,000 to 3,000 families living on the land required for the scheme, and the Housing Board will make every effort to resettle these families in as equitable a manner as possible. Those who are genuine farmers will be given suitable compensation for everything they own or have put into the land, in accordance with the schedule of approved rates. In addition. they will be given a house and good farming land in one of the resettlement areas which have been prepared for the purpose-

Order. It is 3.00 p.m. Committee of Supply. Item 1 on the Order Paper.

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day.]

3.01 p.m.

Will the Minister signify the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before the Committee proceeds with the consideration of the Statement of Excess?

I so signify.

The Statement of Excess is contained in Paper Cmd. 10 of 1961. There is one item and it appears in page 1. The Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Statement of Excess is contained in Paper L.A. 9 of 1961. No notice of amendment has been received and there is only one head - Head 44 District Councils.

Question, "That the sum of $1,687,725 for Head 44 stated in the summary of total contained in Paper Cmd. 10 of 1961 stand part of the Statement of Excess contained therein", put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $1,687,725 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure for the public services shown in the Statement of Excess contained in Paper Cmd. 10 of 1961", 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 a certain resolution. Resolution read.

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

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

Back to questions. Question No. 12* - Mr Tan Kia Gan. *See col. 1467.

Those who are not farmers will be given three choices. If they wish to find alternative accommodation on their own, they will be paid compensation for any improvements they have put into the land in accordance with the schedule of approved rates. If they wish to be rehoused by the Housing Board, they will either be given one of the low-cost one-room units now under construction at Kim Keat Road and St. Michael's Estate at rentals of $20 p.m., or any other type of Housing Board accommodation, but they will not be paid any compensation for moving out. Lastly, they can choose to be resettled in one of the resettlement areas, where they will be given a small lot with a free house; they will also be paid compensation where appropriate for any improvements they own on the present land. Sir, I am, of course, aware that resettlement is a difficult problem and that the persons resettled will experience some initial inconvenience and, in some cases, perhaps some temporary difficulties. It is not expected that cases will arise of persons having to lose their present means of livelihood. Those who are farmers will be given all the facilities for carrying on with farming, whereas the non-farmers can choose, out of three methods of resettlement, the method that best suits their circumstances. I am afraid that the hon. Member appears to have been incorrectly informed when he speaks of dissatisfaction among those affected by the scheme in Ah Hood Road and Boon Teck Road. The first phase of the scheme will take place in the north-west corner of the Toa Payoh area, behind the Thomson Road Hospital, where there are 100 acres of land available which are sparsely populated. Clearance work here will not affect the Ah Hood Road and Boon Teck Road residents at all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister accept as a basic principle that in any public housing or rehousing scheme the living conditions of the outgoing residents will be improved just as much as the living conditions of the incoming residents?

Order. The hon. Member is surely well versed in the Standing Orders. All he can do now is to ask a supplementary question; in other words, a question arising out of the answer given by the Minister. He is now embarking on a proposition which, I think, would perhaps open a lengthy debate on the matter. Mr Thio.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is it not a fact that the compensation proposed to be paid to those in Toa Payoh is considered inadequate? For example, those staying in attap houses with cemented floor will be paid compensation at the rate of $1 per square foot, which they consider to be inadequate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Housing Board came into existence, we have resettled people in several areas according to the approved rates. I am quite sure these rates, which were revised towards the end of last year, are better than those that were offered by the former S.I.T.

Could the Minister indicate to the House when building operations under the first phase will commence?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the first stage of work in the development of Toa Payoh will begin at the end of this year, and that will involve earth-moving work. When this has been completed, building operations will begin.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister has still not answered my question. The question was - when does he hope to start his building operations after he has filled the site in the first phase?

We expect to start building work in mid-1962.

Resumption of debate on Question [26th April. 1961], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Dr Lee has a business motion?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the Order for the resumption of debate on the Second Reading of the Offences relating to Vehicles (Amendment) Bill set down this day as item 3 of the Orders of the Day be discharged and the Bill be withdrawn.

I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary might wish to explain why?

That can be done during the Second Reading of the Bill.

I take it the Parliamentary Secretary means the Second Reading of the Offences relating to Vehicles Bill which is to be introduced on a Certificate of Urgency?

Yes, Sir.

That is item 1 in the Introduction of Government Bills. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the House is entitled to know why the Parliamentary Secretary wants this done. At the moment, we are in the dark.

I do not know whether any other Member wishes to speak. The Question has been proposed. Dr Lee, in reply, if there is any reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to take this responsibility upon myself for this. I regret to say that through an oversight in Gazette notification the original Ordinance was allowed to lapse. Sir, it is not my purpose here to apportion the blame between the S.A.G.'s Chambers and the Ministry of Home Affairs who are supposed to keep tabs on these things. But unfortunately arising out of the oversight, the matter was referred whether or not it was necessary, or whether or not it would make any difference in the long run to have the Ordinance continue in force. A lengthy debate took place with the Police who convinced me, as the then Acting Minister for Home Affairs, that the Bill should continue. I then gave instructions that, instead of a yearly renewal, a Bill should be prepared to allow the Ordinance to continue in force for a period of five years, and the matter could be reconsidered by a subsequent Assembly. When the Bill was prepared, the Minister for Home Affairs had come back and I personally lost touch with the matter. Subsequently, it was introduced not as a new Bill for a period of five years, which it is now our intention to move, but one which, as the Member for Farrer Park had pointed out, attempted to continue in existence a Bill which, technically, had lapsed by a failure to print a Gazette notification. The matter has now been put right. I do not know whether it is of advantage to pass any castigating remarks on either the Crown Counsel or the junior clerical officers who should have seen to this matter. However, I am assured that everybody did, in fact, do his duty, but the reference book which is turned up day by day to see what lapses and what needs to be renewed was unfortunately not turned up in this particular case in time. It was discovered a few days after it had lapsed. I must say this on behalf of the permanent officials of the Government - that the discovery was made within three days of the lapsing, and the length of time between the lapse and the introduction of the Bill does not indicate that it was forgotten for that long period of time, but it does indicate that a debate was going on whether a Bill of that nature should be reintroduced. As I have said, we have decided that the Bill should continue, instead of a yearly renewal. It has a certain deterrent effect and should continue for the rest of the life of this Assembly.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Order for the resumption of debate on the Second Reading of the Offences relating to Vehicles (Amendment) Bill set down this day as item 3 of the Orders of the Day he discharged and the Bill be withdrawn.

3.16 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to enhance the punishments prescribed by law for offences relating to vehicles and vehicle parts." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir.

So be it. Can 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 Offences relating to Vehicles (Amendment) Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

It is, in fact, relative to the Offences relating to Vehicles Bill and not the Offences relating to Vehicles (Amendment) Bill. I think I did hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that he was laying upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency in respect of the Offences relating to Vehicles (Amendment) Bill. I have examined the Certificate. It is, in fact, in connection with the Offences relating to Vehicles Bill. If that is so, then the Certificate is in order. Is that correct?

That is so.

The Certificate then is in order. May I have typed copies of the Bill for distribution to Members?

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill is similar to the Offences relating to Vehicles Ordinance, 1960, which had expired and which the Offences relating to Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 1961, sought to continue in operation for a further period of four years. This Offences relating to Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 1961, was given its Second Reading at the Assembly sitting on 26th April, 1961, but, as the House will remember, further debate was adjourned owing to criticism of the method of extending the principal Ordinance. This amending Bill has now been withdrawn and in its place is this new Bill. During the debate on the Offences relating to Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 1961, I gave the reasons why it was necessary to extend the principal Ordinance for a further period of four years. I do not propose, therefore, to say much about the Offences relating to Vehicles Bill, 1961, except to say that it is also to be in operation for a period of four years, that its provisions are similar to the 1960 Ordinance of the same name, and that its becoming law is a matter of urgency, since it is to replace the Offences relating to Vehicles Ordinance. 1960, which would have already continued to be in operation for another four years, if the Offences relating to Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 1961, had been passed by the Assembly. 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. -[Dr Lee Siew Choh]. Bill considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

3.28 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to make special provisions for the Anson Election for 1961." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As the House is aware, the Government is revising the electoral registers this year. The present position with regard to this revision is that the existing registers and Lists A and B have been open to public inspection since 8th May, 1961, and closed on 22nd May, 1961. Next will follow what we know as the Claims and Objections period when lists of claimants will be published, objections to claims received, and adjudication of claims and objections made. According to the timetable drawn up for completion of the revised registers, it is expected that the revised registers will be certified and published in August 1961. Whilst the revision of the electoral registers is going on, we have before us the Anson Division by-election caused by the death of the late Member for Anson, Inche Baharuddin Bin Mohamed Ariff. Because of complaints that some persons who intended to be candidates in the Hong Lim by-election could not do so, and because their names had been omitted in the present registers, it is considered desirable that this by-election should be held on the basis of the certified revised registers, and not on the present registers which are over two years old. The use of these revised registers of electors will mean that persons standing as candidates in this by-election will not be confined only to persons whose names appear in the 1959 registers. Normally, these revised registers would not be certified and published until September at least of the year in which revision takes place. The Government has decided, however, that proceedings for the holding of the by-election for the Anson Division should be commenced early next month and that Nomination Day should be 10th June. Therefore, this Bill has been introduced to make special provisions to enable any person whose name appears in List B for any electoral division or who has made a valid claim for the insertion or retention of his name in a register of electors to stand as a candidate for election for the electoral division of Anson if he so desires, although his name is not yet included in a register of electors. This special legislation in effect will allow nomination of candidates to proceed, while the new registers are being completed for certification and publication. We were unable to provide similar special provisions in respect of the Hong Lim by-election as the time-table for the preparatory work on the revised registers for 1961 did not make it possible. In so far as voting on Polling Day in the Anson by-election is concerned, administrative arrangements have been made to ensure that the revised register for Anson will be given priority attention and be ready for certification and publication by July this year. This certification and publication will be made sometime before Polling Day in order to enable all voters in the certified revised register for Anson to vote at the by-election. They alone will be eligible to vote, as this register would be the register of electors in operation on Polling Day in accordance with the provisions of the Singapore Legislative Assembly elections. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a bit disturbed by the speech of the Minister in the Second Reading of this Bill. He says that Polling Day for Anson will have to wait until the revised register is ready, and he says that ii will not be ready until sometime in July. This means, Sir, that after Nomination Day a candidate will have difficulty in knowing who his voters are. He will have to work a bit in the dark as he will have only the 1959 register to guide him. It will mean greater difficulty to all the candidates, especially as they will have to wait until the new revised register for Anson is out before they can send their manifestos and circulars to those people whose names appear on the revised electoral roll which, as the Minister has said, will not be ready until July. Sir, this is a bit difficult if the Government Printing Office were to experience some breakdown in the machinery. What will happen then to the by-election? I think it is only a maximum of eight weeks or two months between Nomination Day and Polling Day, and if the revised electoral roll is not ready by then, there might be no by-election! Sir, the Minister also says that this amendment is to enable those whose names appear in List B or those who have made claims for their names to be registered in the electoral roll to stand as candidates. He says that he has received representation. I do not say that I do not believe him, because there was an instance in Hong Lim where a prospective candidate was not allowed to stand because her name did not appear in the electoral roll and there was a scene where some public mourning took place. In a way this did give some indication to the public that it was mourning day for the P.A.P. in Hong Lim. 3.42 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister sought to give the impression to the House that while the registers are being revised, it might not be possible to hold a by-election in Anson. I got that impression from the Minister when he opened his speech this afternoon. Sir, that impression is confirmed by what I read in the Straits Times of Wednesday, 24th May, on page one. It reads, Mr Speaker, Sir: `The Official announcement also stated that the Government would ask the Legislative Assembly at its sitting tomorrow to approve a special Bill, which would allow the by-election to proceed while the new Anson electoral register is being finalised and certified.' If my understanding of that official statement, as printed in the Straits Times, is correct, it seeks to give to the public of Singapore this impression - that because the electoral roll is now being revised and as the revision will take two or three months and while this revision is taking place no by-election can be held, and as the Government is anxious that Anson should not remain unrepresented in the Assembly for too long, the Government has therefore introduced this special Bill which will enable the electorate of Anson to have a representative in this House. Sir, my understanding of the Elections Ordinance is that no revision need deter the Government from holding a by-election in Anson. In fact, the whole basis of the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance is that election will be held at the time when a vacancy arises on the register then obtaining at that time. Mr Speaker, Sir, if my understanding of the law is correct, then the Government has been guilty of issuing a statement which, on the face of it, is not in keeping with the law as it stands. The Government seeks to place itself in the favoured position of telling the public that it is not delaying the election and that what it is trying to do is to hold the election earlier than is possible by law. Therefore, it is bringing in this special Bill to enable an election at Anson to take place. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government is no chicken. I am fully convinced in my own mind that the Government, with all the assistance that it has, is fully aware that an election in Anson can take place while the electoral roll is being revised. Therefore, one asks the question. Why was it necessary for the Ministry of Culture - I think it must have been the Ministry of Culture, because it was an official statement - to put out a statement which, on the face of it, is not in keeping with the law? It has been suggested, Mr Speaker, and suggested seriously, that the Government has some particular candidate in mind to put up in Anson, but unfortunately for them, he is not on the 1959 electoral register. Therefore, it has become necessary, shall I say, to amend the law in order to suit this particular individual, so that he might be given the privilege and the right to contest the election in Anson when the existing law denies him that right or privilege. Mr Speaker. Sir, it is for the Government in its reply to explain the situation adequately. I do not accept the statement by the Minister that because one person has complained that he or she had not been allowed to stand in Hong Lim, therefore, the Government has been conscience stricken about the whole thing, and it has become necessary to use the whole legislative machinery to enable this one person to contest the Anson by-election. I am sufficiently a cynic, Mr Speaker, Sir, not to accept that reason. There must be something more to it. And it is for the Government to explain it. Reading the Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, it would appear that those persons who would be allowed to stand as candidates might not get their names on the registers in time to vote, unless the Government extends the time to a date when it will become possible for the registers to be finalised. If the Minister is seriously suggesting that the election will only take place when the 1961 registers have been finally revised and certified by the Returning Officer, then the time for claims and objections and appeals against those claims and objections would have to be taken into account; then the election might be delayed till August or September. Is it the intention of Government then not to hold the election until the revised registers have been finally certified by the Returning Officer? As I read the Bill, Sir, it merely enables the Government to hold the election on the existing registers as they now stand, with the addition of List B, with the addition of any person who now claims or will claim that his name has been left out. As far as I can see, Mr Speaker, Sir, it makes no provision to enable persons whose names are on List B to vote in the election. The only way in which persons whose names appear on List B can vote would be if the registers have been certified before the election takes place. If, unfortunately, those registers are not certified, then persons on List B cannot vote. So we have the anomalous situation of a candidate who has not got a vote in that particular area or any area being able to stand as a candidate for Anson.

I cannot help people being cynical or pessimists, or otherwise abnormal in their attitude to life, but we would like to help them to understand what this legislation is trying to do. For quite some time now the Census Office, together with the Elections Office, had fixed May for the revision of the registers. These registers were last revised in 1958. The date for the next revision was postponed from 1959 and 1960 to take place in 1961, because we felt that it would be a waste of effort to have a yearly revision whilst other more important things were being looked into. Therefore, this operation had already been triggered off for quite some time before May 1961. We are asking some odd thousand people - new voters - to go and check their names in the electoral roll - List B; those whose names have been struck off from the old register for various reasons, those who have now reached 21 since 1958. At the moment, you can only hold an election in Anson without this Bill cm the old 1958 registers and you are going to have confusion not only in Anson but in the whole town. Everybody has just gone to check his name on the register. Then he is told he cannot vote. Election must, therefore, willy nilly take place on the new register. That is the position. The operation has been launched for a revision of the register and we have to go through with it. In normal circumstances, what would happen is that the register would be finalised in September and could be used for nomination in October. We are putting in overtime to finish the register in Anson by July so that voting can take place in July. The other constituencies can be held up, and they will probably be finished in August. But in July when voting in Anson takes place, all those who have gone to check their names will find that they are entitled to vote. At the same time, there have been complaints that the names of some people have been left out from the register. They want to be candidates - whether sincerely or just as a guile is another matter. We say, by all means be candidates. By all means, let us vote on the new register. The 10th of June is fixed for Nomination Day for Anson. Anybody whose name is on List B or on the old register is entitled to be a candidate. The period for inspection has already closed. It closed last Saturday. Two weeks were allowed for inspection. The inspection has closed. That is why we are taking this Bill today. All those who have inspected the register and have found their names there can be candidates. If they are in Anson, they can be voters. That is the position. All we are doing is to prevent a delay in the by-election or the by-election being carried out on an old register which is out of date and which, in view of the fact that this operation to revise the register has already been launched, will cause confusion. People have gone to Post Offices and have seen their names. If they are now told they cannot vote because this is being held on the old register, there will be a great deal of confusion. The position is simple. If the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Cairnhill want to be cynical, or for other medical or psychological reasons are unhappy about it, I can do nothing about it. All I can do is to try and explain to them simply what this operation is all about. It is to enable an election in Anson to take place using this register which has already been inspected by the public, and ensuring a suitable overtime arrangement that the register is certificated before Polling Day. Sir, the Member for Farrer Park is not the only person who, on reading the Bill, asks why there has been no provision that those on List B will be able to vote in Anson. I am sorry to say that, for a person who is conversant with the law and professionally holding himself out as a person who is prepared to advise other persons on the law, he had not bothered to look up the provisions which the State Advocate-General would tell him. It is unnecessary to have any special provision in this Bill to say that certification will take place before polling. Certification must take place before polling before the register can be used; otherwise a fraud on the public will have been perpetrated. Surely the Member is not suggesting for one moment that we are going to go through the whole elaborate process of legislation to speed up the election and then on Polling Day say, "Ladies and gentlemen, please vote on the old register." Some 2,000 persons in Anson whose names are on List B would thereby be turned away, causing a great deal of unhappiness, misunderstanding and cynicism on a much bigger scale than it has already worked in this House on two Members of the Opposition.

You have no statutory guarantee of that, though!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not in the least bit averse to it, and I am quite sure my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, would be quite happy if the Member for Farrer Park would like a brief adjournment to move an amendment to ensure that there is certification. We will accept that. We have been advised by the State Advocate-General - and we have to be advised by the proper legal officer - that it is unnecessary. If the Member chooses to move a clause which is ex abundanti cautela, we are quite prepared to accept it. There is no trouble about it at all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not usual for the rules of a game to be changed just before its commencement, and although subsequent events may bear out that what the Prime Minister has said is true, yet, coming as it does, this new Bill does create a very unfortunate impression. The impression, Sir, is that for the sake of some particular person or persons this Bill is being specially introduced to enable them to stand as candidates. That may not be true, Sir, but that is the unfortunate impression being created.

And you are helping to create more of such an impression!

Anyway, Sir, the principle introduced is wrong - that just before an election this kind of legislation should be introduced. If the rules were not satisfactory they should be allowed to stand until after the particular match has been finished and not just before the commencement of the match. Otherwise any party in power - maybe not this one - can legislate just before a very important election in such a way that it is to the advantage of that particular party or the particular candidate contesting for that party. I am not saying that the Government is going to do it, Sir, but the timing of the Bill is very unfortunate.

Could I, on a point of elucidation, ask the -

Order. I am afraid the Prime Minister is too late. Mr Ong Pang Boon, in reply?

Mr Speaker. Sir, the doubts raised by the Opposition Members have been adequately answered by the Prime Minister. However, I just wish to assure the Opposition Members that the revised electoral register will be ready sometime before Polling Day. I can assure the House that all candidates will have sufficient time to work on the new register. I do not think any candidate will have difficulty in knowing who the voters are, because immediately after Nomination Day the old register together with List B will be given to the candidates.

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.

4.02 p.m. Clause 1 -

May I take this advantage, Mr Speaker, Sir, to make a few observations?

Is it on an amendment?

Not on an amendment, but on a question which maybe you would think could somehow or the other be appropriate at this stage.

Is it in connection with clause 1? Clause 1 is just the title.

Clause 2 perhaps. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

No amendment! Any Member wishing to move an amendment can do so at this stage. If there is no amendment, then I will propose the Question. Question proposed, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry that the debate has taken this turn. I would like to make the position of the Government quite clear. All we are doing is to ensure that there is an election held quickly, fairly, and with no confusion. I have explained that the operation to revise the register had been planned some one year before hand. It was triggered off for May and had been triggered off. Thousands of people have gone to see this register and it is impossible just to ignore this operation and say, "Right, we go back to the old register." I give this House an alternative. So far as we are concerned, it is a matter of irrelevance to us whether the election is held on the old register or on the new register. But as far as the people are concerned, it is important that there should be no confusion. Those whose names are already put in List B, and who have already inspected them, will expect to go and vote. If the Opposition feel that they want the register to be certificated, then when the time for division comes let them vote against this amendment, and the Government will allow this Bill to be defeated on the voice of the Opposition. If they say no to this Bill, then this Bill can go out. The register will be certificated in July and the election can take place. We are quite happy to have this Bill and launch the by-election in June. If the Opposition feel, as the Member for Tanglin has suggested, that this is changing the rules in the midst of the game, then we say, "Right. We can postpone the game at the will of the Opposition." Let them say no to this Bill. The Bill is scrapped and nomination can take place in July after certification. If they say yes to this Bill, then nomination can take place on the 10th of June and polling will take place - I give a solemn assurance - on the new register in July. That is the simple-

Order. I did not stop the Prime Minister because he was so anxious to put his point across to the Assembly. But those remarks would be in order at the Third Reading, on the details of the Bill. At the Third Reading, the Opposition can consider the points raised by the Prime Minister. At the moment we are on clause 2, which is "interpretation."

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 -

Members are permitted now to move any amendment if they should think fit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, on clarification

Move an amendment?

I am not quite certain at this stage. But I want to speak with a view to finding out certain things before I move an amendment.

The hon. Member for Farrer Park must first move the amendment, and if he is satisfied he can beg leave to withdraw it.

May I then move this amendment, Sir? I move, In line 2, to leave out "valid".

The Member should make his speech now.

Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir. Section 17 of the principal Ordinance, which is the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, reads as follows: `17. -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not anticipate the legal aspects of this debate, but I should imagine the answer lies in the fact that a claim has to be first substantiated. All kinds of claims can be made to a Returning Officer or to the man in charge of the register. But the man in charge of the register either allows or disallows a claim according to whether it is in accordance with the facts and according to the Law. The expression "valid claim" means one which has been allowed, found to be in accordance with the facts and the law by the officer in charge. Further I would like to add that as far as these List B voters are concerned, the period for inspection has already closed; the claims and objections are being considered and will be over, I believe, in about a fortnight. Thereafter, before the 10th of June, the claims have either been accepted or they have been rejected.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Prime Minister has appreciated the point I raised. If I may pursue the matter further from there, the point then, Mr Speaker, Sir, is in clause 3 - a "valid claim". So that a "valid claim" cannot arise under clause 3 unless and until the claims and objections have been disposed of. Now, if a person's name has been left out of List B, then that person has certain remedies. He proceeds then under section 11. The chronological sequence of revising a register, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this. As the Hon. the Minister for Home Affairs has indicated, the registers were published two weeks before last Monday. They were given two weeks, which came to an end last Monday, which was the 22nd of May. Then any person whose name does not appear on List B can send in a claim. If a person's name appears in List B, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not the end of the problem. The problem is just about to start. Then the Returning Officer has to publish that list and within 10 days of the publication of List B, any person who objects to any name on List B can then send in an objection. If the objection is sent in, then the Registration Officer must hold a public inquiry. That takes some time. Before the public inquiry can take place, both the objector and the person to whom objection is taken must be called to this public inquiry. Evidence is then heard and the Registration Officer adjudicates upon the claim or the objection as the case may be. Mr Speaker, Sir, my point is this. It is at that point of time that it becomes a valid claim and not before; so that a claim, to become a "valid claim", might take two to three months. Take the other case, Mr Speaker, where no objection is made to a person whose name appears on List B. Merely because his name appears on List B is not the end of the matter. The proviso to section 11(9) reads: `Provided that the Registration Officer may, without any public inquiry as aforesaid, allow any claim in respect of which no objection has been made if he is otherwise satisfied that such claim should be allowed and shall insert the claimants's name in the register.' So that in the case of a person to whose name no objection has been taken, his claim becomes valid only when the Registration Officer has satisfied himself that his name should be allowed to go on the register. So we get two points of time when a claim can become valid - in the case of a person who has not been objected to when the Registrar satisfies himself that he is all right, and in the case of a person who has been objected to after an inquiry has taken place and the Registrar has then satisfied himself. 4.15 p.m. Now this is going to take some time - from two to three months. So I ask the Minister what then is the meaning of the phrase, "or who has made a valid claim under subsection (1) of section 17 of the principal Ordinance"? Does it mean that the election will be held up until such time as the Registrar has satisfied himself that in either case cited by me that person has a valid claim?

Sir, the Member for Farrer Park delights in legal quibbles. We are not concerned with legal quibbles as such. A problem had to be met, namely, that the operation to revise the register had been launched in May. We are now trying to prevent undue delay, because of this revision, from holding an election. The number of persons likely to be affected by an objection being made against them or by a claim being refused is probably not one in a hundred thousand, according to previous experience in these matters - and probably not one in Anson. Assuming that 50 people are involved in Anson, is it suggested that there can be no certification of the register for a poll to be taken till all these inquiries are held? What we are saying is, "Here is List B a sum total in Anson of about 2,000 people, out of a sum total in the whole of Singapore of over 100,000 people who now expect themselves to be voters. Let it proceed." We are confident that with overtime work put in, the Anson register will be certificated in July. That is all we are saying. I think this is a more convenient time for me to say this, because in the Third Reading I will have an opportunity to speak only once. Some Members of the Opposition are either deliberately dense, or perhaps they are naturally incapable of following an argument put only once. The proposition is quite simple. We intend to change no rules. It can make no difference to the outcome whether you change or you do not change the rules. All we are saying is this. A by-election has to be held in Anson. It is our intention to hold it as quickly as is convenient and in keeping with decency when a Member has died. We feel that the most convenient time will be immediately after the National Day celebrations when we go back to work. If the Opposition feel that this is changing the rules, all they have to do when they vote is to say no and the Bill will die. We will let the register in Anson be certificated in July and polling can take place. But let it never be said that we were not prepared to introduce a bit of legislation to enable it to take place in June. It is as simple as that. We can argue round the mulberry bush and inquiries can go on for months, but how many people are involved? In the last revision of the register, the Returning Officer - the man in charge - will tell you that there were not more than 20 to 30 objections for the whole of Singapore. Is it suggested that all this should be held up? Let us assume that one objection is made in Anson - the one person being either on the register or claiming to be on the register. He does not vote while his claim is being adjudicated, hut all the other 2,000 odd voters plus the 8,000 voters on the old register can vote. That is all. It is as simple as that. I say sometimes perhaps the Opposition will have to take the responsibility for legislation. In a case like this, we have taken the responsibility of bringing forward this legislation in order that things can move. If the Opposition feel that this is not in their interest and they do not think that this is according to the rules, let them vote against it. The by-election can be held up.

It is a strange thing, Sir, that the Prime Minister should take this line when his Government, having taken the full responsibility for this Bill, should now talk as he is doing. If he felt it was a national Bill, there was one course open to him. He could have consulted the Opposition leaders before he brought in this Bill, but he never took the trouble to do that. But now when he is faced with problems, he is trying to put the onus on the Opposition. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, the point is that this is a Bill which does not talk of enabling people to vote. It merely enables people to stand for election and not to vote. If the law of the country is that only a person who resides in a particular ward can vote or stand in that ward, then the problem which the Prime Minister is speaking of might not be so serious. But here, Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore, irrespective of where you live and where your name appears on the register, you can go and stand for election in any division. Now, this is a Bill which enables people whose names appear on List B throughout the 51 electoral divisions to stand in Anson, and the Prime Minister keeps on talking about the Anson register. Really, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not understand the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to call for the file just to read out my minute to the Minister asking him to clear with the State Advocate-General with certainty that there is no necessity for a provision in the Bill to ensure that those on List B will be allowed to vote, and the answer that came back from the S.A.G. was that it is not necessary because it is expected to certify the register before polling takes place. That is all. That is the key operation. As I have said, it is not our business. Once it is suggested that this is a partisan Bill, then I say we pass the ball back to the Opposition. It is the business of the Government to govern. If this were not a partisan Bill, then I say we take it though in the national interest regardless of what the Opposition say. But this is a Bill to ensure a by-election in Anson, in which Members of the Opposition or individuals in the Opposition will become interested parties, either via their parties or via individuals whom they may support. Therefore, if it is suggested for one moment, on a Bill which is meant to introduce a political contest, that it is ensuring laws which are unfavourable to the Opposition, then I say scrap it. And I leave it to them either to take the Bill or scrap it. That is a matter entirely open to them. May I read here a note from the S.A.G. to the Permanent Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs? This arose out of my query to the Minister as to the need for having a provision, and the S.A.G. wrote: `I refer to your minute of the 17th May. I confirm that if the new register is revised and certified before Polling Day, voters on the new register will be eligible to vote and there is no need for a separate provision.' The query that was sent up from the Minister is: `The draft Ordinance is all right insofar as it overcomes the provisions regarding candidates. Will you please check whether the new register which is now being prepared and which will be completed whilst the by-election is on can be used on Polling Day? That matter has to be settled beyond any doubt, namely, that on Polling Day it is the new register with List B included that is to be used as the register for electors.' This is from the Permanent Secretary to the S.A.G.: `Please confirm that voters on new registers certified and published before polling day will be eligible to vote on Polling Day.' It is as simple as that. Let me say this. Whatever the faults of this Government, we are prepared to govern in the national interest, but this is not governing in the national interest. This is a piece of legislation meant for a political contest will take place in Anson either on 10th June - if this Bill goes through - or if it does not go through, it can take place in July. It makes no difference to us whatsoever. We get no benefit, political or otherwise, by enforcing this Bill. I say if the Opposition feel in the least unhappy that an unfair advantage is being taken, then let them say no to the Bill. We propose to abstain and the Bill will die. In a case where they have an interest, the Opposition must either be satisfied, or if they are not satisfied (whether they are right or wrong), we are quite happy to let them have their way.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what has transpired between the State Advocate-General and the Ministers of the State, but all I know is what I see in the Bill, and underneath it is an Explanatory Statement which reads as follows: `This Bill will enable any person, whose name will be included in the revised registers of electors for 1961 [mark the words "revised registers of electors for 1961"], to stand as a candidate for election for the electoral division of Anson, although his name is not yet included in a register of electors.' It nowhere mentions the poor voter. 4.30 p.m. Question put, "That the word proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 6; No, 1; Abstentions, 39; Absent, 4. Ayes Abstentions Abdul Hamid bin Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Haji Jumat. Bani, S. T. Ahmad Jabri bin Buang bin Omar Mohammad Akib. Junid. Lim Yew Hock. Byrne, K. M. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Chan Chee Seng. Rajah, A. P. Chan Choy Siong, Thio Chan Bee. Miss. Chor Yeok Eng. Fung Yin Ching, Miss No Goh Chew Chua. Koh, C. H. Goh Keng Swee. Hoe Puay Choo, Absent Madam. Kandasamy, G. Chan Sun Wing. Lee Khoon Choy. Sahorah binte Lee Kuan Yew. Ahmat, Madam. Lee Siew Choh. Seow Peck Leng, Lee Teck Him. Mrs. Leong Keng Seng. Yong Nyuk Lin. Lim Cheng Lock. Lin You Eng. Lingam, S. V. Low Por Tuck. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ng Teng Kian. Ong Chang Sam. Ong Eng Guan. Ong Pang Boon. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Sheng Nam Chin. Tan Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan. Tee Kim Leng. Teo Hock Guan. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Amendment accordingly agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, with an amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Question proposed. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, for purposes of the record, I would like to clarify the stand that the Government has adopted in abstaining from voting on this Bill. If it had been a Bill in the national interests and if it was the responsibility of the Government to see that this Bill should be put through in the national interests, then we would have seen to it that the Bill was passed. However, it has been said by the Member for Tanglin that the purpose of this Bill is to change the rules just before the game commences. It is to dispel completely any insinuation that we, on our side, wish to remain in power by fixing the rules of the game that we have adopted the stand of abstaining from voting on the Bill. The onus therefore now lies upon the Opposition whether they want an early election after Nomination Day, 10th June, or Nomination Day sometime after July when the new electoral register has been certificated. Let it not be said outside that the Government is now afraid of an early by-election in Anson. Let it not be said that we are worried about holding an early by-election in Anson. If there is any delay in the Anson by-election, the Opposition must bear the responsibility for it. I think this must be carefully clarified so that members of the public will be able to understand that if Nomination Day does not take place on June 10th, it will be because the Opposition Parties have insisted that this Bill should lapse.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us get this thing in the right perspective. Nobody forced the Government to state yesterday that Nomination Day is to be the 10th of June. The Government is fully aware of its own intentions to carry this Bill (which is now receiving its Third Reading) through all stages today. The Minister, in moving the Bill, said that Nomination Day would be the 10th of June, but that Polling Day would take place after the revised register had been completed or printed; and that would be sometime in July. He was not able to give a specific date. I pointed out to him, Sir, that under the law there is a certain time limit between Nomination Day and Polling Day. If, just by a twist of circumstance - an unfortunate circumstance at that - the Government Printing Office were to suffer a breakdown and the electoral rolls could not be ready, how are we going to carry on with the by-election? Knowing that it was their intention to table this Bill today and carry it through all stages, surely the Government, if they had thought of not wanting to put the Anson voters in an embarrassing position, could have declared that Polling Day could be some day later than 10th June. There was no need for them to show that they were anxious for an early Nomination Day and leave Polling Day to fate, as to when and how fast the new electoral registers could be completed. Now, the-

Order. I have allowed the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition to speak up to now, but of course they have been quite irrelevant under our Standing Orders, which say that on the Third Reading of a Bill, the debate shall be confined to the contents of the Bill. There are two ways open to the Opposition if they do not wish this Bill to become law, and those ways are indicated in the Standing Orders. Standing Order No. 78, paragraph (1) reads: `On the third reading of a Bill amendments may be proposed to the question "That the Bill be now read a third time" similar to those which may be proposed on second reading;'. That takes us to Standing Order No. 67, paragraph (3), which reads: `On the second reading of a Bill, an amendment may be proposed to the question, "That the Bill be now read a second time", to leave out the word "now" and add, at the end of the question, "on this day six months", or an amendment may be moved to leave out all the words after the word "That" in order to add words stating the object and motive on which the opposition to the Bill is based, but such words must be strictly relevant to the principle of the Bill and not deal with its details.' Those are the alternatives, if the Opposition are contemplating defeating the Bill, those are the ways to do it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for your indulgence. This is, of course, due to the fact that the debate on this Bill has taken an unprecedented turn. The Bill itself is only concerned with allowing those whose names appear in List B or those who have made claims under section 11 of the Ordinance to stand as candidates for the by-election in Anson. It has nothing to do with the right to vote of those whose names appear in List B. We are not saying that the Government should hold this by-election on the old register. If they want it on the new register or on any register, the Opposition are prepared to meet them. 4.45 p.m.

Just to clarify the position, Sir. This is an unusual bit of legislation in that the general public are not interested in it. This is legislation meant for political parties. It inaugurates a political contest, and only political parties and politicians are interested in the Bill. It is absolutely important and fundamental that no doubts be cast on the proposition that the contest should be fair and equal. We have put forward this Bill because we believe that this is a fair and just way of doing it. If the Opposition feel, as they have indicated on the Second Reading, that this is unfair and unequal, all they have to do is to say no to the Bill, and it lapses. It is as simple as that. But they cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they cannot expect the Government to carry this Bill through in the teeth of their opposition, and then, on the other hand, for them to go out and say, "Ah, what a wicked Government; fixing the rules of the game against the Opposition!" We are doing no such thing. All we are doing is to ensure that a regular and proper election be held in the best circumstances possible. If the Opposition think that that is not their wish - this is as much for them as it is for us; they are interested parties and so are we; so are the other political parties and individuals who want to contest this by-election - if they say no, so be it.

I had better clarify the position now. Procedurally, as has been indicated by me, if there is no amendment to be moved to the Question, "That the Bill be now read a Third Time", then I will have to put that Question. That, perhaps, is an appropriate time also for the Government to indicate their intentions in so far as this Bill is concerned by abstaining.

Yes.

So that, procedurally, that is the position. The Opposition now must make up their minds whether or not they wish the Bill to be defeated. If they wish it to be defeated, then the proper way is to move the amendment I have suggested. The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." As many as are of that opinion say Aye.

Division.

Can I take the voices? The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third Time." As many as are of that opinion, say Aye. Hon. Members remained silent.

To the contrary, say No. Some hon. Members: Division, Sir.

There seems to be a hiatus! The Opposition, I think, must make up their minds.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it time for tea now?

I propose to take the vote on this Bill. I think, in fairness to the Assembly and to the Chair, the Opposition must make up their minds. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third Time."

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes Abstentions Abdul Hamid bin Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Haji Jumat. Bani S. T. Ahmad Jabri bin Buang bin Omar Mohammad Akib. Junid. Lim Yew Hock. Byrne, K. M. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Chan Chee Seng. Rajah, A. P. Chan Choy Siong, Thio Chan Bee. Miss. Chan Sun Wing. No Chor Yeok Eng. Koh, C. H. Fung Yin Ching, Miss Goh Chew Chua. Absent Goh Keng Swee. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Hoe Puay Choo, Madam Madam. Kandasamy, G. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Lee Khoon Choy. Yong Nyuk Lin. Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Siew Choh. Lee Teck Him. Leong Keng Seng. Lim Cheng Lock. Lin You Eng. Lingam, S. V. Low Por Tuck. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ng Teng Kian. Ong Chang Sam. Ong Eng Guan. Ong Pang Boon. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Sheng Nam Chin. Tan Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan. Tee Kim Leng. Teo Hock Guan. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob bin Mohamed.

On a point of order.

Can I just take the result first? Tun Lim Yew Hock resumed his seat.

The Member for Cairnhill wishes to raise a point of order. Is it in connection with the Division?

Yes, Sir.

In connection with this particular Division?

Yes, Sir.

The point of order being?

Can the mover of a motion abstain from voting on his own motion?

The answer is simply that he can. He may even vote against. The result of the voting is Ayes, 6; No, 1; Abstentions, 40; Absent, 3. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. 4.55 p.m.

"to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Road Traffic Ordinance (Chapter 227 of the Revised Edition) and to repeal certain provisions of the Municipal Ordinance (Chapter 133 of the 1936 Edition) and of the Local Government Ordinance, 1957 (No. 24 of 1957)", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 14th June, 1961, and to be printed.

"to amend the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance (Chapter 188 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour and Law; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 14th June, 1961, and to be printed.

"to amend the Stamp Ordinance (Chapter 170 of the Revised Edition)". presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr Low Por Tuck); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 14th June, 1961, and to be printed.

"to make provision for the winding-up of the Victory Savings Certificates Fund and of the issue of Victory Savings Certificates and for matters incidental thereto", presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr Low Por Tuck): read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 14th June, 1961, and to be printed.

This is an appropriate time to suspend. I will take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.01 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

5.31 p.m. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name. *The motion reads as follows: That this Assembly resolves that the amendments, as recommended in paragraph 5 of the Report of the Standing Orders Committee and contained in Paper L.A 12 of 1961, be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of this Assembly. The purpose of this motion is to amend the Standing Orders of the Assembly in order that a Committee of Privileges can be formed. The concept for a Committee of Privileges is not really a new one. It has been the practice in Legislatures elsewhere to have a Standing Committee of Privileges. The purpose of such a Committee is to assist the Speaker in upholding the dignity, self-respect and honour of the legislating body and to prevent the Legislature from degenerating into a bawdy House during debates. We in this House have a duly in maintaining the confidence and faith of the people in the Assembly as an honourable and respectable legislating body; otherwise we will also go the same way as other bodies in those countries where there is despair in the possibility of working a democratic parliamentary system. If ever we should reach that stage, the least that can happen to us in this House is that we will disappear. But the greater consideration is the uncertain future of the country, the people and the people's children. For this consideration, and this consideration alone, we, who are responsible to the people, have the obligation and the responsibility to nip in the bud any deliberate or intentional action that can only have as its consequence the undermining of the dignity and respectability of the Assembly. On looking back, I must say I am a little astonished that the Assembly has had to wait for six years to provide for a Committee of Privileges in its Standing Orders, when it has been the practice of legislating parliaments in other countries to have a Standing Committee of Privileges. It is my hope, as Leader of the House, that it will not be frequent that matters in this Assembly will be referred to the Committee of Privileges. We accept that Members of the House have the liberty of speech, but at the same time we as responsible Members must distinguish between liberty of speech and licence of speech. It will be the function of this Committee of Privileges to keep a watching brief over what is uttered in this House. The parliamentary system is young in Singapore and, because of its youth, we have yet to develop our own system of a traditional institution. It is one thing making clever and artful speeches, but another thing being wise. It is one thing being rash and foolhardy and another thing being brave. But then the virtues of wisdom and maturity can only be acquired through the painful experience of trial and error. The Assembly has had its trials and it has noted its errors. I hope the House is a little wiser for that. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 5.36 p.m. Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support in principle the formation of such a Committee of Privileges, but it is important that accusations of breaches of privileges must not be provided as a cloak to crush Opposition Members. With the fear of such an event happening, my views are that the Committee of Privileges should compose of you, Mr Speaker, Sir, as Chairman, and a Member of the Government and a Member of the Opposition to be the only two Members in the Committee, instead of the present proposal which gives the majority Party in power an overwhelming vote in the Committee of Privileges. It is also my view that such a Committee should have delegated powers instead of having to refer back their findings to this Assembly, because otherwise what would happen is that any person who is faced with a complaint of a breach of privilege may find himself faced with persons who are the jury and, at the same time, the judges, witnesses and perhaps, at the same time, the accusers. I feel that with the result of the Hong Lim by-election, what happened in this Assembly five months ago has not been approved by the people in Singapore.

Order. Let us not go off the rails. We are now dealing with a specific amendment to the Standing Orders, and I do not think what happened in the Hong Lim by-election has any relevance here at all. Mr Ong. Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I support in principle the recommendations made by the Standing Orders Committee, and I have given my views on paragraph (7) (a) (i) about the composition of the Committee. I feel strongly against this, because I have had the experience of what is meant by a complaint of a breach of privilege.

Dr Toh, in reply?

Mr Speaker, perhaps Members are aware that Standing Committees of the Assembly are so constituted as to represent both sides of the House in proportion. Whatever conclusion a Committee arrives at, whatever Report it draws up must eventually be tabled in the House. No Committee of the Assembly has an absolute judicial power. Ultimately, it is responsible to the Assembly and, therefore, any findings of the Committee of Privileges must be tabled, as, in fact, this Report of the Standing Orders Committee has been tabled, for debate. The ideal thing, of course, would be to have all complaints concerning breaches of privilege referred to a Judge. In fact, at the beginning of the year, we found that because of the absence of a Committee of Privileges, Members of this House had to refer allegations made by the Member for Hong Lim to a Judge of the High Court to be adjudicated upon. The Judge in this Commission of Inquiry proved the allegations-

Order. I do not think that could be relevant to this motion. Details of that nature cannot be relevant.

I was only attempting, Mr Speaker, to dispel any idea or any insinuation that a Committee of Privileges as being moved to be established under this motion will be Judge, jury, prosecutor, all lumped into one. I have said earlier that as privileged Members of the House it is the bounden duty of each and everyone of us to maintain a certain degree of dignity, truth, decorum, and self-respect in this House. We are bound by the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance and therefore, we, more than any other people, have a greater degree of liberty of speech. But, having been given this privilege, it is up to us to see that no Member abuses it. If such an abuse has been committed, surely it should be referred to the House; and if it is referred to the House, the correct procedure, as is done in Parliaments elsewhere, is to refer it to the Committees of Privileges which are so constituted as to represent proportionately both sides of the House. In fact, Mr Speaker, as you yourself are aware, in the Standing Orders Committee I made a certain suggestion that provision should be so made that there must always be Members of the Opposition in the Committee of Privileges because an occasion may arise when, let us say, you have only two Members of the Opposition on this Committee and these two Members themselves are the involved parties, and then the Government Members who are left in this Committee of Privileges would be placed in an invidious position of having to deliberate in the absence of any Member from the opposite side. We have, therefore, provided under this motion that it Members in the Committee of Privileges are the parties involved in any accusation of a breach of privilege, then their places would be filled by the appropriate substitutes.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves that the amendments, as recommended in paragraph S of the Report of the Standing Orders Committee and contained in Paper L.A. 12 of 1961, be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of this Assembly.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill is the strongest manifestation yet of the Government's determination to wipe out evil perpetrators of the offence of kidnapping for ransom and to create a situation whereby the payment of ransom money is made so difficult that, on the one hand, it will deter potential kidnappers from risking their necks without the certainty of gain and that, on the other hand, it will encourage victims and their families and agents to be more resolute in their co-operation with the Police in tracking down and arresting these evil-doers. Nothing makes the kidnapper feel more secure and become bolder than the knowledge that most victims and their relatives are tongue-tied during negotiations whilst the victim is in captivity and even after payment of ransom through fear of possible reprisals instilled into them by these kidnappers, who cleverly use this psychological weapon to good advantage. At heart, the kidnapper is a cowardly adventurer, who banks on the wall of silence built by his victims to protect him from the forces of law and order. The introduction of this Bill - a similar Bill has also been introduced by the Federation Government - does not mean that the Government has not been taking strong and effective action to combat this kidnapping menace, which has reared its ugly and evil head in recent years and caused alarm and nervousness especially among the wealthy merchants and businessmen. Indeed since this Government came to power, substantial results have been achieved. Not only were protective and preventive measures carried out, but as a result of intensive and painstaking investigations by the Police, a number of kidnapping gangs were broken up, several thugs and gangsters involved in kidnapping detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, some kidnappers convicted in Court and the notorious gangster and kidnapper, Oh Kim Kee, whose short reign of terror was largely due to the conspiracy of silence between him and his victims, was shot dead and his accomplices captured. Much of this was achieved by the efforts of the Police themselves, despite the reluctance on the part of many victims and their relatives and agents to talk or co-operate with the Police. Nothing is more frustrating to the Police than to find their efforts to help the very people who need help badly, bogged down by the tight-lipped silence and blank stares of those who have only to open their mouths to bring about quick retribution to these evil-doers. But much more could have been achieved and ought to have been achieved and better results obtained, if there had been the will to resist and sincere co-operation with the Police manifested. The Government is determined to wipe out the kidnapping menace and it is hoped that the wide powers in this new legislation will be fully appreciated by the public who should show more public-spiritedness and wholehearted co-operation with the Police in the onslaught against crime. Sir, at present, under the existing provisions of the Penal Code, there is no suitable punishment of treating kidnapping for ransom as an aggravated form of ordinary kidnapping or abduction. Under this Punishment of Kidnapping Bill, each element of kidnapping is made punishable. As you are aware, Sir, the elements of kidnapping are abduction plus wrongful restraint or wrongful confinement, and, under this Bill, each of these elements is punishable, if it is perpetrated for ransom. Clause 3 of the Bill makes it an offence for a person to abduct, wrongfully restrain or wrongfully confine any other person with intent to hold such person for ransom, and, on conviction, he shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and, if the sentence is imprisonment, he shall be liable to caning. Clauses 4 and 5 make the receiver of ransom money or property, knowing that such money or property has been given as ransom, and the person who negotiates to obtain ransom for the release of any person abducted or wrongfully restrained or confined, to be guilty of offences and liable, on conviction, to a term in prison not exceeding ten years and also to caning. Provision is also made in clause 5 for any person who knowingly negotiates to pay or pays or provides funds for the payment of any ransom to procure the release of any person, who has been wrongfully restrained or wrongfully confined, to be guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years and also liable to a fine. In clause 6 of the Bill, power is given to the Public Prosecutor to order any bank to freeze any banking account, where he is satisfied that the money may be withdrawn for the payment of any ransom for the release of any person, and it makes a manager or a banker, who fails to comply with an order of the Public Prosecutor, guilty of an offence. Clause 7 (Public Prosecutor's power to order inspection of books, accounts, receipts, vouchers or other documents by the Police), clause 8 (Public Prosecutor's powers to obtain information), clause 12 (evidence of accomplice not to be deemed unworthy of credit because he has paid or negotiated to pay ransom), clause 13 (evidence of pecuniary resources or property, disproportionate to his known income) and clause 14 (protection of informers) are provisions taken from the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, No. 39 of 1960, and are included in the Bill, as it is considered that they will facilitate investigations into the offences under this Bill. Clause 9 of the Bill makes it the duty of any person, who is aware of the commission or of the intention of any person to commit an offence under this Bill, immediately to give that information to a police officer; and this clause also provides for the punishment of any person who fails to give such information to a police officer. Provision is made in clause 10 of the Bill for the Public Prosecutor to authorise any police officer to intercept any article sent by post or any messages sent by telegraph or to listen to any telephone conversation if he is satisfied that such communication is related to the payment of ransom for the release of a person who has been wrongfully restrained or wrongfully confined. Clause 11 of the Bill provides that all offences under this Bill shall be deemed to be seizable offences for the purposes of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sir, the introduction of this Bill will, it is hoped, achieve its desired purpose and deter criminally-minded kidnappers from kidnapping persons for ransom. It will be noted that the death sentence is not mandatory but is only provided as an alternative to life imprisonment, and this is similar to the punishment provided for using or attempting to use, arms under section 4 of the Arms Offences Ordinance. This Bill should be regarded as a stern warning that kidnapping does not pay. Should there be any future kidnapping case, it could become an appointment with death or an invitation to life incarceration for the kidnapper. 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.

6.00 p.m. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

I propose to take all the remaining clauses together, unless any Member indicates he wishes to speak on any particular clause.

I wish to speak on clause 6.

I will take clauses 4 and 5 then. Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 - Question proposed, "That clause 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, this particular clause, if fully carried out, might result in great hardship to the workers. Sir, if it happens that the particular person kidnapped is the head of many organisations and the owner of many factories, according to this clause, Sir, his accounts in the various banks will be frozen and there will not be the wherewithal to pay the workers. Supposing the workers are on weekly wages, Sir, then they may, have to wait for a week, or two weeks, or three weeks to get their pay. Surely it is not the intention of the Government that the wages of workers should remain unpaid. But according to this clause, while the account is frozen, there is no way of paying the workers.

Surely, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanglin is not all that innocent about the business practices amongst the big businessmen in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, if their money is frozen, all they have to do quite easily is to raise a loan from other businessmen. Once they get that loan, they can pay the workers. And when their money is unfrozen, they can pay off the other businessmen by and by.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had hoped that the Minister would say that in such a case he would go to the assistance of these unfortunate persons, and allow the bank to have the wages paid rather than force those unfortunate individuals to raise a loan in the market at eight per cent.

There is a further point, Sir. If anyone helps anybody who is already kidnapped, he himself, Sir, may be facing a seven-year term of imprisonment!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure it is not the intention of the Government to cause any suffering to any worker as a result of this Bill. This Bill is directed at those who refuse to co-operate with the Police but with the kidnappers. If a case could be made out to the Public Prosecutor by the manager of any of those concerns belonging to the kidnapped victim, then I am sure the Public Prosecutor is not so unreasonable as to refuse money to be drawn for the purpose of paying wages to the workers.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 6.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to introduce into Singapore the doctrine of what is commonly known as "diminished responsibility". This was originally a Scottish doctrine but was imported into England by the Homicide Act, 1957. The present law relating to insanity is contained in section 84 of the Penal Code which reads as follows: `Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.' This provision, Sir, is based on the so-called M'Naghten Rules, which summarised the advice given by the Judges to the House of Lords in M'Naghten's Case in 1843. According to this provision, the relevant test of insanity is a legal test and not a medical or psychiatric test. For the defence of insanity to succeed, it is necessary to establish that the accused was suffering at the time of the offence from a defect of reason due to disease of the mind so that he either did not know what he was doing or did not know that it was wrong. If the accused is not suffering from a disease of the mind or is not suffering from a form of insanity which affects the intellectual powers as distinguished from the will or emotions, he is not within the M'Naghten Rules. Clause 2 of the Bill, which is based on section 2 of the Homicide Act, 1957, of England, provides that culpable homicide shall not be murder if the offender was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in causing the death or being a party to causing the death. The effect, Sir, is that diminished responsibility will be a mitigating factor and, to quote from the report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment in England, it is a "device to enable the courts to take account of a special category of mitigating circumstances in cases of murder and to avoid passing sentence of death in cases where such circumstances exist." The exception of diminished responsibility is quite different from that of insanity. Insanity covered by the M'Naghten Rules and section 84 of the Penal Code is a complete defence leading to the verdict of acquittal while diminished responsibility merely reduces the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The provision of the new Exception 7 to section 300 of the Penal Code, which are proposed to be inserted by clause 2 of the Bill, cover mental abnormality whether induced by mental or physical disease or injury or arising from mental deficiency or other inherent causes. These words would appear to cover mental abnormality due to any form of insanity, to mental defectiveness, epilepsy, psycho neurosis arising from inherent causes and forms of psychopathic personality arising from arrested or retarded development of the mind. The onus of proving that he comes within the exception is by virtue of section 106 of the Evidence Ordinance on the accused, and it is for him to satisfy the jury not only that abnormality within the definition contained in the Exception existed at the time of the offence, but that it was of such a degree that it substantially impaired his mental responsibility for the acts with which he is charged. The use of the term "mental responsibility" makes it clear that it is not legal responsibility which is in question at this point. Legal responsibility is diminished if the criteria contained in the Exception are satisfied, but diminution of legal responsibility is not itself one of those criteria. The doctrine of diminished responsibility has been applied in England for over five years and has on the whole been applied successfully. The doctrine has also been adopted by a number of Commonwealth countries and recently the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has given authoritative advice on the application of the doctrine in the case of Rose vs the Queen, in an appeal from the Supreme Court of the Bahama Islands. In the English case of Regina vs Byrne (1960) 2 QB 396 Lord Chief Justice Parker in delivering the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal said: `"Abnormality of mind" which has to be contrasted with the time-honoured expression in the M'Naghten Rules "defect of reason" means a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal. The expression "mental responsibility for his acts" points to a consideration of the extent to which the accused's mind is answerable for his physical acts which must include a consideration of the extent of his ability to exercise will power to control his physical acts'. The Lord Chief Justice then went on to cite from Scots cases indicating that "such abnormality as substantially impairs his mental responsibility" involved a mental state which in popular language (not that of the M'Naghten Rules) a jury would regard as amounting to partial insanity or being on the borderline of insanity. Lord Tucker, in giving the opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Rose vs the Queen, referred to the case of Regina vs Byrne and said: `Their Lordships respectfully accept this interpretation of the words "abnormality of mind" and "mental responsibility" as authoritative and correct. They would not, however, consider that the Court of Criminal Appeal was intending to lay down that in every case the jury must necessarily be directed that the test was always to be the borderline of insanity. There might be cases in which the abnormality of mind relied upon could not readily be related to any of the generally recognized types of "insanity". If, however, insanity was to be taken into consideration, as undoubtedly would usually be the case, the word must be used in its broad popular sense. It could not too often be emphasized that there was no formula that could safety be used in every case - the direction to the jury must always be related to the particular evidence that had been given and there might be cases where the words "borderline" and "insanity" might not be helpful.' The doctrine of "diminished responsibility" was considered at the United Nations Seminar on the role of the Substantive Criminal Law in the protection of Human Rights held at Tokyo last year and the Seminar in its report recommended the adoption of the doctrine. The other important amendment made by the Bill is contained in clause 6, which seeks to widen the definition of "stolen property" to include property into or for which stolen property has been converted or exchanged. This follows the provisions of section 46 (1) of the United Kingdom Larceny Act, 1916, and will enable a prosecution to be instituted in respect of property into which or for which the property actually stolen has been converted or exchanged. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill seek to provide that the punishment of caning may be imposed for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt or grevious hurt to extort property or to constrain the commission of an illegal act. As caning is already a possible punishment for the offence of extortion, it is considered that it should be available as a punishment where hurt or grevious hurt is caused to commit extortion. Clause 5 of the Bill is complementary to and consequential on the Punishment of Kidnapping Bill. It seeks to make the offence of kidnapping or abducting in order to murder punishable with death or imprisonment for life (instead of imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend to ten years as at present). 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 Byrne]. Bill considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 6.17 p.m.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation to proceed with the Bill. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the purpose of this Bill is to provide for the establishment of a Police Cadet Corps in the State of Singapore. As the House is aware, we already have in existence three Cadet Corps, namely, the School Cadet Corps, the Sea Cadet Corps and the Malayan Air Training Corps. The time is appropriate that we should have a fourth corps, namely, the Police Cadet Corps. The aims of this Police Cadet Corps are to produce further civic mindedness among schoolboys and other youths, to bring them into closer association with our re-dedicated and re-orientated Singapore Police Force, to get them to know more about the work and responsibilities of the Police Force, to regard them as friends and encourage them to support the forces of law and order against criminals and gangsters, and also to provide an incentive for educated youth to join the Police Force as a career. Like the other existing cadet corps, enrolment in the Police Cadet Corps will be on a voluntary basis. The Bill provides that only Singapore citizens will be eligible for enrolment in the Corps, which will he affiliated to the Singapore Police Force, but members of the Corps shall not be police officers within the meaning of the Police Force Ordinance. The Bill also provides for the Commandant of the Police Cadet Corps to be appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Commissioner of Police, and also for the Corps to consist of such units and divisions and such numbers of officers and cadets as may from time to time be approved by the Minister. Provision is also made for the secondment of members of the Police Force for service in the Corps on full or part-time basis. Provision is also made for the appointment of officers, and, like other cadet corps, for the payment by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara of compensation for death or injury sustained by members of the Corps when on duty. Power is also given to the Minister to make regulations for the constitution, general government, discipline and training of the Corps and also for the quantum of compensation in respect of death and personal injuries. The House may wish to know something of the set-up and organisation of the Police Cadet Corps to be made under Police Cadet Corps Regulations. The intention is that the Corps should consist of a Commandant and Headquarters based at the Police Training School, School Units, attached to the various language schools, comprising schoolboys from the particular schools, and officers provided from amongst the teaching staff, and Open Units, attached to the Police Training School or Divisions, commanded by Special Constabulary Officers and comprising cadets drawn from different approved categories of persons. Cadets will wear a distinctive uniform based on the Police uniform. Cadets will be drawn from the age groups 15 to 19, and the Corps will be organised in units, each of 50 men and two officers. Although it is a new Cadet Corps and is a new charge of expenditure on the revenues of the State, its establishment will not, however, require any extra financial expenditure as it will be financed by part of the funds of the School Cadet Corps provided for in the Estimates. For a start, there will be a gradual build-up of Police Cadet Corps by direct recruitment from schools. This will be phased with the gradual run-down of the School Cadet Corps by wastage and non-recruitment. For some time to come the Police Cadets and School Cadets will operate side by side. Sir, in the training of the Corps, maximum emphasis is placed on understanding the functions and civic duties of the Police and developing a sense of responsible participation in the corporate life of the community. Physical discipline, that is, drill, self-defence and revolver shooting will also be taught to increase the range of interest. At advanced levels, cadets will be introduced to the more specialised fields of police work, e.g. radio, investigations, court procedure and marine duties. The Syllabus is based on training schemes for regular and special police officers and association with the Police force will be further fostered by bringing the senior body into the training and activities of the cadets. It is hope, in this way, to increase the flow of recruitment from secondary schools to provide for a more educated and efficient Police Force. 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.

Order for Second Reading read. 6.26 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read, a Second time." I have His Excellency's recommendation that the Bill be proceeded with. Sir, in part I of the People's Action Party long-term statement of policy - The Tasks Ahead - we set out on page 25 in the Chapter on our Economic Policy, the proposal to establish an Economic Development Board which will plan, co-ordinate and direct the industrialisation of the State. On coming into office, the Government set about the task of establishing the Board. The model of organisation and pattern of legislation of economic or industrial development boards of our Asian neighbours and of smaller countries further away, were studies in detail. The important function of the Board in the determination of our economic future did not permit us merely to copy or to graft. We were searching for an organisation which would fit itself into the economic situation and structure of Singapore. Economically, Singapore today is in a crucial stage of transition. On the one hand, we have to do our best to maintain and expand our trade, which has sustained Singapore so long and so well. At the same time, using the profits and the organisation of trade as a spring board, we have to industrialise quickly and efficiently so that, in the near future, we shall be able to sell to our neighbours the products of our labour instead of merely the services of our entrepot skill. Countries around us are increasingly pursuing, and justifiably so, a policy of direct trade. In this expansion of direct trading relations, Singapore can hope to play its role by being the supplier of manufactured products labelled "Made in Singapore". Being strategically located, the savings in freight would be one factor which will enable us to sell quickly and cheaply. To bring about this economic transformation, on which our survival depends, the Government cannot adopt a purely laissez faire attitude. Nor can it play a simple administrative role of just maintaining civil stability and providing the basic essential services. To initiate the road to industrialisation, the Government has to play a positive and direct role. The Economic Development Board which we seek to set up under the authority of the Bill now before the House will be the agency of Government to direct this transformation of Singapore's economy. It has taken the Government nearly two years to prepare for the establishment of the Economic Development Board. To some this may appear to be an unduly long period. But I myself do not accept this view. This is going to be one of the most important steps to be taken by the Government. It is obviously necessary that measures of such importance should be made only after careful thought and preparation. May I outline some of the preliminary steps which we have taken before creating this Board? The first major move that the Government made was to ask for teams of international experts to investigate the potentialities of expansion in certain specific industries. Members are already aware of the work that is now being carried out and will soon be completed by the U.N. Industrial Mission headed by Dr A. Winsemius. Why is this step necessary? Could we not have gone ahead without seeking the opinion of experts. The answer is that in attempting any major transformation of the economy, it is well to have available the opinion of the best brains that we can get hold of. For the economic position of Singapore is unique and the experience of other and larger countries in Asia which are now attempting to industrialise themselves, offers us no guidance whatsoever. The reasons are simple and have been repeated ever so often. We do not have, as they have, natural resources which can provide the raw materials for industrialisation. In itself this is not so important as these raw materials are accessible from neighbouring countries. But more important than this is the size of the domestic market which imposes a limit to the extent of industrialisation based on it. In this respect, we differ fundamentally from the larger countries such as India and Pakistan, or even the medium-sized countries in Asia such as Thailand or Burma. These countries have the advantage that the home consumer demand is large and therefore the question of an adequate market for the products of industry does not present a problem in such an acute form that it does to us. There is the further added complication of the free port status of our island State. While adjustments can be made here and there to this free port status, no precipitate action in the interest of rapid industrialisation can be contemplated which would cause such a major dislocation of the economy that the gain through industrialisation would be outweighed by the loss of our standing as an entrepot market. These considerations do not apply to other Asian countries which are attempting to industrialise. Their problems and difficulties stem from other causes, on which I need not embark here. But, faced as we are in this unique position, it is necessary to seek advice from experts abroad. We lost little time in doing so, and in Singapore today we have, in addition to the U.N. Industrial Mission, another Mission to study the establishment of a steel industry in Singapore. Both these Missions contained men of ability and experience and they have given us new insights into the nature of the problem facing us and the solutions that we can apply. We have now reached the stage when we can take this major move to establish the Economic Development Board. The acute difficulties in recruiting staff to the Board, which will need industrial economists, engineers, and other expert personnel, which we have experienced, have been partially solved. As I announced in the Assembly on a previous occasion, we have been able to get experts from countries abroad such as India and Israel, and with these as the nucleus we propose to press ahead. I will now deal with some of the major functions of the Board. First, the Board will investigate and evaluate industrial opportunities. The market potential, availability of raw materials, production costs, capital requirements and other technical factors, will be worked out and assessed. When an industry is considered feasible, industrialists will be invited to consider the establishment of such an industry, with financial and technical assistance from abroad if necessary. It may be that the industrialist may possess the know-how but lack the capital. The Board will then assist him financially by direct loans and advances, or underwrite and guarantee the issue or equity capital by the enterprise concerned. Secondly, where necessary, the Board will itself participate in establishing industries, where private participation is not forthcoming or insufficient. This may happen when an industry requires substantial investment outlay and expert technical know-how. Thirdly, to provide prepared sites for industries, the Board will have the power to lay out industrial estates, where the basic requirements of industry, such as power, water, roads, railways and such other facilities will be laid on. Finally, the Board will assist industrial enterprises by giving technical advice. A technical consultant service will be organised which will advise an industrial enterprise with regard to both economic and purely engineering problems. An industrial research unit which will be sited in the Polytechnic is in the course of establishment with the assistance of the New Zealand Government. This unit will be able to give valuable assistance, especially to medium-scale industries, in the way of solving their production and engineering problems. At a future date we intend to set up a productivity centre to improve the efficiency of management and to raise the output of workers through the application of modern techniques. The relation between the industrial research unit and the future productivity centre of the Economic Development Board is something which will have to be resolved. I do not wish to anticipate what the Board itself will want to do. This will have to await the establishment of the Board. Though the Board will have power under clause II to raise its own capital by the issue of bonds and debentures, a substantial part of the Board's assets will be made available by the Government. It is expected that over the Plan period 1961-1964, the Government will contribute from current revenue a total of $100 million for the operation of the Board. This will be done under the provisions of clause 10 of the Bill. Under clause 16, the Board will have compulsory powers to acquire land. This is necessary as the development of industrial estates and sites, which is one of the functions of the Board, must proceed expeditiously to channel industries into suitable areas where the economies of scale in the provision of basic services can be enjoyed. The Board as constituted under clause 5 includes a full-time Chairman and a Director, the Chairman of the Housing Board, and five members to represent respectively banking, manufacturing, commercial, labour and professional interests. Representation and participation in the running of the Board has been so distributed that the whole community can become a part of the national effort to industrialise, which task would be the Board's supreme responsibility. Finally, the Bill will repeal the Singapore Industrial Promotion Board Ordinance, 1957, and the assets of the present Industrial Promotion Board would be vested in the new Economic Development Board. The new Board will have a hundred-fold more resources at its disposal, with which to provide the means for the take-off into industrialisation. Now, Sir, a word about the future. The powers of the Board as I have described them fall into two broad categories. First, there is the industrial promotion effort and the rendering of technical services and assistance to industries. Then there are the financial activities of the Board such as the provision of loans or participation in share capital. It is the experience of other countries that the latter functions, that is, loan operations and share participation in industries, are better performed by a separate Industrial Finance Corporation. We may well find this to be the case in Singapore. But as a first step, it does seem unnecessary to establish two separate statutory bodies when not much is known as to the details and scope for what they would actually be doing and how much demand there would be for the services and resources that they will provide. This knowledge can only come about through actual experience, and if it is proved necessary in the future to separate these two functions and allot them to two separate authorities, then we shall proceed to do so. In the initial stages at any rate, a certain degree of centralisation would appear to be advantageous. In this Bill, we provided for the formal powers and the general modus operandi of the Economic Development Board, It is obvious that the setting up of the framework itself by no means provides a guarantee of success. Successful industrialisation depends on many other factors - maintenance of political stability, industrial peace, and a general effort by everyone to work harder and with greater skill. This means that the success or failure of our venture basically depends on whether every citizen in Singapore is prepared to make his contribution to the national effort. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 6.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of industrialisation, we have given our views at previous sittings of this Assembly, and they are quite well known. But I think it is worth while to repeat here the most important factors that can contribute to a successful industrialisation policy. The Minister for Finance himself said nearly two years ago that the success of any industrialisation plan depends on a common market, and this morning, in reply to a question from the Opposition, it was made known for the first time that there had been only-

Sir, on a point of information.

If the Member will give way. Tun Lim Yew Hock resumed his seat.

The Member for Cairnhill quoted me as saying that, the success of our industrialisation depends on a common market. May I ask him, Sir, to quote chapter and verse so that my words can be judged in their exact context and in accurate terms?

I am not able to quote the exact words, but it was clear from the Minister's speech at the time when he proudly acclaimed in this Assembly that he had thought of the wonderful plan for a common market which was vital - I think the word used could have been "vital" - to the success of any industrialisation plan. And then with titters from the Government Benchers that they, the bright boys of the P.A.P., would then have discussions with the Federation Government. That was nearly two years ago. And only this morning, as a result of a question asked-

Sir, on a point of information.

If the Member will give way.

No. It was only this morning, in reply to a question from the Opposition, that we became aware of the fact that after the ministerial meeting some two years ago there had been discussions at official level. Three meetings took place between June and August 1960. After that, there have been no more meetings but a lot of correspondence has been exchanged on various points that require further clarification or elucidation. But anyway, it was admitted this morning that after August 1960 there had been no further meetings, official or otherwise. When the Development Plan of the Government was brought up for debate at the previous sitting of this Assembly, no murmur whatsoever was made of the fate of the discussions on the Common Commodity Market. And today, it is significant that in moving the Bill the Minister pointed out the difficulties or the prerequisites for the success of the Bill; but he forgot his great brainchild - the Common Commodity Market with the Federation of Malaya. May I therefore ask him, in his reply, if he would stand up and say that there is no hope of a Common Market? Perhaps the people of Singapore can be resigned to that fate instead of being kept in suspense whether or not such a Common Market is to come into being. The Minister himself said that there are many things needed to guarantee the success of the Plan. That was towards the end of his speech. First of all, he said there must be political stability. There has been a lot of political instability, if political stability is to be measured in terms of 39 against 12 Members, then they can call it political stability. But the way I look at political stability is that it is a Government that knows its mind. It is a Government that knows how to look after all interests and not just indulge in class hatred. It is a Government that has Ministers who do not stand up and proudly say, "If a company or such and such a union does not behave, I will see to it that all immigration passes will be withdrawn. So look out!" That is not political stability. That engenders political instability. Of course, Sir, I do not say that the Minister for Labour and Law was wrong in feeling so exasperated when he was told of what had happened by his colleague who was then and who still is the adviser to this newly-formed Oil Workers Union. But if he really has the interest of the workers and the country at heart, there is certainly another more effective way to settle the problem. Surely he could send for the employer and give him a ticking-off in his office and say, "Look here, you should not do this; you should not do that; you should not do the other," instead of doing it P.A.P.-style - "Either or!" Industrial peace! Ever since the P.A.P came into power, there has been more industrial unrest than there has ever been before.

Rubbish!

Rubbish!

Sir I can understand that the truth sometimes hurts, and hurts rather deeply.

Remember the Hock Lee riots!

The hon. Minister for Finance himself can - may I be so bold as to suggest to him? - look up the statistics from his colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law, and he will be able to see whether there have been more strikes or less strikes. Of course, there should have been less strikes because the T.U.C. is a P.A.P. controlled T.U.C.! I do not know whether it is a good thing for great P.A.P. trade union leaders to be at the same time political leaders and try to mix politics with trade unionism. While they are here, they say, "We represent the Government," and while they are in the A.U.P.E., they say, "We represent the workers." And the poor man there [Indicating] keeps on telling his colleague, "I want more and more money to be returned to the civil servants in respect of the arbitrary pay cut." But when he sits here, he says, "I am in favour of the pay cut." I do not know whether it is a good thing for industrial peace. I do not know, because the P.A.P. have great brains and they know what they are doing! If we want a successful industrialisation programme to be carried out, it is vital - it is accepted by the Government - that the conditions must be of such a character that there can be no fear of confidence in the Government being lost. The Minister has brought up the question of market potential. He himself has admitted that Singapore has a very small market potential, but that because of the situation in Singapore there are great prospects of selling goods manufactured in Singapore overseas. Perhaps the Minister is not aware that it takes a very, very long time to sell a new product. Sir, we do not oppose the Bill, because we feel that something has to be done to help the country to solve the unemployment problem, but we do urge upon the Government to be more realistic in their approach to the problem and to see to it that all interests must be well and truly balanced. 6.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to dwell on one or two points. The first point is something which the Minister himself made in his speech. He said that it is necessary, in the existing economic circumstances which Singapore finds itself, for the Government to play a positive and direct role in the economic development of Singapore in order to stem the difficult unemployment situation. Sir, he then went on to develop that by saying how these positive and direct steps will be taken. While he was making his speech, I was looking at the Bill which he had placed before the Assembly. I was looking particularly at clause 12 of the Bill which sets out seriatim the powers of the Board. I may be wrong, Sir, I may be a pettifogging lawyer. But sometimes it is necessary that pettifogging lawyers do propound their views, because it is eventually the Courts that decide these things, and the Courts are presided over by lawyers who might not necessarily be pettifogging but are yet lawyers. Looking at clause 12. Mr Speaker, Sir, I get the impression that there is nothing in it which would enable the Board to play the positive and direct role in industry which the Minister has indicated should be done if the economy of this place is to reach some sort of stability. As far as I can see, all the powers are given either to underwrite the issue of stocks and shares of industrial enterprises or to guarantee loans raised by industrial enterprises, or to grant loans to industrial enterprises, or to sell shares, and manage and invest in shares of industrial enterprises, or to acquire land, or: `to act as agent for the Government or, with its approval, for any other person in the transaction of any business with an industrial enterprise in respect of loans or advances granted or debentures subscribed by the Government or such other person;'. So that, in effect, the role which the Board would play as envisaged by the Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, seems to be this: to come to the help of an industrial enterprise in circumstances when that industrial enterprise cannot stand on its own feet and needs or solicits the help of Government. "Industrial enterprise" is expressly defined in clause 2 which says: `[It] means any sole-proprietorship, partnership, company or co-operative society wheresoever registered or incorporated under any law for the time being in force relating to companies, co-operative societies or businesses and engaged in mining or in the manufacture or processing of goods;'. So that, in effect, Mr Speaker, an industrial enterprise is either a partnership or a registered company or some society which has a statutory entity, which indulges either in mining or in the manufacture or processing of goods. Sir, as I see the Bill, there seems to be a divergence and a cleavage between what the Minister has said on its Second Reading and what in effect will be the legal powers of the Board. There are other matters, Mr Speaker, which I will raise in Committee. The second point which I wish to touch upon, particularly as a matter of principle, is clause 15 of the Bill which is charting a new course in legislation. Mr Speaker, I have repeatedly complained in this House about what the present Government is doing to our courts of law: that it is taking away from them matters which normally under any democratic government should go to them, and matters which having gone to them should be left in an unfettered manner for them to do justice to according to the law of the land. So, imagine my surprise, Mr Speaker, when I received this Bill. In going through clause 15, it seems to me that the P.A.P. Government, that is, our present Government, has gone one better than it has been doing up till now. It is seeking to make our courts of justice a rubber stamp. Yes, Mr Speaker, I use the words deliberately - a rubber stamp. Clause 15 goes on to say that if certain applications are made to the Court, certain orders shall be made by the Court; certain interim injunctions shall be given; and certain orders shall issue from the Judges. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first time I have seen legislation which places a mandatory obligation on a Judge in the way of what he shall decide or shall not decide. It is all the more heinous because the very things that they are going to the Courts for are powers which are already vested in the Board itself under clause 13. In those circumstances, I cannot see why clause 15 is necessary whereby the Courts become a rubber stamp. Now, this is a matter of principle. Mr Speaker. This is not an isolated matter which only affects this Bill only. The independence of the Judiciary, Mr Speaker, Sir, is one of the corner-stones on which parliamentary democracy rests. If we destroy the confidence of the public in the independence - I repeat the word again - independence of action and of thought of our Judges, then our whole concept of parliamentary democracy as we understand it must surely fall. If clause 15 is passed into law, and if our Judges become rubber stamps, I submit, with respect to you, Mr Speaker. Sir, that the administration of justice in this country will be held in contempt, and any justice which becomes a matter of contempt will lose the respect of the people. Once our Judges become objects of contempt in the eyes of the public, then the main essential on which our democratic concepts rests will be undermined.

Dr Goh, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think the Opposition have made any valuable contribution to the debate on this Bill. But first let me dispose of the Member for Hong Lim.

The Member for Fairer Park.

The Member for Cairnhill. Sir, he has given a completely subjective, highly inaccurate and completely malicious account of what our-

Order. I did notice that the Minister for Finance was fuming in his chair. But I do not think that entitles him to use unparliamentary expressions in this Assembly. To allege that an hon. Member of this House has been guilty of some malicious act is unparliamentary. That should be withdrawn.

I withdraw the objectionable epithet, Mr Speaker. Sir, what the Member for Cairnhill has done is to say that we, the Government, had made certain claims as to the virtue of the Common Commodity Market proposals. Speaking purely from memory and when challenged to quote the actual remarks which I had made, the Member for Cairnhill was completely unable to do so. Therefore, I shall dismiss his remarks as being purely a political tactic to discredit the Government. We had made no such claims and I challenge the Member for Cairnhill, when he gets his copy of Hansard and sees his own remarks in cold print, to compare his statement of what I was supposed to have said on the Common Market with what I did actually say about it. And let him come again and defend the propositions that he has made before the Assembly. The Member for Cairnhill made a second point about the importance of political stability and the various ways in which the P.A.P. Government had failed to achieve it. This again is so obviously untrue that it does not call for any detailed comment. All I need say is that we need no lessons on how to maintain political stability from the S.P.A. or the former Labour Front members who, during their brief and inglorious term of office, had provided an object lesson on how to bring about a state of complete political instability and chaos. If we need any lesson from Members of the Opposition bench, it is on how to bring about political instability through sheer incapacity to govern Singapore wisely, firmly and justly. The third point made by the Member for Cairnhill is that during the tenure of office of the present Government, far from achieving industrial peace, what has happened is that there has been a record of strikes, and he said that statistics of labour disputes will bear this out. Sir, I am a statistician by profession and I have made a particular effort to keep correct the statistics of man-days lost as a result of strikes - statistics which are furnished by my colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law. May I remind the Member for Cairnhill that when his Government was in power, we then achieved the all-time record of industrial disputes, that in the year 1956 no less than one million man-days of work were lost through strikes? That was an absolute record which exceeded the most riotous days of the post-war era when the Malayan Communist Party openly challenged the then colonial Government. Now, I turn to the comments of the Member for Farrer Park. I am unable to follow the legal arguments that he made, namely, that the provisions of clause 12, taken in conjunction with the provisions of clause 2, will not enable the Economic Development Board to perform the function of direct and positive participation in industry. Sir, may I refer him to clause 12 which empowers the Board: `to grant loans or advances to, or subscribe to stocks, shares, bonds or debentures of industrial enterprises;'. This is continued in paragraph (d), which empowers the Board: `to manage, control or supervise industrial enterprises by nominating directors or advisers or otherwise collaborating with them or entering into partnerships or any other arrangement for jointly working with them;'. Clearly, these two paragraphs empower the Board to participate directly and positively in the management and establishment of industry, whether existing ones or new ones. But it may be that the point that the Member for Farrer Park was making is that in clause 2 industrial enterprise is so defined as to include only existing enterprises and not new ones. I do not know whether that was the point he was making. With respect, Sir, if that was the point, then may I just say that this is really a legal quibble, because there are many ways of bringing into existence enterprises of one form or another, so that once their legal existence is established by the simple process of administration under any law, then the Board will have the power to perform the functions which I have enumerated. But I do not think the Member for Fairer Park was making a substantial point there. His principal attack was against clause 15, which he said reduced the courts to the position of being a rubber stamp, and undermined the independence of the Judiciary. Sir, clause 15 is not a clause which was created de novo by us. I cannot recollect offhand the actual precedent on which this clause was based. But to the best of my recollection, it was either in the Industrial Finance Corporation Ordinance of the Government of Pakistan or some similar Ordinance in the Government of India. I would say. Sir, speaking purely as a layman with perhaps some trepidation in these matters, that the courts would be reduced to a rubber stamp only if the decision in any dispute between the Board and the other party can legally under this Ordinance be resolved only in favour of the Board, and there is nothing in clause 15 to provide for this. All that clause 15 provides for is that certain steps should be taken in regard to the attachment of property to ensure that the assets against which loans are made shall be conducted in a proper and orderly way. Further, there is provision for safeguards in that the orders which are made under this clause are interim orders and that the Economic Development Board will have to show cause. I think these are adequate safeguards, and to say that this provision undermines the independence of the Judiciary is really carrying matters too far. The independence of the Judiciary, as I understand it, means that a Judge, when he makes his decision in any matter placed before him, should be able to do so without pressure or duress from the Government. For instance, the appointment, dismissal and disciplinary action in regard to Judges, should be removed as far as possible from the authority of the Executive do not think, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Member for Fairer Park has made out a case in support of his contention.

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

7.17 p.m. Resolved, "That the proceedings on the remaining items of business set down for this day be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1."-[The Deputy Prime Minister - Dr Toh Chin Chye].

Resolved, "That at its rising this day, this Assembly do stand adjourned to 14th June, 1961."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye].

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.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, in clause 2 of the Bill, "industrial enterprise" is defined as- `"industrial enterprise" means any sole-proprietorship, partnership, company or co-operative society wheresoever registered or incorporated under any law for the time being in force relating to companies, co-operative societies or business and [this is the point, Mr Speaker, Sir] engaged in mining or in the manufacture or processing of goods;'. So there are those who are engaged in mining; there are those who are engaged in the manufacture of goods; and there are those who are engaged in the processing of goods - three kinds of businesses. I can understand the last two categories, namely, the manufacture and processing of goods. Might I ask the Minister what sort of mining business does he propose to conduct in Singapore?

Sir, I do not know why the Member for Farrer Park believes that the activities of the Economic Development Board should be confined to Singapore. There may be occasions to engage in activities outside Singapore as a complement to the industrial effort in Singapore.

Is the Minister seriously suggesting to this House that, if a company is established in Singapore, as there are indeed many now having their registered head office in Singapore but indulging in mining operations in the Federation - mining for iron or tin or anything like that - he is going to utilise the taxpayers' money in Singapore for the financing and advancement of this company which is exploiting the mineral resources in the Federation to the betterment of the Federation Government?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it could be mines anywhere? But the point is this. I do not think it will be proper for us to so constrict the activities of the Board as to disallow them to engage in such operations. After all, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is, in the jargon of the economists, such a term as "forward and backward" integration. That is, when industries either go forward to absorb marketing processes or go backward to take under their charge the production of raw materials which are necessary for their existence. As I have said, this is just a piece of permissive legislation. There may be occasions when it might come in useful or it might not come in useful. This, I think, is a matter which we should leave to the Board.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 - Question proposed, "That clause 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, under clause 4, the Minister has power to appoint a Chairman of the Board, and he shall be a full-time officer of the Board. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will run your eye down clause 5. Under clause 5 (1) (b), it says the Director of the Board shall be appointed under section 7 of this Ordinance, which says that the first of these Directors shall be appointed by the Minister and that all subsequent Directors shall be appointed by the Board. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know from the Minister why it is necessary to have a Chairman of the Board, who is going to be a full-time officer of the Board and who probably will be paid a fairly high salary and, at the same time, have a Director of the Board who possibly will be paid a very high salary. Would it not be enough if we had only one person, and we call him either the Chairman or the Director?

Mr Speaker, the answer is quite simple. It is likely that the first Director of the Board will be a person appointed from overseas. He will be an industrial economist who has experience in such matters. It would obviously be undesirable to leave the whole management of the Economic Development Board in the hands of an expert who is not a Malayan. This is then, therefore, in order that policy matters and local background information can be made continuously available to the Director of the Board. It will be an advantage if the chairman of the Board, who will be a Malayan, is appointed. It does not follow, of course, that the Chairman of the Board will draw a very high salary. Perhaps I may remind the Member for Farrer Park that the Chairman of the Housing and Development Board draws no salary, no allowance, no transport allowance, and he works more than full-time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am fully aware that the present. Chairman of the Housing Board is doing that, because he is the present Chairman, and because he does not want the money, so he says. But if he were desirous of getting the money, he could have got it. So, if the Minister can assure me that the Chairman of the Economic Development Board will perform his functions in the same way as the present Chairman of the Housing Board is performing his, then there would be no objection. But the point I am raising is this. It would appear that under clauses 4, 5 and 7 of this Bill, we are going to have two very highly paid officers of the Board, both of them sitting on the Board and both of them being members of the Board. I would suggest that if it is necessary to have a technical officer to be paid, then he should be paid and remain as an employee of the Board, and not as a member of the Board. I think it is very undesirable to have two very highly paid members of the Board drawing perhaps $2,500 each.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when you have a Board that will have at its disposal a sum amounting to $100 million, I do not think the question of salary would be a matter over which one should quibble for any length of time. What we want is the quality of the men and if we can get the right type, then I say he is worth the salary which we will give him.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 - Question proposed. "That clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

There is just one point. Mr Speaker, Sir. Under clause 5 (1) (d) the Minister proposes to have the banking interests, the manufacturing interests, the commercial interests, labour, professional and academic interests represented. As far as I can see, there are six separate interests which he seeks to represent. But he has only five bodies. How does he propose to have the sixth interest represented by these five bodies, unless he treats "professional and academic interests" as one interest? 7.30 p.m.

That is exactly so, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 6 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 2, after "officer", to Insert "or servant". This amendment is necessary in order to be consistent with clause 8 where a distinction is made between an officer and a servant of the Board. Amendment agreed to.

Perhaps the Minister could now move formally. Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 5, after "officer", to insert "or servant". -[Dr Goh Keng Swee]. In page 4, line 8, after "officer", to insert "or servant".-[Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 - Question proposed. "That clause 11 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, where a public authority or an authority borrows money from the public, it is normally the case that provisions are inserted in the Bill for sinking funds to be created, so that that authority will from year to year pay into that sinking fund, contributions which would eventually be utilised to redeem the loan. I notice that in this Bill these provisions are missing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the provision of sinking funds would be, appropriate in the case of public authorities where the money is used to establish an enterprise or a utility of some sort; then a sinking fund is necessary for repayment or for replacement of its capital assets. But in the case of the Economic Development Board, loan debentures may be used not so much against a specific project but as part of the process of the financial activities of the Board. In other words, it may borrow money to lend to other persons against assets which are already there.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 - Question proposed, "That clause 13 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, clause 13 gives certain rights to the Board. It says: `(1) Where any industrial enterprise which is under a liability to the Board under an agreement makes any default in repayment or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Board, the Board shall, without prejudice to any other rights or remedies which it may possess under the law, have the right to take over the management of such industrial enterprise, as well as the right to sell and realise the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Board.' Mr Speaker, Sir, at this stage I am not saying that this is not a proper clause. What I wish to draw the attention of the House to is this - that in clause 15, which we will come to in a minute, Mr Speaker, Sir, the provisions which enable the parties to go to court also arise in circumstances where the powers of the Board are concerned under clause 13. That is the point I wish to make now.

I think it is a repetition.

The rights of the Board in these matters are set out in clause 13. The procedure for the enforcement of these rights is set out in clause 15.

Sir, as I understand clause 13, if I may put it simply, whenever a breach of an agreement takes place, the Board has statutory powers under clause 13, when it becomes law, without prejudice to any other rights or remedies which it may possess under any other law, to take over the management of such industrial enterprise. So that once there is a breach of an agreement within the meaning of clause 13, then the Board has the right to take over the management of the industrial enterprise. It also has the right to "sell and realise the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Board." So the statute confers the right on the Board to sell and realise the property mortgaged in the circumstances envisaged under clause 13. So that my point, when I come to clause 15, Mr Speaker, Sir, will be this - since you already have the statutory powers under clause 13 whereby you can take over the management or sell and give a good title, why then must you go through this rubber-stamp process of going before the Court and getting it to chop things, when you already have the powers?

Clause 15 provides for the necessary processes that have to be set on foot in the event the management of the defaulting enterprise disputes the right of the Board, either in general terms or in detail, to take over its assets and the management.

Is the Minister suggesting that before the Board can take over the management of such an industrial enterprise, or before a sale of the mortgaged properties can be effected, steps must be taken under clause 15?

Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 13 sets out the rights of the Board in cases of default, and clause 15 clearly sets out the procedures.

Am I to understand that the contention of the Government is that the Board cannot, of its own accord, exercise the rights conferred on it by clause 13 without going through the processes laid down under clause 15? I do not read those two clauses in that way.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think clause 15 is invoked only where, as I have said before, the defaulting enterprise contests the rights of the Board. Where there is no such dispute as to the rights of the Board, then the Board can proceed in a normal manner without recourse to the Court.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14- Question proposed. "That clause 14 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, clause 14, to my mind, raises certain points which, if I am right, might operate to take away some of the effectiveness of this Bill. Clause 14 reads as follows: `Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, and without prejudice to any other rights or remedies which it may possess under the law, the Board may by notice require any industrial enterprise, to which it has granted any loan or advance, forthwith to discharge in full its liabilities to The Board-'. And then, Sir, it sets out a series of circumstances -

I think clause 14 does bring about a state whereby the Board would become, in effect, a preferred creditor if the Board so desires to exercise its powers under this clause. Sir, there are various reasons why this is necessary. It is obvious that the dictates of financial prudence would determine that the Board should be given certain protective powers. I am not so much interested in the hypothetical arguments put forward by the Member for Farrer Park. What is more to the point is this. In the present situation in Singapore, insofar as the supply of bank credit loans to industry goes, the facilities are limited and the terms are not as attractive as would be the case with trading concerns. Speaking entirely from memory, I would say that the proportion of bank credit loans going to industry is extremely small, probably of the magnitude of five per cent, and I suspect most of these to be more in the nature of short-term loans against goods or raw materials in store or finished goods in godowns. Industrial financing hardly exists as a practice in bank finance in Singapore today. Therefore, the situation which the Member for Farrer Park has described would not, in fact, be a serious problem at all. It would be a completely different matter if we had, say, private industrial banks engaging in loans on a substantial scale. If the Board were to act in an unreasonable manner independently, and even in opposition to private banks, then the ill-effects which the Member for Farrer Park has described may come into being. As it is, what we are doing really is to discuss a completely hypothetical proposition.

Sir, I am glad the Minister has dispelled that and if he has balanced the problem and thinks that that should be the position, I have nothing further to say. But I put this further proposition to the Minister. Supposing an industrial enterprise were indebted to its trading creditors to the extent of $600,000 or $1 million. While it is so indebted, it goes to the Board and gets a loan of $1 million or $2 million, and subsequently the Board recalls that loan. Is it the intention of Government that the Board's loan should over-reach the other trading liabilities and defeat them, and that the Board should get preferential treatment rather than the legitimate trading creditors who had lent money or supplied goods prior to the Board giving the loan?

I should say it is a matter of policy. These reserved powers of the Board should be used with great circumspection. So far as possible, where legitimate trading and financial interests are involved, the Board should, as I have said, be most circumspect in the use of these reserved powers. If the Board were to exercise these powers indiscriminately, then I should say that the effect would be harmful not only on the enterprise immediately concerned, but it may have adverse consequences on other debtors to the Board. I think these are matters which can be left to the good judgment of the Board itself.

Sir, I wonder if matters like this should be left to the good judgment of the Board. [Interruption] The Minister might think I am wasting his time, but I think there is point in what I am saying. Many people would not say I am wasting his time. Sir, there are many problems which arise over this. If these enterprises should go into liquidation or bankruptcy, then who is the preferred creditor? It is not good enough merely for the Minister to assure this House that the Board will use its discretion, because the people who trade with these enterprises will want to know. If the laws are not equitable, then people will refuse to trade with these enterprises and, instead of helping industrial expansion in the country, the net result of this legislation might well be that these people will think twice about trading with these enterprises when they know that the Board, on giving these enterprises money, will become preferred creditors and defeat them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are being driven into this detailed argument, as I have said, over a completely hypothetical proposition. I do not see why the Member for Farrer Park should deny the Government the right to say that the Board will be manned by people capable of making sound business policy decisions and that they will exercise these reserved powers which are necessary where public money is involved. I have gone as far as to concede that if these powers were to be exercised indiscriminately, then the objectives of the Board would be defeated. I think the Member for Farrer Park should be satisfied with the recognition I have given to the point he is trying to make.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 15- Question proposed, "That clause 15 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have made my point on the Second Reading of the Bill that clause 15 merely gives powers to the Board to go to the Court where they themselves could act under clause 13, except possibly under clause 15 (1) (c); but insofar as clause 15 (1) (a) and (b) are concerned, the Board already have the powers under clause 13. There are various places here where the Judges are called upon to make interim orders, and there are places where the Judges are called upon to make certain orders and they are not left with any discretion. For instance, under sub-clause (7) of clause 15: `If no cause is shown on or before the date specified in the notice under subsections (4) and (6) of this section, the judge shall forthwith make the interim order absolute and direct the sale of the attached property or transfer the management of the industrial enterprise to the Board or confirm the injunction.' Under this sub-clause, Sir, the Judge can only do this specified thing. He cannot do anything more than that. But what the framers of this sub-clause have failed to appreciate is that they have not given the power to the Judge to cancel the interim order. Without the cancellation of the interim order, none of these orders can take place. They have gone on to tie the hands of the Judge by saying, "You shall do this and that," but they have not allowed him to cancel the interim order. Without the cancellation of the interim order, I do not see how sub-clause (7) can work at all. But that is for the Minister for Labour and Law to decide.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my friend the Member for Farrer Park is well aware of the construction of this particular clause. This clause deals with cases of default where an enterprise reaches agreement with the Board. In those circumstances, there is provision for an application to be made by an accredited officer of the Board to the High Court for the reliefs set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (C). These reliefs are designed to protect the interests of the Board, and I cannot see anywhere in the procedures that are set out in clause 15 that the Judges of the High Court are treated as rubber-stamps, as claimed by the Member for Farrer Park. Let us look at it, Mr Speaker, Sir. Take the case of an application made for the transfer of the management of the industrial enterprise to the Board on default. If the House will look at sub-clause (4) of clause 15, the procedures are set out there. Let me read sub-clause (4): `Where the application is for the relief mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section, the judge shall grant an interim injunction restraining the industrial enterprise from transferring or removing its machinery or equipment and issue a notice calling upon the industrial enterprise to show cause on a date to be specified in the notice as to why the management of the industrial enterprise should not be transferred to the Board.' That is a judicial process, Mr Speaker, Sir, for an interim injunction and notice to show cause. Then sub-clause (5) provides: `Before making any order under subsection (3) or subsection (4) of this section, the judge may, if he thinks fit, examine the officer making the application.' There is the application that is made under sub-clause (1) - the application for the reliefs set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Then there is the procedure for the Judge to examine the officer who makes the application. There is also the procedure for the notice to show cause which must be served upon the defaulting enterprise. Mr Speaker, Sir, we go on to sub-clause (6) which reads: `At the same time as he makes an order under subsection (3) of this section, the judge shall Issue to the industrial enterprise a notice accompanied by copies of the order, the application and the evidence, if any, recorded by him, calling upon It to show cause on a date to be specified in the notice as to why the interim order of attachment should not be made absolute or the injunction confirmed.' Then a notice to show cause issues on a date to be specified in the notice as to why the interim order of attachment - if it is a case of attachment - should not be made absolute or the injunction confirmed. Then sub-clause (7) goes on to provide: `If no cause is shown on or before the date specified in the notice under subsections (4) and (6) of this section, the judge shall forthwith make the interim order absolute...'. Here is the case where an opportunity has been given to the enterprise to show cause, and when it has failed to do so then there is power for the Judge to make the interim order absolute and direct the sale of the attached property or transfer the management of the industrial enterprise to the Board or confirm the injunction. Sub-clause (8) provides: `If cause is shown, the judge shall proceed to investigate the claim of the Board and the provisions of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1934, shall as far as practicable apply to such proceedings.' So that there is, right through these clauses, the proper legal procedures which must be followed before the Judge makes his orders and I cannot see how it can be claimed by the Member for Farrer Park that, by virtue of clause 15, it is the intention of this Government to turn the Judges into rubber-stamps.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 8.00 p.m. Clauses 16 to 22 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23 - Question proposed, "That clause 23 stand part of the Bill.

Just one point, Mr Speaker, Sir,In clause 23 (b), on the 4th line from the end, it says: `... freed and discharged from any trust whatsoever, but subject nevertheless to the provisions of this Ordinance; and (c) all liabilities and obligations of the Singapore Industrial Promotion Board which may have existed immediately prior to the coming into operation of this Ordinance shall be transferred to and vest in the Board.' I can understand paragraph (c), Sir, but I cannot understand (b) when it says that merely because all the liabilities and obligations are transferred from the previous Board to the present Board, any trusts that were attaching to the previous Board shall be "freed and discharged". Could the Minister explain what that means?

Mr Speaker, Sir, "Upon the coming into operation of this Ordinance all liabilities and obligations of the Singapore Industrial Promotion Board which may have existed immediately prior to the coming into operation of this Ordinance shall be transferred to and vest in the Board" by operation of law. Mr Speaker, Sir, once that situation obtains, all previous trusts are discharged under paragraph (b).

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would have thought that if all the liabilities and obligations of the previous Board were to be taken on by the future Board, then the pharse "freed and discharged from any trust whatsoever" in paragraph (b) is quite meaningless. You cannot have any trusts attaching to it freed and discharged. Yet the Minister is trying to say that any obligation - and a trust is an obligation - has been taken on by the new Board. It seems to contradict itself.

Although they are freed and discharged - from any trust whatsoever, Mr Speaker, Sir, these liabilities and obligations do not escape the provisions of paragraph (c). All these liabilities and obligations, Mr Speaker, Sir, are vested in the Board by the operation of paragraph (c).

In other words, the obligations remain.

They do.

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

Order for Third Reading read. 8.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." The Women's Charter Bill, which was first introduced last year, has been under the close scrutiny of two Select Committees and I hope the Bill, as amended, will be generally accepted as a significant advance in social legislation for the protection of the rights of women. The Bill is not as revolutionary as some people would like it to be. In particular, the provisions relating to divorce follow closely similar provisions in the English Divorce law and may be said, as a representor before the Select Committee maintained, to be framed on the basis of Protestant theology. It was felt, however, that to allow a marriage to be dissolved by mutual consent or under the Chinese custom by a unilateral public act by the husband would defeat the basis on which the Women's Charter was framed. The Bill seeks, on the one hand, to make it as easy as possible to enter into the contract of marriage and, on the other hand, to make it as difficult as possible to contract out of it. It is especially necessary, in a situation where existing polygamous marriages are recognised and where monogamy is to be enforced for the future, that the institution of marriage should be safe-guarded and that too easy divorces should be prevented. For otherwise, it would be easy for an unscrupulous husband to divorce his existing wife or wives and take for himself another wife. Thus the very basis of the legislation would be demolished and, instead of raising the status of women, the Charter would further lower it. It may be that when the women of Singapore are more advanced and more aware of and more in a position to exercise their rights, it would be possible to go further in liberalising the law of divorce - but for the present it is felt that it would be better to work on the existing law, which has been in force in Singapore since 1912, and which has been found on balance not to have operated unsatisfactorily. One significant change which has been introduced is the power given to the Court to refer the differences between the parties to a marriage to Conciliation Officers so that a reconciliation between the parties can be affected. It is also provided that where there are differences between the parties to a marriage the parties or either of them may refer the differences to a Conciliation Officer for his advice and assistance. It is hoped that in this way the parties will be assisted to arrive at a reconcilation, and that every effort will be made to resolve their differences before the parties resort to the Court for dissolution of their marriage. The provisions in the Charter relating to the disability to contract polygamous marriages will have effect from the 2nd March this year, and it is therefore necessary to bring the Women's Charter into operation as soon as possible. It will be necessary, before this is done, to prescribe the form to be used under the Charter and to appoint the Deputy Registrars of Marriage who will have to assist in the registration of marriages. The forms are already in draft, and it is therefore expected that it will be possible to bring the Ordinance into operation after it is enacted in the very near future. Sir, I beg to move.

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

8.08 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), resolves that the National Theatre Trust of Singapore established by the National Theatre Trust Ordinance, 1960, be added to the First Schedule to the said Ordinance with effect from the 1st day of December, 1960. Section 106 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance gives power to the Legislative Assembly, by resolution, to add to, vary, or revoke, the whole or any part of any Schedule to the Ordinance. The First Schedule to the Ordinance specifies the institutions, authorities, persons or funds whose income is exempted from income tax under section 13 (1) (e) of the Ordinance. An application has been received from the Secretary, National Theatre Trust, Singapore, seeking to include the Trust, established under the National Theatre Trust Ordinance, No. 61 of 1960, in the First Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance and so exempting its income from income tax. Section 6 of the National Theatre Trust Ordinance provides, inter alia, that the Trust may receive subscriptions and donations, interest and dividends, contributions from Government and from other persons and bodies, receipts from shows staged by the Trust, and profits arising therefrom. All moneys received or raised by the Trust are paid into the National Theatre Fund for the purposes of building and maintaining a National Theatre in Singapore as a permanent memorial of the attainment of self-government by the people of Singapore. The Comptroller-General of Income Tax, Malaya, and the Malayan Board of Income Tax have recommended that the National Theatre Trust be included in the First Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance with effect from the 1st day of December, 1960, and Government has accepted the recommendation of the Board. Sir, I beg to move. 8.12 p.m.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), resolves that the National Theatre Trust of Singapore established by the National Theatre Trust Ordinance, 1960, be added to the First Schedule to the said Ordinance with effect from the 1st day of December, 1960.

8.13 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), resolves that the Football Association of Malaya be added to the First Schedule to the said Ordinance with effect from the 1st day of January, 1960. The Football Association of Malaya is the National Institution which controls football in the Federation of Malaya. One of the main objects of the Association is to promote the general interest of association football, and the Association has held several Merdeka Football Festivals and Asian Youth Tournaments which have served well to promote goodwill and friendship among people of South East Asian countries. The Association plans to erect a six-storey building at a cost of $200,000. This will provide, among other things, training accommodation and accommodation for foreign and State teams. It plans to raise funds by promoting football matches. All profits made will be used for the general purposes of improving the standard of the game and for such projects as the new building under construction. The Malayan Board of Income Tax and Comptroller-General of Income Tax have recommended that the Football Association of Malaya be included in the First Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance with effect from the 1st day of January, 1960, and Government has accepted the recommendation. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), resolves that the Football Association of Malaya be added to the First Schedule to the said Ordinance with effect from the 1st day of January, 1960.

8.16 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), resolves that the Federation of Family Planning Associations, Federation of Malaya, and affiliated State Family Planning Associations, be added to the First Schedule to the said Ordinance with effect from the 1st day of January, 1960. State Family Planning Associations have been and are being set up in the various States in the Federation of Malaya. In addition to these State Associations, there is a Federation of Family Planning Associations, which has been set up to foster Family Planning work and to co-ordinate the work of State Associations. To carry out its work, the Federation has applied to the Ministry of Health Federation of Malaya, for an annual grant. The Federation and its affiliated Associations also hope to raise sums from the public and may embark on ventures such as Gift Shops, the profits from which, together with the interests derived from the funds, will be devoted to Family Planning work. The Malayan Board of Income Tax and Comptroller-General of Income Tax have recommended that the Federation of Family Planning Associations, Federation of Malaya, and affiliated State Family Planning Associations be included in the First Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance with effect from the 1st day of January, 1960 and Government has accepted the recommendation. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of Section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), resolves that the Federation of Family Planning Associations, Federation of Malaya, and affiliated State Family Planning Associations, be added to the First Schedule to the said Ordinance with effect from the 1st day of January, 1960. 8.19 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, on behalf of the Minister for Finance, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (3) of section 5 of the Registration of Imports and Exports Ordinance (Cap. 261), resolves that the Registration of Imports and Exports (Amendment) Rules, 1961, published as Notification No. S 92 in the Gazette Supplement No. 26 dated 14th April, 1961, as contained in Paper S.L. 10 of 1961, be approved. Sir, the main reasons for amending the Registration of Imports and Exports Rules, 1935, are briefly to regularise certain current practices which have been carried on for some considerable time and in which respect Rules Nos. 4 and 14 are affected, and to extend a concession to the shipping community in respect of which Rule 7 is affected. I shall deal with them one at a time. Clause 2: The volume of Government imports is quite considerable and under the existing Rule 14, although the State Government Departments are exempted by the Rule from declaring their imports and exports, in practice they are required by administrative instruction to make declarations to enable the Statistics Department to obtain the desired coverage of merchandise now included in the current publications of the Malayan and Singapore External Trade Statistics. Hence, for the purpose of regularity, Rule 4 (1) is amended by inserting proviso (a) which will give legal effect to the Administrative instruction. Consequently, Rule 14 also requires amendment with which I shall deal later. Clause 3: Rule 7 prescribes a time limit of four days for the submission of outward manifests to the Registrar of Imports and Exports. The shipping community has lodged a request that more time be allowed to enable them to meet the amount of clerical work involved in the preparation of the manifests. As a compromise to the request for a new time limit of 10 days, it is proposed to extend the current period of four days to seven days which is considered adequate. Rule 7 is amended to this effect. Clause 4: The three amendments to Rule 14 relating to exemptions of declaration for imports and exports will: (i) regularise the practice whereby trade samples, gifts up to $100 in value and printed shipping and airline documents are currently exempted from the requirement of rendering import and export declarations. This practice, which is considered reasonable and has, in effect, been in existence for some considerable time, is without any legal basis and it is desired to regularise the position; (ii) closely define personal and household effects of passengers or crews in order to assist in proper checks and to clarify the limitations on "passengers' baggage and personal effects"; and (iii) no longer exempt the Governments of the State of Singapore and of the Federation of Malaya from the provisions of the Rules. At present the Federation Government is not required to declare its imports and exports, but with the alteration in respect of our own Government it is right that the Federation Government should follow suit in respect of their departmental imports and exports. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (3) of section 5 of the Registration of Imports and Exports Ordinance (Cap. 261), resolves that the Registration of Imports and Exports (Amendment) Rules, 1961, published as Notification No. S 92 in the Gazette Supplement No. 26 dated 14th April, 1961, as contained in Paper S.L. 10 of 1961, be approved. 8.26 p.m.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Question proposed.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, on the motion for the Adjournment, I have four or five points which I would like to raise and submit to the Government for consideration. If my submissions are reasonable, it is proper that the Government should see to them in the interest of the people of Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, the first point concerns the certificate of competency in respect of ships under 75 or 100 tons. As far as I know, although the Government has considered that such certificates are equivalent to certificates of local trade masters, however, the holders of such certificate are faced with many difficulties. For instance, in the matter of getting employment, employers give preference to local trade masters without the stipulation of 75 or 100 tons. The second point is this, Mr Deputy Speaker. If Government can give consideration to the first point I have raised, I appeal to them to implement the second point, which is the setting up of a Board for the purpose of obtaining employment in rotation just as they have done in the case of seamen. But for local ships officers, such a Board is non-existent. There is no system of rotation in respect of employment. Mr Deputy Speaker, today this is a matter which is degrading the status of the local ships officers, because if an employer wishes to employ an officer on board a ship, it is normally done through the trade unions. Here it seems, Mr Deputy Speaker - I am not accusing certain trade unions - those trade unions with such powers have made use of their trade unions as a private labour exchange to look for employees for their employers to work on board ship. Is it really good for the Government to set up a Board so that all local ships officers will have an opportunity to find employment without discrimination, if an employer seeks employees, and not just have it confined to a certain trade union only? In addition, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if a local trade master is required on a salary of $400 or $500 a month, there will be bargaining about the pay, resulting in its being reduced to $250. This will be a loss to the certificate holders. The third point, Mr Deputy Speaker, is this. Since the Government has agreed to approve people with local trade masters certificates to sail as far as Tawau, then I hope the Government will permit these certificate holders to have an opportunity to navigate ships as far as Bangkok and Djakarta in order to reduce employment because Tawau is farther than Bangkok or Djakarta. I hope this too will receive the serious consideration of Government. Another point, Mr Deputy Speaker, is this appeal which is submitted to the Government in connection with the local Press announcement that pilots are required to work in the Singapore Harbour Board. In my opinion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish the Government could act so that opportunity is open to local citizens who hold trade masters certificates to become trainee pilots. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether it is being practised or not, I appeal to the Government to train seamen in all nautical matters and that they be taught in the national language. It is not that I do not agree that lessons be given in the English language; this is good for youths who wish to become leaders in the maritime field, but it is to give an opportunity to our local boys who are not so well-versed in the English language. So if classes could be conducted in the national language, I am sure many of the local ships officers could enhance their status as local trade masters, not merely in the home trade but also in the foreign trade as well. 8.35 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer point by point the matters raised by the Member for Kampong Kembangan. With regard to the first point, I am surprised to hear that after the amendment to the Merchant Shipping Ordinance last year, local trade masters have found it difficult to get employment to handle ships of up to 1,000 tons. Section 20 (2) (ii) of the amended Merchant Shipping Ordinance reads: `unless the Minister in any particular case otherwise directs, a certificate as a master of a local-trade ship of under one hundred tons or of under seventy-five tons shall be deemed to be a certificate as master of a local-trade ship, and a certificate as a gunner shall be deemed to be a certificate as a mate of a local-trade ship:'. Now, under that revised Ordinance those who previously were eligible to handle ships of only 100 tons or 75 tons would automatically be permitted to handle ships of up to 1,000 tons. I have been told by the law officers that it is not possible to issue a new certificate to those local trade masters who had sat for examinations held previously. However, I am looking into the matter and if there is any attempt at discrimination, I will try to solve the problem by having the old certificates endorsed so that they will be considered as good as the certificates which are now issued to those who have passed their local trade masters examinations and which enable the holders to handle ships of up to 1,000 tons. On the second point raised by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, that shipping companies, especially local shipping companies, recruit officers through the unions and that, in doing so, the blue-eyed boys of certain unionists are given preference before others, that matter can be resolved easily enough. I will make arrangements for a register for shipping officers to be prepared at the Shipping Office so that employers who wish to employ local trade masters can go to the Shipping Office, look up the register and pick any man they wish. I would like to add that the seamen, at the moment, have a register of their own; also, at the same time, shipping companies are now permitted under arrangements with the trade unions to keep their own register. However, the Ordinance and regulations concerning the Seamen's Registry Board cannot be applied strictly to ship officers as this Ordinance concerning seamen applies only to seamen. On the third point raised by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, that Bangkok and Djakarta should be included in the local trade limits, I will say this. I have been trying very hard to extend the limits of the local trade. Last year, after negotiations with the Governments of the Federation, Brunei, Borneo and Sarawak, we managed to extend the limits of the local trade to as far as Tawau. It was pointed out during those discussions that the local trade master navigates his ship by sighting land, and to include Bangkok or Djakarta within the local trade limits would mean that we are giving responsibility to captains who are not qualified to navigate to those ports. It must be understood also that the Singapore Government alone by itself cannot just alter local trade limits or home trade limits as it pleases. After all, most of our seamen and shipping officers are employed on ships which are not registered in Singapore. At the same time, whatever rules and regulations we pass and which will involve other governments must also have the consent of these governments. We can, tonight, just by a scratch of the pen say you can take this ship to such and such a place. But if you do not seek the consent of the government of the country to which the ship is sailing, what will ultimately happen is that the ship will not be given clearance when she arrives at that port. Therefore, it is not such an easy matter for us just to say, "Right. Let us include such and such a place within local trade limits." It can be done. But it will be ineffective. The only way we can do so is to seek the concurrence of other governments, and that takes time. We have already made two major amendments in the Merchant Shipping Ordinance concerning local trade masters. One is to raise the tonnage of the ships from 75 tons and 100 tons to 1,000 tons. The second is that we have extended the local trade limits to as far as Tawau. I consider these are two big achievements; and these amendments were made only last year. I would ask local trade masters to improve their training so that eventually they will be able to sit for the home trade certificate. On the fourth point, concerning the appointment of pilots to the Singapore Harbour Board, I would add that when the P.A.P. Government came in, we found, to our consternation, that there were pilots who were earning as much as $100,000 a year. One of the first things my Ministry did was to initiate steps to malayanise the pilotage for this port and, at the same time, to bring the scales of emoluments for pilots to some rational scale that is parallel with those of other officers who hold equal if not greater responsibilities in this country. Steps have been taken to bring pilotage under the aegis of the Singapore Harbour Board and, ultimately, the Port Authority. It is definitely Government's intention that as many local trade masters as possible should be trained to pilot ships, and it is my hope indeed that as many of them as possible will apply for posts. On the fifth point, I would say that the training of local trade masters is already conducted in the Malay language. It is being done in the Polytechnic out of funds paid from the Seamen's Welfare Fund. Examinations for the Local Trade Certificate are conducted in Malay. So on that point, I think the Member for Kampong Kembangan has really nothing new to raise. I would only like to add this. Those who aspire to work on board ship should extend their horizons to further places. Our youths should be prepared to work hard so that ultimately they will be fitted not only to man locally-registered ships for the local trading ports, but also to qualify for work on foreign-going ships. Towards this objective, we have, with the co-operation of the shipping companies, started to strengthen the Nautical Department at the Polytechnic. Cadets have been taken in and when they complete one year's preliminary training at the Polytechnic, all of them will be placed on board ship where they will gain practical experience, during which time a correspondence course will be conducted so that they will be able to correlate their practical experience with theoretical training. Ultimately they will return to the Polytechnic for a refresher course before taking their foreign-going mate's examinations or foreign-going master's examinations. I can assure the House that the Government is doing its very best to improve and extend the opportunities of employment for local citizens on board ship at all levels - not only at the officer level but also at the seamen level. As Singapore is the fifth largest seaport in the world, it is correct that as many as possible of our citizens should take to the sea. All the steps we have taken so far have been directed towards this purpose. I may add that a new course in marine engineering will be started at the Polytechnic for the 1961-2 session. This course will ultimately train our local boys to become marine engineers who will be able to work on board ship, or if they wish to do so, will also be able to find employment as engineers in factories with their practical experience and theoretical training.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at 8.50 p.m. to Wednesday,14th June, 1961.

Wednesday, 24th May, 1961

asked the Prime Minister (a) how many applications for Temporary Occupation Licences at the Southern Islands have been received from 1st June, 1959, to 30th April, 1961; (b) how many of such applications have been approved; (c) how many rejected; and (d) of those persons whose applications have been approved, how many are (i) citizens of Singapore permanently residing at the Southern Islands; (ii) non-citizens of Singapore permanently residing at the Southern Islands; (iii) citizens of Singapore not permanently residing at the Southern Islands; and (iv) non-citizens of Singapore not permanently residing at the Southern Islands.

How many applications for T.O.L. 235 at the Southern Islands have been received from 1st June, 1959 to 30th April, 1961 (b) How many of such applications have 99 been approved (c) How many rejected 136 (i) non eligibility 6 (ii) disapproved due to sites not 80 available or reserved for Government purposes (iii) Applications under consideration 50 for the site at Blakang Mati which is being considered for a school or the M.R.N.V.R. --- 136 ---

asked the Deputy Prime Minister to state the total number of taxis registered as at (i) 1st May, 1957, (ii) 24th December, 1957, and (iii) 5th May, 1961.

As at 1.5.57, the total number of taxis (2nd Class Hackney Carriages) registered was 1,552. (ii) As at 24.12.57, the total number of taxis (2nd Class Hackney Carriages) registered was 2,328. (iii) As at 5.5.61, the total number of taxis (2nd Class Hackney Carriages) registered was 3,202 (when five applications for replacements which have been received are dealt with, the total will be 3,207.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) to state the number of firearms licences withdrawn by the Police between 3rd June, 1959, and 30th April, 1961; and (b) to state the number and 50 types of firearms licensed by the Police as at 15th May, 1961.

The total number of firearms licence cancelled between 3.6.59 and 30.4.61 is 3,498. This figure includes cancellation of a backlog of licences in respect of previous years for arms surrendered or deposited. (b) The number and types of firearms licensed as at 15.5.61 are as follows:- Shotgun 4,624 Rifles 1,045 Air Rifles 1,000 Air Pistols 173 Revolvers 239 Pistols 213 Starting Revolvers 13 Starting Pistols 44 Carbines 15 Starting Cannons 6 Varey Pistols 28 ----- Total 7,400 -----

asked the Minister for Home Affairs to state the number of persons detained during the period 3rd June, 1959, to 30th April, 1961, under (i) the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, and (ii) the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance.

On 3rd June, 1959, there were 61 persons under detention under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. Of these, 35 have since been released. During the period 3.6.1959 to 30.4.1961, an additional 27 persons were detained, of whom 18 were in connection with A.R.T.I.S. and 2 were connected with K.M.T. activities. Of these 27 persons 9 have been released. As at 30.4.1961, there were altogether 44 persons under detention. (ii) The number of persons detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance in the period 3.6.1959 to 30.4.1961 was 513.

asked the Minister for National Development what will be the building costs of the following types of accommodation: -

The average building costs of the following types of accommodation are:-

asked the Minister for National Development what are the total number of flats at old Kallang Airport, and the number of such flats allotted to fire victims so far.

There are altogether 2,920 flats, 16 maisonettes and 68 shops at the Kallang housing estate. The 2,920 flats comprise the following units:- 420 one-room 1,288 two-room 1,212 three-room 2. According to the Housing Board's records a total of some 940 units at Kallang have been allocated to fire victims over the years since 1958. Many of the families, however, have since moved out, and the number of units occupied by fire victims as at 30th April, 1961 was 501.