Hansard, 1961-11-17

Resumption of proceedings stood over from 16th November, 1961.

Order. At the Movement of Interruption yesterday, we were on Question 18*, which is now Question 1* on today's Order Paper, and the Prime Minister was in the process of answering a supplementary question by the Member for Mountbatten, which is as follows: *The question, standing in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng, reads as follows: To ask the Prime Minister if consideration will be given to appointing a Commission of Inquiry to investigate into the causes of the strike by employees of the People's Association. "Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell the House whether he did or did not give an interview to the seven members of this Action Committee on the 20th September, 1961?"

As I was saying yesterday, Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot remember the exact date. But I did see the seven members of the self-styled ex-staff Action Committee for some two hours, and I took the precaution of having the proceedings recorded. As a result of the fact that the proceedings were faithfully recorded, there has been no argument as to what took place at that meeting.

r Speaker, Sir, I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell us whether he said words to the effect that, without the P.A.P., there would be no People's Association and that if the employees of the People's Association valued their jobs, they must support the P.A.P. and act as political workers for the P.A.P. in community centres. Did the Prime Minister at that meeting ask the seven members to convey this to the other workers, and also ask them to state their political stand?

The answer to the question simply is that that is inaccurate. I have the tape recordings. They are in the hands of the Secretary of the People's Association. I think it will take about two to two and a half hours for the Member for Mountbatten to listen to the whole proceedings. Most of them ere in Mandarin, but I am quite prepared to lend her an interpreter in order to follow the proceedings. The point that I emphasised to the workers of the People's Association was that they had to be loyal to the P.A.P. Government, because that was the Government which created the People's Association and had the majority of the members of the Board, which took over the functions of the Social Welfare Department with respect to community centres. It is on the record, Sir, so the facilities are open to the Member for Mountbatten.

(In Mandarin): Yesterday the Prime Minister said that the People's Association 110W has 400-odd members. I want to know whether these include the instructors. If they are paid, whether they are paid according to time: this also includes the staff of the Social Welfare Department. Apart from this, how many are actually in employment in the People's Association?

I cannot allow the question because it is an entirely different question and does not arise out of the original question. Mr David Marshall.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that there was no strike. I would remind him that certain employees went on strike there and they were dismissed. In view of the very considerable unhappiness about this issue, would he not consider appointing a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the whole aspect as suggested by the original questioner?

I do not want to go into an argument as to the definition of a strike. But if the Member for Anson would refer to the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, a strike there is a stoppage of work by the concerted action of a group of employees who are organised in a lawfully constituted union. You can have all kinds of strikes. You can call stoppage of work by any name. But when you are talking about a strike in this Assembly which makes the law, we are talking about a strike in accordance with the law. The strike at the People's Association is not a strike in accordance with the law, for the simple reason that there is no union. There was no strike notice because there is no union. 138 members decided to stop work in support of 17 members who were sacked. And although you have ruled that this does not arise, Mr Speaker, Sir, I might just touch on this point. 450 are full-time and part-time workers of the People's Association. 138 decided to stop work in support of 17. What can we do, Mr Speaker, Sir? As I have said, if we are going to have this Commission of Inquiry, I do not think the Commission should be set up on the reasons for the stoppage, because the stoppage is obvious. They said the reason why they stopped work was that they wanted the 17 workers reinstated. They wanted the Action Committee of seven who called a meeting in defiance of authority also to be reinstated. May I explain this to those who have not been following the Press reports? it is a bit tedious, Mr Speaker, Sir. I met the seven people. They represented themselves and 138 others. I cannot remember the exact date. We recorded the proceedings. I said to them, "Convey to the members of the Association whom you say you represent that they have to be loyal to the P.A.P. Government and not take sides with the Barisan Sosialis, and in particular my former Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Upper Serangoon, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, the Member for Nee Soon, who were the Chairman and member respectively of the Selection Board whilst in actual charge of recruiting. I said, "I do not care what your personal relationships were, but we have the right to expect loyalty to the Board and to the Government that has to supervise the expenditure of funds." All this is fortunately on the record. As I said to them at the time of the interview - and this was also recorded - if they gave a version after the meeting which was different from what was recorded, then I would play this over Radio Singapore to prove who spoke the truth. And as I have said, they kept quiet on what transpired at the meeting. They replied to me and said, "Well, tell the workers of the People's Association yourself." I said, "Cannot you tell it to them, that they have to be loyal to the Board and the Government, and not to individuals who may, for divers reasons, have selected you or recruited you?" They said, "Call a meeting, and you should be present as Chairman to tell it to the workers." And I did. I called a meeting, I think, for the following day. I am not sure. But the following day was a Saturday. Notices went out to all workers to be present. Now these 7 workers, in defiance and contrary to what they had suggested to me, called a meeting of their own at the same time. We called the meeting for 1.00 p.m. at the City Hall Chamber of all the 450 workers for me to tell them that they should disengage themselves from political intriguing and in-fighting. Otherwise they would be involved and they would get smacked down. These seven chaps, using the People's Association's channels of communication, official channels, said that there was a meeting at the People's Association H.Q. at 12.00 o'clock, using my name, using the name of Mr Tan Chok Kian, Chief Executive Officer, and said that they were going to address this meeting, and drew a crowd away from the City Chamber to their meeting. Sir, people who do that sort of thing, when I had given them the courtesy of an interview, had met them and discussed the matter with them, and had called a meeting at their suggestion - it is on the record, on the tape - I called a meeting and they called a contrary meeting. And they said, "Look at the number of chaps who support us, who come to our meeting, and how few go to your meeting." Sir, 138 out of 450. We then went to each and every one and said, "Please explain why you did not attend the meeting as officially called." And many of them did. But they were tricked into attending the contrary meeting. The matter was considered by the Board of Management who decided to dismiss these seven who organised this meeting, to which they had called the 17 who were already dismissed to harangue the crowd and whip up feelings. I say this. If we are going to have a Commission of Inquiry, it is not necessary to go into the causes of the so-called strike, because the reason is obvious. We sacked the 17 because of their association with the Barisan Sosalis, because they actively used community centres and instigated people against the Government. But if they go on with these acts of hooliganism and violence and break windows, tables, chairs and telephones in my own constituency and the Yan Kit Community Centre - they took delight in dismantling the telephone and broke it into pieces - then I say, let us have an inquiry to see who really moves these little pawns on the chessboard. Is it - An hon. Member: Set up a Commission of Inquiry.

Order. Mr Prime Minister, have you completed your statement?

I am happy to receive any suggestion from any quarter. And I say, if that is what they really want and if they persist in it, that is what will be done. I might add also that right at this moment the Board of Management will be meeting to consider asking the Supreme Court for an injunction to prevent these people whom we know, the 138, from entering any community centre or besetting any community centre. They are, not members of the People's Association. They are not workers of it. They have broken and damaged property. We have been forbearing. If they persist, and if they say they want to fight it out constitutionally, then by all means let us go through the processes of law.

Sir, the Prime Minister has said quite a lot of things in his short blast. But I wonder if he will clarify whether, in fact, he was suggesting that withdrawal of labour by any group of workers who are unionised is something that this Government considers illegal?

It is not a question of what the Government considers illegal. It is illegal because it is not in accordance with the laws made by this Legislative Assembly. If the Member for Thomson wants to legalise a strike by a group of workers who are not organised into a union, who have not got a Committee, who have not got registered members, then I say to him, ask for leave to introduce a Bill which can be referred to a Select Committee, where they can argue why any stoppage of work should be made legal, including stoppages by members of this Assembly, and so on and so forth. By all means let us be democratic to the point where even if we were cows people would say how forbearing and how patient we are in the face of the uttermost provocation. The law is here to be made and unmade. I am saying it is illegal because it is the law made by this Assembly. If I am not mistaken, I think certain sections of it were, in point of fact, made by the Member for Anson when he was the Chief Minister and leading the Government. If they want to unmake it and remake it, I say it is up to them.

Mr Speaker, this has not occurred to me. I just remember, Sir, that in view of our Standing Orders, I should inform the House, having participated in these questions, that some members of the People's Association have consulted my office. I do not know whether they have paid any fees, Sir, and I would like the House to know that, I have no instructions either way on the subject of a Commission of Inquiry.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, just now the Prime Minister said that the first time he had a meeting with the seven-member Committee he had a tape recording. Can I ask him when he can let us have this tape recording and have this published in the newspapers?

(In Mandarin): I said just now that whenever Members of this House want to listen to this tape recording, I will let them have it. That is the true version of the recording. If it is necessary, we will set up a Commission of Inquiry and members of the Commission can ascertain what we had discussed and said as recorded on the tape.

Mr Speaker, a good deal of light could be thrown on this problem if the Prime Minister would supply the House with a list of employees of the People's Association, those on strike and those not on strike, and also a list of the persons, Assemblymen or otherwise, and organisations which introduced these employees.

The question being, will the Prime Minister do that?

Sir, I will do whatever is in the best interests of everyone and whatever the House wishes. As I want to point out, the people who really know best what these matters were about are the Chairman of the Selection Committee, the Member for Upper Serangoon, and a Committee member on that Selection Committee, the Member for Nee Soon. I think with their help I could compile that list.

I think I have been very lenient on this question. If any Member wishes to pursue - Dr Sheng Nam Chin (Nee Soon) rose -

Order. If any Member wishes to pursue this matter, he should file a motion or crave the right to speak on the Adjournment. Question No. 2, Mr David Marshall.

asked the Minister for Labour whether he will consider introducing legislation to amend the Central Provident Fund Ordinance to enable a contributor to withdraw the amount standing to his credit in the Fund, or part thereof, if he has been unemployed for a period of 12 months or more.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the sole object of the Central Provident Fund Ordinance was to set up a fund to make provision for employees in their old age. The fund was not meant to assist employees who have become unemployed. The contingency of unemployment therefore cannot be covered by a savings scheme as that envisaged by the Central Provident Fund, and if it is used to ameliorate the condition of members who have become unemployed, then it will result in the entire purpose of the fund being defeated.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could we not assist these people? Because if we do not, they will not reach old age to reap it. They will die of starvation. Let a little humanity be introduced. These are their complete savings. I am sure, Sir, and I am personally conscious that the Board has been sympathetic. But it has to work within these very hard limits. In the light of the economic situation and the employment market, I do ask the Minister to consider that it is appropriate today to give the Board the discretion. Would he consider that?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think anybody is going to die of starvation, as claimed by the Member for Anson. In my opinion, the proper way to help the unemployed is not to fiddle about with the Central Provident Fund, but to set up a scheme of unemployment insurance. In order to do that, however, the support of the trade union movement is necessary.

You will have it.

Since the Member for Thomson is very keen on this thing, let me inform him and other Members of the Assembly that my colleague, the Minister for Finance, has told me this. At a number of meetings held in December 1960, the matter was brought up before certain trade union leaders, which included the Member for Thomson, if I may say so, and other big leaders of the trade union movement, such as Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Woodhull and Mr Dominic Puthucheary. He proposed to them that an unemployment insurance scheme be introduced forthwith on a tripartite basis, with contributions from employers and employees, and with the Government meeting all costs and liabilities of the fund for the first year of operation. The administration of the Central Provident Fund would prepare the administrative and financial details of the operation. These trade union leaders, however, rejected the proposal. Under the proposed scheme, Mr Speaker, Sir, the unemployed would be entitled to benefits of about 40 per cent of their working pay. The Finance Minister brought up this proposal so that workers may feel less anxiety over losing jobs through redundancy or retrenchment. One of the major causes of industrial disputes has been the retrenchment of workers, and an unemployment insurance scheme would help to improve relations between labour and management by removing one of the major irritants.

Sir, does the Minister consider that the trade union leaders referred to by him truly represent the trade union movement of Singapore?

I think, Mr Speaker, the trade union leaders referred to by the Member for Cairnhill will themselves have to answer this. It is not for me to tell him.

I am grateful to the Minister for the information he has given, Sir. I am very happy indeed that there is such a scheme in mind. Having put it to the trade union movement, would the Minister and the Government be good enough to put it to this House?

Sir, the Government, as the Prime Minister has said, is trying to do everything possible and when the appropriate time comes, we will do it.

The Minister has quite conveniently disclosed only the part that is useful to him for the purposes of whatever he has been doing. But I wonder if the Minister would be fair enough to clarify in detail why these trade union leaders rejected the plan?

Order. Perhaps the question could be worded in such a way as to ask the Minister whether he will table a White Paper. I do not think this House can be detained as long as that for clarification. Perhaps the Member for Thomson would like to ask for a White Paper.

All that I want to say is that if the Government wants it, we are prepared to disclose the facts to the public.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to what the Minister for Labour has said, he is trying to put the blame on the trade union leaders for the non-establishment of the unemployment insurance scheme. I want to ask him whether, when this policy was brought up, it was discussed with the Parliamentary Secretaries of the People's Action Party Government?

(In Malay): The Member for Upper Serangoon asks whether the blame could be squarely put at the feet of the trade union leaders. He wants to know whether the allegations are true or otherwise. What I said earlier, Mr Speaker, that the negotiation conducted between the trade union leaders -

Order. I think probably it is the fault of the translation, or perhaps it is not. The translator probably is not quick enough. But I think the question was whether or not the Parliamentary Secretaries were consulted. Is that right?

And Assemblymen.

Whether the Parliamentary Secretaries and Government Assemblymen were consulted. That is the only question. Mr Chan Sun Wing and Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim rose -

Order. I have clarified it. Inche Ahmad.

On a point of order, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not very fluent in Malay as yet over here - we hope we shall be in a year's time - but it so happens that one of our ear-pieces has gone out of order. Can we get it repaired before the Minister pursues the matter?

The Leader of the House may adjourn.

(In Malay): In reply to the query of the Member for Upper Serangoon, I wish to inform him that he is not yet versed in the Malay language.

Order. The question really is: were the Parliamentary Secretaries and Government Assemblymen consulted in this matter? That is all.

(In Malay): The scheme originated from the trade union movement. It concerned trade unions and it was discussed with trade union leaders who were in the Party and who were Political Secretaries. So my answer is obvious and clear.

There appears to be some confusion over the answers. Earlier the Minister said that it was the Minister for Finance who initiated the talks with the trade union leaders. Now it would appear that the trade union leaders in the P.A.P. started them. Who started them?

The Prime Minister is taking off his coat. I hope it is because he is feeling hot.

May I explain, Sir?

Order. This is Question Time and if a Minister feels that an explanation is due, then I think the proper time is when the Minister has an opportunity of making a Ministerial statement. At the end of Question Time, I will allow the Minister for Finance or the Prime Minister to make a statement on the matter. This is Question Time and I think we must stop this question at this stage.

On a point of order, Sir. I want to explain that I have given instructions to the Water Engineer to allow water to run to the Assembly in order that the air-conditioning plant can run properly. That was the reason for my taking off my coat and not out of any disrespect to the Chair.

I do not think the Chair finds that disrespectful. The Chair was wondering whether the Table was wide enough to separate the Prime Minister from the Opposition.

asked the Minister for Labour whether it is his intention to introduce legislation for the unification of the trade union movement, and when.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is very simple and brief. Now that the leadership of the trade union movement is openly split into two camps - the nationalist T.U.C. on the one hand and the pro-Communist S.A.T.U. on the other - each group pursuing objectives diametrically opposed, the Government feels that it is not feasible at this juncture to introduce the Bill.

Sir, the unification plan of the P.A.P. is an election pledge. I wonder whether the Minister will say that his Government seeks to nullify this pledge.

The Member for Thomson was with us at that time and I think he is fully aware that by unification of the trade union movement we mean the unification of a non-Communist trade union movement for a non-Communist State.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the workers are non-political. Could we not have a Trade Union Ordinance and an unemployment insurance scheme to apply impartially to all our workers irrespective of their political views?

The problem is not as simple as the Member for Anson thinks. I am not arguing about the workers' inclination to any political Party. As far as the workers are concerned, the policy of the Government is pro-labour. I am not disputing that. But what we are disputing now is the leadership which is trying to make use of and exploit the workers for its own political ends. That is why we have to be very careful before we do such a thing.

Sir, may I ask the Minister for which Party's political ends is the exploitation of the civil servants carried out by the A.U.P.E.?

That is a different question, hut the Minister may answer it if he so wishes.

In fairness to me, I think the Member for Cairnhill has got to prove when this thing happened and on what occasion. Then I will be quite prepared to answer him.

Will the Minister agree with me that the fact that there is a split in the trade union movement today is the making of the P.A.P. Government?

It is a matter of Opinion.

I have not had a reply to my question. Could I enquire yet once more? Laws apply impartially to all human beings. Could we not have a Bill for the unification of the trade union movement or to apply to trade unions - an improvement of the present one - and a Bill for unemployment insurance without bringing politics in?

I think the answer is yes, but as I have said earlier, the time will come when I will do that.

asked the Minister for Labour whether Team Leaders, Centre Leaders and Assistant Centre Leaders of the People's Association are permitted to become members of political parties, and whether they are allowed to take an active part in running political party branches.

Mr Speaker, I think the Prime Minister just now has made the position in the People's Association quite clear, but I just want to repeat exactly what he has already stated. During the time when the Member for Upper Serangoon and the Member for Nee Soon were the Chairman and Committee member of the Selection Committee of the People's Association in charge of selecting recruits for community centre workers, team leaders, centre leaders and assistant centre leaders of the People's Association were permitted to become members of political Parties and to take an active part in running political Party branches during duty hours. The Board is now reviewing the position and will make their ruling later.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I want to ask whether the staff of the People's Association can take part in political activities and, if so, whether this practice is limited to members of the Party in power. The Minister has said that he intends to revise the regulations of the People's Association, hut the staff now on strike -

If hon. Members ask supplementary questions, they should not merely repeat questions that have been asked originally.

I think I have made myself quite clear on the point.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from the reply of the Minister, it would appear that in the past workers of the People's Association were allowed to participate in politics but that in the future they would not be allowed to do so. Somehow some diabolical connection has been made between the Member for Upper Serangoon and myself in this matter. I have been referred to several times -

What is your question?

- when the first question was asked. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is because when the Member for Upper Serangoon and myself were in the P.A.P. and the workers of the People's Association were also loyal to the P.A.P. that they were allowed to participate in politics, and that because now we are not in the P.A.P. and the workers of the People's Association are not in the P.A.P., the Board of the People's Association has therefore decided to reconsider the position of the workers vis-a-vis political Parties. Since I have been referred -

Order That is the question. Inche Ahmad.

The problem would not have arisen today if it had not been created by the 138 members themselves who, as the Member for Anson claims, supported the P.A.P. in the past, but who have now left, and so on. It is because they have created this problem that I think the Board has got to do something about it before it goes a bit too far.

Are we to understand that this body, of which our Prime Minister is the Chairman, had employees who were all P.A.P. members and whose only political activity was P.A.P. during the time they were paid out of public funds?

The answer is no.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been claimed by the strikers that the first 25 workers of the People's Association were originally employed through the recommendation of P.A.P. Ministers and P.A.P. Assemblymen. Could the Minister concerned tell us whether this is true?

Without taking so much time, Mr Speaker, I think the answer is very simple. If the Member for Mountbatten cares to ask either the Member for Upper Serangoon or the Member for Nee Soon, they will be able to give her the answer. An hon. Member: Exactly what?

Order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Minister has pushed his ministerial responsibility on to me, I see that I still have to be heavily relied upon to answer his questions in this House although I am now no more a Parliamentary Secretary. I would say that we should call for a Commission of Inquiry to look into these things, because if I were to answer the question for him, it would be far too long and complicated.

Is the Member suggesting a Commission of Inquiry?

I am, Sir.

The Member for Nee Soon was my former Parliamentary Secretary, and he knew full well at that time that I was not on the Management Board of the People's Association. I am not suggesting that he should take over my responsibility of answering questions in this House from Members of the Assembly. But if he is so keen about this Commission of inquiry, I would suggest that he write in stating the terms of reference and so on, and we would be happy to look into the whole matter. Mr David Marshall rose -

Order. I think that should bring the discussion on this question to an end if the Member will avail himself of that offer. He will be able to raise the question at another sitting if his representations are not satisfactorily met.

asked the Minister for Labour (a) how many people were employed by the Government to man the Community Centres where the employees are on strike; (b) what are the basis and the procedure adopted for the selection of these new employees of the People's Association; (c) whether these new employees are employed on a permanent or temporary basis; and (d) what is the total sum of money spent per day by the Government for the employment of these new employees.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Havelock wants to know how many people are employed by the Government to man the community centres. The answer is none. The community centres are not run by the Government, as everybody knows, but are run by the People's Association. The Member also refers to a strike of employees. The real position is that there is no strike because these persons are not members of any trade union. They have failed to report for duty and have thereby been considered to have vacated their posts. The Board of the People's Association gave them every chance to return to work. Some of the former employees refused to do so, and their services with the Association have thereby been terminated. There is no difficulty in obtaining replacements. The community centres are manned mainly by voluntary workers: more than 1,000 in all. These are people living around the community centres who want to see that the services provided by the community centres are made available to the public. Some of the voluntary workers have offered to do full-time duty, and for this an honorarium of $4 per day is being paid. There are approximately 200 of them, and the total amount paid in honoraria so far comes to $15,758. Recruitment of new workers will soon be started and the vacancies to the posts in the community centres will be filled shortly. Advertisements in the Press will be inserted and invitations will be called for.

From the replies we have had, it is important to ascertain what proportion of these new employees or those persons who have received this $15,000 are P.A.P. members.

As far as I know, none of them are P.A.P. members.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to what the Minister for Labour has said, none of them is a member of the P.A.P. I ask whether the Minister knows that there is one community centre in Banda Street, the centre leader of which is on the Committee of a P.A.P. branch.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have stated just now that it is not to my knowledge whether they are members of the P.A.P. or not. It is purely the voluntary workers who have offered to do this service, and they are welcome, and the normal exercises have been gone through.

I thought when the Minister stood up to answer the previous question, he said categorically "No". Now, it would appear that what he meant by "No" is, "not to my knowledge". There seems to me to be quite a big difference in such different answers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have given an appropriate answer whether he is a member of the P.A.P. To my knowledge, I do not know whether the man is a member of the P.A.P. or not, so the answer is: it is not to my knowledge.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there seems to be, quite obviously, a considerable amount of unhappiness about this organisation. Would the Minister consider appointing a Commission which would then give him the knowledge lie now lacks as to the policy of employment, the political aspects of the employment, and activities and dismissal of employees?

Mr Speaker, only now do I understand from the Minister for Finance that the very person referred to by the Member for Havelock is the person that he himself, the Member for Havelock, had introduced, and he is not a voluntary worker. The Members for Anson and Nee Soon rose -

Order. The question has not been answered by the Minister. Is there an answer?

If he wants all these things to be done, I suggest he puts in a term of reference also.

The answer, I think, is similar to the previous answer - that the Minister is willing to consider the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry if terms of reference are sent to him by any Member who is interested. Mr Low Por Tuck, question No. 6.

asked the Minister for Labour (a) what was the number of unemployed persons in Singapore registered with the Labour Department as at 30th September. 1961, and (b) how many unemployed persons were registered for the first time between 31st December, 1960, and 30th September, 1961.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is, to (a) the number of persons registered at the Employment Exchange for employment as at 30th September, 1961, is 53,028: and (b) the number of persons registered for the first time between 31st December, 1960, and 30th September, 1961, is 7,811.

asked the Minister for Labour the reason or reasons for the cancellation of the registration of trade unions or federations of trade unions effected between June and December, 1959, and since January, 1961.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the certificates of registration of trade unions were cancelled for one or more of the following reasons for the period June/December, 1959 and since January, 1961:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Minister could clarify a certain matter which has been confusing not only me but all the Assemblymen I have so far approached and asked whether they could understand. The A.U.P.E. is recorded in the Report of the Labour Department (Paper Cmd. No. 11 of 1961) as having had their certificate withdrawn in 1959. The reason given was at the request of the trade union upon its amalgamation with other trade unions. If I am not mistaken, it was registered in 1959 and it is still -

Order. That seems to be quite a different question. I think the hon. Member should give notice of that question.

asked the Minister for Labour what are the reasons for the decline in employment over the past four years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanglin is really begging the question. He takes for granted that the truth has been ascertained, that there has been a decline in employment over the past four years. This I would dispute. Perhaps the Member for Tanglin would state on what basis he arrived at his conclusion. Otherwise this question must be treated in the same manner as the familiar question: why did you beat your wife? Or even, did you beat your wife with a big stick or a small stick?

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of explanation, since the Minister has asked for verification. Sir, I wonder if the Minister has studied his own Labour Reports - the Annual Report of the Labour Department for 1960, page 4, where the following figures were given: Workmen in Employment - In September 1957 123,000 1958(8,000 less) 115,800 1959(9,000 less) 106,800 1960(1,000 less) 105,600

Mr Speaker, the Member for Tanglin says that the official labour statistics of total employment showed a decline, and he refers to this Report. If he does this, the answer could be as follows. I rather expected the Member for Tanglin to say that. If this is the evidence on which he bases his conclusion, then it merely shows that one must be very careful in handling statistics. Variations in employment figures collected by the Labour Department are often due to the completeness which employers make in respect of returns. Sometimes the percentage of employers making the returns is higher than at other times. So variations in figures collected only indicate the thoroughness with which the returns have been collected. Also, there are differences in definitions. The Labour Department statistics gives figures of employment of workmen as defined in the Labour Code. Some time in the past, people such as trishaw riders and taxi-drivers had been included in the Column : 174 Labour statistics. Subsequently they were excluded; hence the decline in total employment figures resulted. This decline is, of course, quite illusory. Some Members may think it strange that the Minister for Labour should publicly disparage the statistics collected by his Ministry. I done as properly as it should be. This is because we inherited a defective system from the previous Government. An hon. Member: Exchange it!

My colleague, the Finance Minister, who is a statistician by profession, has repeatedly asked my Ministry to improve its system of collection of Statistics. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, there are many pressing and immediate matters which demand the attention of the staff of the Department and it will be some time before we can effect improvement. Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, may I point out that if we were to use another set of data, we might come to the conclusion that there has been an increase in total employment. For instance, the Central Provident Fund provides figures of employment not only of labourers but all employees liable to contribution. Their figures show a steady increase. But here again I am not going to claim that they prove an increase in total employment. The increase in the total number of contributors may be due to improved coverage. Once again, I repeat, you have to be very careful in handling statistics.

If it please you, Sir, I take it that the statistics the Minister gave to this House but a few moments ago are reliable - that there are 8,000 additional unemployed registered this year and that the total is 53,000. I would ask the Minister whether this figure is in fact, the highest for the last four years.

The answer is that it is the highest number of people registered for jobs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the fact that the Minister has expressed utmost contempt for the statistics in the document published by his Ministry, would he not consider scrapping that Report?

Order. The hon. Member ought not to misinterpret what has been said by the Minister. I think the Minister said he disparaged. He did not express contempt.

I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, Sir. I do not want to debate with the Chair. But if you will just bear with me, Sir, from the way he expressed himself, it would appear that the statistics as provided by the Report were totally inaccurate, and in view of the inaccuracy,. would he not consider scrapping altogether the Report of the Labour Department henceforth so that the public and Members on this side of the House would not be further misled?

It is a different question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of what the Minister has said, are we on this side of the House henceforth no longer to regard statistics published in official reports by the Department as reliable?

The Member for Nee Soon has suggested that it should be scrapped. I do not know whether the Minister would like to make a comment on that?

Mr Speaker, I think the statistics are reli able, as far as the data are available.

asked the Minister for Labour what are the reasons for the recent crop of strikes in Singapore, and what measures he proposes to take to promote harmonious relations between labour and management to ensure industrial peace.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as regards the first part of the question, during the last three months - August, September and October - there were 37 strikes. The reasons for these strikes were as follows: (a) 14 were over wage increases, overtime wages and conditions of service; (b) 8 were over retrenchment and dismissal of employees; (c) 3 were over collective agreements; (d) 2 were over payment of higher commission rates; (e) 2 were over recruitment of new workers; (f) 1 was over the replacement of an existing worker; (g) 1 was over an alleged anti-union attitude by the management; (h) 1 was over alleged removal of the union's notice board; (i) I was over the recognition of a trade union to represent daily-rated (Number of registration certificates cancelled and number of applications for registration rejected) workers in Government departments; (j) 1 was over an allegation by the union that the employer had compelled workers to sign a statement that they had started work on a certain date; (k) 1 was over an allegation by the union that a member of the management had used abusive words on an employee who is a member of the union; (l) 1 was over the refusal of the management to grant 6 months no-pay leave to a worker; (m) 1 was over allotment of work. As regards the second part of the question, the measures taken by the Government in introducing the Industrial Relations Ordinance, under which the Industrial Arbitration Court was set up, have brought about some measure of law and order in the sphere of industrial relations and in effecting Government's policy of ensuring industrial peace with justice.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that the Industrial Arbitration Court is not able to cope with the number of cases for settlement before them? Would he consider establishing a second Industrial Arbitration Court in order to expedite the settlement of these outstanding unsettled cases?

I hope to do so, if the occasion arises, Mr Speaker.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he will make a statement on the subject of the negotiations for a Common Market with the Federation of Malaya and whether the Government will table a Report dealing with the said negotiations.

Mr Speaker, .Sir, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make a statement on the details of the course along which negotiations between the Federation and Singapore Governments took place on the common market proposals. The reason is that negotiations, while they have been suspended temporarily, are expected to continue at the appropriate time in future. The two Governments have agreed to apply to the United Nations for a team of experts to make recommendations both on the specific proposals of a common market as well as on the general problem of co-ordination of economic policy and effort. I think the Member for Anson is entitled to, and perhaps would be satisfied with, an analysis of the basic problems underlying the setting up of a pan-Malayan common market. I have informed the Assembly on a previous occasion the nature of the general proposals which we made to the Federation Government. To put the matter simply, we proposed that a list of goods be agreed upon between the two Governments which will have duty free movement between the two territories but will be liable to import duties if they come from abroad. This list of goods would include those which are produced in the two territories or which can be advantageously produced in them in the future. This will enable us to preserve substantially the free port status of Singapore while affording an impetus to industrial expansion through having for our manufacturers and potential manufacturers a large protected market in respect of a range of products. From the point of view of the Federation, the proposals do not offer any compensating advantages -

Order. It appears that the statement is of some length. Am I correct?

It is of some length.

In that event, two courses are open. If there is any state ment that is to be made which is of inordinate length, there are two courses open to the Minister. Either he can say that he would publish the statement in Hansard, our Official Report, or say that he would make a ministerial statement at the end of Question Time. The idea, of course, is to enable other questions to be dealt with as rapidly as possible. Perhaps the Minister would like to make a ministerial statement at the end of Question Time.

If the Member for Anson is agreeable, Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I could give a written reply in Hansard.

I am much obliged to the Finance Minister. A statement of that character should be quietly and carefully studied. I am grateful for the suggestion of the publication. But could I ask a supplementary question, Sir, on certain matters raised by the Minister?

Order. I do not think the hon. Member for Anson could have it both ways. I stopped the Minister for Finance - he said a few things. Once it has been decided that the whole statement - not only the part not delivered, but the whole statement - is to be published, that is the end of the matter. Following is the statement by the Minister for Finance: I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make a statement on the details of the course along which negotiations between the Federation and Singapore Governments took place on the common market proposals. The reason is that negotiations, while they have been suspended temporarily, are expected to continue at the appropriate time in future. The two Governments have agreed to apply to the United Nations for a team of experts to make recommendations both on the specific proposals of a common market as well as on the general problem of co-ordination of economic policy and effort. I think the Member for Anson is entitled to, and perhaps would be satisfied with, an analysis of the basic problems underlying the setting up of a common market. I have informed the Assembly on a previous occasion the general proposals which we made to the Federation Government. To put the matter simply, we proposed that a list of goods be agreed upon between the two Governments which will have duty free movement between the two territories but will be liable to import duties if they come from abroad. This list of goods would include those which are produced in the two territories or which can be advantageously produced in them. This will enable us to preserve substantially the free port status of Singapore while affording an impetus to industrial expansion through a large protected market in respect of a range of products. From the Federation's point of view, the proposal does not offer any compensating advantages to the Federation for the advantages that Singapore would derive from it. Goods produced in the Federation, except for hard soap, already enjoy duty free entry into Singapore. The proposed common market would confer upon their manufacturers little advantage beyond what they are already enjoying except perhaps that they would then in Singapore enjoy a protected market as well in the Federation. Of course, this argument holds true only if Singapore refrains from imposing import duties on goods we manufacture. There is also a loss of import duty to the Federation Government on Singapore produced goods entering the Federation. The Federation also feels that Singapore with its free port status, with its excellent harbour and its strategic position across ocean world's shipping lines, would obtain a preponderant advantage over the Federation. Further in the Federation import duties are levied on some materials entering manufacturing processes. The industries affected may be at a disadvantage in competing with similar industries based in Singapore. It is because the Federation desired that some safeguards against the competitive power of Singapore industries should be introduced that difficult problems arose which could not be settled so far between the teams of officials discussing the problem. The Federation Government for itself would be happy to see a common market established which is based on a complete customs union. This would equalise once and for all the comparative production of goods between the two territories but for Singapore to accept the solution would mean the abandonment of a free port status, a measure which cannot be contemplated now. The foregoing gives the general background to the reasons why discussions between the officials of the two Governments have reached a state of temporary deadlock and the appointment of a team of international experts is a measure which the two Governments have agreed upon to break this deadlock. It is my belief that it is not beyond the ingenuity of that of men to resolve these difficult and complex problems. My belief also is that these problems can be solved if we regard the common market proposal from the broader perspective of a pan-Malayan outlook which can over-ride sectional interests. The long-term advantages are real and substantial to both territories and they far outweigh any trouble both territories may have to put up with in making the immediate adjustments. Later -

May I perhaps make a further comment on what was said in regard to the statement on the common market? I think hon. Members would like to see that statement as soon as possible. Therefore, if the Minister will table that statement, it can be gestetnered, and copies can be made available for the use of Members as soon as possible.

Yes. Statement on common market handed in to the Clerk.

asked the Minister for Finance whether Singapore has applied, or intends to apply, for membership in any form of the European Economic Community.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to the first part of the question is no. As regards the second part of the question, I should like to say that at this stage it would be premature to indicate whether the Government intends to apply for membership in any form of the European Economic Community. This is because the British Government had only on 9th August applied formally to the E.E.C. to open negotiations with a view to acceding to the Treaty of Rome. I understand that such negotiations are complex and are likely to take some considerable time. Meanwhile the issue is still in doubt and there is no certainty that the United Kingdom will accede at the end of the negotiations. It is only if Britain becomes a member of the E.E.C. that the question of Singapore's associate membership can be properly considered.

Would the Minister indicate whether he is, in fact, liaising with the Federation Government on this aspect of Singapore's economic policy? Are we keeping in step with them, Sir?

On matters of such importance, the two Governments would consider together.

asked the Minister for Finance what is the total value of Portuguese trade with Singapore during 1960 in respect of (i) imports, and (ii) exports.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the total value of trade between Singapore and Portugal during 1960 is as follows:- $ (i) Singapore's imports from Portugal 619,189 (ii) Singapore's exports to Portugal 5,057,988

asked the Minister for Finance whether it is Government's intention to establish Trade Missions in Peking and New Delhi.

Not at present, since it is considered doubtful if any significant value to Singapore's economy would be derived from the establishment of trade representatives in either city.

Would the Minister concede that the unofficial trade delega tion of the Federation and Singapore in 1956 to Japan and China did contribute materially to our economic welfare?

Mr Speaker, Sir, think that is a matter for the particular trade mission to establish. But I am not sure whether I have not misunderstood the Member for Anson. My understand ing of his question is that he is asking for some form of permanent trade representation in these two countries. In my view, there is very little that we would gain. Perhaps I could elaborate on this issue. In fact, the most important duty of any trade representation abroad is to help the country he is representing to increase its export trade, to make it easier for domestic industrialists and traders to sell to that country. That is basic. All foreign trade missions are there to advance and promote the interests of their domestic producers. Sir, if we are to inquire into the nature of our trade with the two countries, namely, China and India, we will find that the goods that we are exporting to them are what you might call tropical raw materials in one form or the other. For instance, we exported to China in 1960 $73 million of crude rubber, $6 million worth of mineral fuels, and nearly $4 million worth of animal and vegetable oils. They are not manufactured goods; they are not branded articles; and a trade mission cannot help in any way. The trade representative will not be able either to induce or persuade China to increase her imports of these goods. Similarly with India. We exported in 1960 to India $36 million worth of crude rubber, $11 million worth of oil seeds, $7� million worth of vegetable and animal oils, and $4 million worth of petroleum. On the other hand, we import from these two countries very substantial amounts of consumer goods - textiles principally - a certain amount of foodstuffs, fruits and vegetables and, by and large, it is not the responsibility of trade representatives in either of these countries to promote the exports of other countries to ours. That is something which is the duty of that country to do. So, as I have said, going through the nature of our trade with these two countries, very little is to be gained at the present moment by stationing permanent trade missions there. It is quite different with Indonesia for whom we are the supply base, so to speak, for substantial parts of the Indonesian Archipelago. Moreover, in some instances, our merchants and shippers are meeting with considerable difficulty. Therefore, the need for a trade mission in Indonesia is a very urgent one.

I appreciate what the Minister indicates as regards the reasons for not establishing missions, Sir. But I have reason to believe that we could, with little difficulty, induce at least one of the governments concerned to import from us at least as much as we import from them. Would he not consider at least sending out a small trade delegation for a short period to both these capitals to investigate the potential?

I will bear that proposal in mind, Mr Speaker, Sir.

asked the Minister for Finance how many monthly paid temporary officers in the Government service, including the City Council, have been dismissed since 21st July, 1961, and what were the reasons for these dismissals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by the Minister to reply. The number of monthly paid temporary officers in the Government service, including the City Council, dismissed since 21st July, 1961, are three; and the reasons for their dismissal are : one for misconduct, one for unsatisfactory work, and one for negligence.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance know that those people who were sacked were once P.A.P. members?

None of these people were P.A.P. members. For the hon. Member's information, I would like to give their names and he can check them up: Ministry of Finance: Customs Department - Mr Ratnasamy Ramdas, relief clerk in charge of toddy shops - Misconduct. Ministry of Home Affairs Mr Ng Leng Choon, temporary police constable - Work unsatisfactory. Ministry of National Development: Chief Building Surveyor's Department - Mr Devadas Xavier, temporary building overseer - Negligence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House, since the three dismissed employees were not P.A.P. members, whether they were Barisan Sosialis members? [Laughter.]

Order.

I do not know.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the names supplied by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, it seems that these names are not correct. As far as I know, there is, for example, one in the Ministry of Finance whose name is Chan Chow How who has been sacked -

Order. Perhaps the question is: will the Parliamentary Sec retary confirm that the following were dismissed? Is that the question? Mr Low Por Tuck indicated assent.

Will the Member put it in that form, please?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance know that those who were sacked are as follows: Ministry of Finance - Mr Tan Kia How Ministry of Home Affairs - Chen Kwang Chin Ministry of Culture - Chen Nan Chin Ministry of Culture - Tzeto Tse Kwang Ministry of Education - Chen Chin Ken Prime Minister's Office - Khoo Cher Min Deputy Prime Minister's Office - Toh Chi Kwan.

These people were not dismissed.

(In Mandarin): Just now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance gave us only three names, but I have got more names here. As far as I know, those who were sacked were Committee members of the P.A.P. They were asked to declare their support for the Party, and if they did not, they would be -

Order. The Parliamentary Secretary has given an answer to the question on the Order Paper to the best of his knowledge, I suppose. I do not think we can pursue it further. If other names occur to any Members as having been left out, I think they ought to write in to the Parliamentary Secretary and ask for an explanation, and if the explanation is not satisfactory, then, of course, it can come back to the Assembly.

asked the Minister for Finance if consideration will be given to appointing a Commission of Inquiry to investigate into the causes of the strike by the Public Daily Rated Employees' Unions Federation.

In Tamil. [Laughter.]

Order. Could the Hon. the Parliamentary Secretary explain why he wishes to speak in Tamil?

I beg your pardon. A statement has been issued in the Press that the Government is prepared to set up a Commission of Inquiry to look into the demands of the Public Daily Rated Employees' Unions Federation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the inquiry be on the demands. alone, or will it go into the causes of the strike?

To look into the demands.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether the Government will be prepared to include the causes of the strike in the terms of the inquiry, because the public has been greatly inconvenienced? I think the public should know who were responsible and who were the culprits of their inconvenience.

That request will be considered.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the Parliamentary Secre tary's answer to this question, that the Government is going to set up a Commission of Inquiry to investigate into the claims of the Public Daily Rated Employees' Unions Federation, would it automatically mean, Sir, that the answer to Question No. 15 is no, since they are Commissions of Inquiry set up for different purposes?

The answer has been given by the Parliamentary Secretary - he will look into the mater.

asked the Minister for Health and Law whether consideration will be given to the conversion of the former Community Centre in Bouna Vista Road into an outdoor dispensary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not the intention to convert the community centre in Bouna Vista Road into an outdoor dispensary, because there is already a Government outdoor dispensary, a quarter of a mile away at the 5� m.s Pasir Panjang Road, which is sufficient for the needs of the residents in the area.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, has the Minister taken notice that at the said place the clinic at Pasir Panjang Road is affected by a strike? Why does the Government not want to turn it into a dispensary?

Will the hon. Member repeat the question slowly so that we can get another interpretation of it?

(In Mandarin): Why is the community centre in Bouna Vista Road not used now, whereas there is a clinic at the 5� m.s. Pasir Panjang Road? Why is it not made use of?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a maternity and child welfare centre in the same compound of the Bouna Vista Road Community Centre. That serves a very useful purpose. It is in that maternity and child welfare clinic that the needs of mothers, babies, toddlers and so on who live in the area are attended to. Close by is this outdoor dispensary. It occupies a shophouse and serves the medical needs of the people who live in the area. I agree, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Bouna Vista Road Community Centre has never been successful as a community centre. I think it is situated too far away from the main road and the centre of population in that area, and consideration is being given to turn this community centre into an approved school. In fact, we have an international expert here looking into the whole question and in time I think we should get his report.

asked the Minister for Culture how many people are on the staff of the Dewan Bahasa dan Kebudayaan Kebangsaan, and what are the publications issued so far by this body.

The staff of the Dewan consist of a head, one editor, two research officers; five clerical grade officers and two office boys. The first appointment was made on 21st July this year, consisting of one research officer. Another research officer was appointed on 14th September this year, and one editor was appointed on 2nd October this year. As far as publications are concerned, the staff have been collecting and compiling material for publication. So far one publication has been published; a booklet of 25 lessons in the national language will be published some time next month; and three more publications are under preparation for publication in 1962.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many summonses for overloading with passengers were issued to taxi drivers and to Singapore Traction Company bus conductors respectively between 1st January and 31st August, 1961.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 428 summonses for overloading pas sengers were issued to taxi drivers between the period 1st January and 31st August, 1961. No summonses were issued to Singapore Traction Company bus conductors during the same period, or, for that matter, conductors of Chinese bus companies. Action was taken against taxi drivers because, in their case, they tout for extra passengers, whereas buses do not. Circumstances regarding buses are quite different. However, Government is considering the regulations governing the overloading of passenger buses. Discussions were held with the various Chinese bus companies and the S.T.C. as well as the drivers and conductors some time back with a view to seeking their co-operation and safety-first measures. At the talks given to the conductors and drivers, one of their complaints was that they were unable to prevent the overloading of passengers single-handed, and that more often than not they were sandwiched inside the bus and unable to get to the door to control would-be bus passengers surging in and hanging on to the rails of the door. The conductors also complained of being threatened by hooligans whenever they tried to prevent or turn them away. The only solution to this would be for the buses to have hydraulic controlled doors which are operated by the drivers. This would not only prevent overcrowding but fatal accidents of people who either try to board or alight from a moving bus.

(In Mandarin): Why is it that taxi drivers cannot enjoy the same privilege as that accorded to bus conductors of not being prosecuted for overloading?

Mr Speaker, Sir, evidently the last speaker did not understand my answer. I have already given my answer to his question. I have explained the circumstances of the taxis and the buses. In the case of the taxis, the driver touts for passengers. He is in full control not to overload his taxi. But in the case of bus conductors, they are, according to them, not in a position to control.

The Minister for Home Affairs said that the bus conductors could not control passengers because they were threatened by hooligans. Would that not similarly apply to the taxi drivers?

I have not yet heard from any of the taxi drivers that that was the reason why they carried extra passengers.

Would the Minister for Home Affairs inform this House that should the taxi drivers so inform him, he would reconsider the position?

Yes.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many detainees under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955, are there at Pulau Senang; (b) how many have been released since the beginning of this year; and (c) how many of the detainees now at Pulau Senang have been detained there for over a year.

Chee Seng) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): I was asked by the Minister to answer the question. There are 403 detainees at Pulau Senang, of whom 114 have been detained there for over a year. A total of 76 detainees have been released from Pulau Senang since the beginning of this year.

(In Mandarin): Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell this House the maximum period of detention of a detainee at Pulau Senang?

I need further notice of this question.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many people have been detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, since 3rd June, 1959; and (b) of these, how many have been released.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since 3rd June, 1959, 30 persons connected with K.M.T., Communist and A.R.T.I.S. subversive activities have been detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955. Twenty-six of them have been released.

Could the Minister in form the House how many of the A.R.T.I.S. group are still detained under the P.P.S.O.?

Mr Speaker, Sir, all those connected with the A.R.T.I.S. subversive group have been released.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister for Home Affairs explain why the remaining detainees have not been released?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding this question, the Prime Minister has already explained yesterday that as we have the Internal Security Council, the power to release detainees is in the hands of this Council. If at any time the Internal Security Council decides to release them, then they will be released.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we would like to know from the Minister for Home Affairs the reasons for the detention of the remaining detainees who are connected with K.M.T. and Communist activities.

If he will put the question again, I will answer it the next time.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs since 3rd June, 1959, (a) how many applications have been received for Singapore citizenship; (b) how many of these have been rejected; and (c) how many are still under consideration.

Mr Speaker, Sir: (a) 108,320 applications for Singapore citizenship have been received since 3rd June, 1959, up to 30th September, 1961; (b) 4,835 applications have been rejected during the same period; (c) 10,318 applications were under consideration on 30th September, 1961.

Could the Minister inform this House how many applications were rejected on political grounds?

I would require notice of that question.

Could the Minister also inform this House whether the applications were rejected because of their political ideologies?

It is a similar question. Notice of it will be required.

Yes.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many people have been issued with immigration permits into Singapore since 1952; and (b) of these, how many have been given Singapore citizenship.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by the Minister to answer that: (a) 52,445 persons were issued with permits for entry into Singapore from 1952 to 30th September, 1961. (b) It is regretted that no record is kept of the number of persons who have entered Singapore with immigration permits and who have been issued with Singapore citizenship.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many Commonwealth citizens acquired Singapore citizenship by the two-year residential qualification required under the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance, 1957; and (b) of these, how many were from the Federation.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I have been asked to answer this question. It is regretted that the information regarding the number of Commonwealth citizens who have acquired Singapore citizenship by the two-year residential qualification is not available, as such records are not kept in the Citizenship Registry. As such, it is also not possible to state how many of these were from the Federation.

Cannot the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs look up these things for us? They are all in the records.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, great pressure of work and the length of time required to do it do not make it possible to start compiling the records in respect of the qualification of Singapore-citizenship under country of origin and under the different sections of the Ordinance. However, during the initial period of registration, that is, between 1st November, 1957, and 28th February, 1958, 325,020 persons were registered as Singapore citizens under section 8 (2), (3), (9), and (13) of the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance. Between the period 1st March, 1958, and 31st December, 1959, another 13,650 persons were registered under the same section. Between the period 1st January, 1960, and 4th April, 1960, 1,450 persons were registered under section 8 (1) and (2) of the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance. The above figures include persons who are Commonwealth citizens and who were born in the Federation of Malaya, those who have the 8-year residential qualification, wives and children of Singapore citizens. From 5th April, 1960, Commonwealth citizens and those who were born in the Federation have to have the 8-year residential qualification before they are eligible to apply for citizenship.

I am sorry, Sir, but I have failed to understand. Section 8 refers to those who are Federation and Commonwealth citizens. Could we have distinctly: under section 8, how many? And section 9, Sir, that is, in respect of those who are neither British subjects nor born in the Federation, that is to say, all the rest. Could we have the registration under section 8 and 9 distinctly? Never mind about sub-sections.

Order. I think the Parliamentary Secretary has probably gone beyond the question. The question merely asked how many Commonwealth citizens acquired Singapore citizenship by the two-year residential qualification required under the Singapore Citizenship Ordinance, 1957, that is to say, before section 8 was amended.

Before it was amended?

Yes, before section 8, was amended. There being no reply -

If there is no answer,. perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would like notice of the other question. There still being no reply -

No answer either.

Question No. 24, Mr Ong Chang Sam.

asked the Minister for Education (a) how many schools from each of the four streams of education received grants-in-aid of capital expenditure since 1959; (b) how many applications for such grants have been rejected; (c) how many applications are ,still under consideration; (d) what is the total sum asked for by all the schools concerned; and (e) what is the total sum. approved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, (a) Altogether 90 applications from 70 schools for capital grant-in-aid have been approved since 1959. The breakdown figures are as follows: Applications Schools Amount Approved Chinese 76 57 1,183,060 Tamil 1 1 150 English 13 12 39,300 Total 90 70 1,222,510 There are no grant-in-aid Malay schools, as all Malay schools are Government schools. It should be stated that one school may make as many as four separate applications, one each for Building, Minor Works, Furniture and Science Equipment respectively. (b) The total number of applications rejected was 235 from 176 schools, amounting to $3,548,676. (c) The total number of applications still under consideration is 174 from 132 schools amounting to $1,080,342, but the balance of vote available is $558,565, and it is expected that these :applications will be dealt with shortly. (d) The total sum asked for is $5,851,528 (excluding repeated proposals), but the vote available was $1,781,075, made up as follows: 1959 No provision, being a stand still budget. 1960 $ 781,075 although the original sum was $1.33 million, reduced by Treasury on 1-6-60 to cover deficit in Revotes for existing grants. 1961 $1,000,000 ---------- Total $1,781,075 ----------

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to what I know, in 1959 the grant-in-aid was estimated at $3 million. The budget for this year and for 1960 is only $1 million each. Can the Minister tell this House the reasons for the reduction in grant-in-aid, and has the Government any intention of increasing the grant-in-aid?

I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I have to take a bit of time to try and trace the relevant page in the Four-Year Development Plan regarding the amount of capital grant-in-aid allotted for Government aided schools. Page 112 of our Four-Year Development Plan 1961-64 shows Table 9.4, Education Development Programme Projects 11, Capital Grants-in-Aid 1961 shows a total of $3,073,230. But thereafter 1962-63-64 is $1 million per annum. The figure for 1961 actually includes previous grants which have been accumulated together. In the debate on the 1961 Estimates, I think I made an answer to the Member for Tanglin on this point, which is that this Government, unlike previous governments, is assuming full responsibility to provide schools for all the language streams and not, as in the past, for the English stream alone. Therefore, in this building programme, we would have to build 19 new schools per annum. We cannot, at the same time, afford to assist aided schools by giving dollar for dollar for an unlimited sum. We cannot spend money both ways to build Government schools for all language streams and, at the next moment, assist aided schools dollar for dollar to the tune of many millions. That is why it is very necessary just to limit it to $1 million per annum so long as we are building 19 new schools per year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister is aware that many schools cannot get capital grants, because these schools cannot fulfil the requirements laid down by the Grant-in-Aid Regulations, i.e. dollar for dollar. So could the Minister inform this House whether the Government is prepared to give unconditionally grant-in-aid or capital grants to schools, provided the schools really need them?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Changi, who used to assist me in the Ministry of Education, is fortunately aware of the difficulties which the Ministry of Education has to contend with in the matter of grant-in-aid. It is true that the Grant-in-Aid Regulations, 1957, do state that no grant-in-aid shall be approved in respect of a school building unless the manager or trustees of the school hold a legal and unencumbered title to the land on which the school premises are situated, for a period to be approved by the Director of Education. So most of the difficulties have arisen in that aided schools do not have a legal unencumbered title to the land. We are at the moment - in fact, we have for some time now been trying to amend the Grant-in-Aid Regulations by making them less stringent. But I do not think it will be possible to agree to the suggestion put forward by the Member for Changi that the grant-in-aid should be given without any conditions. I hope to be able to state in the near future that the present regulations would be somewhat relaxed so that we can get on with assisting the smaller rural schools which I have in mind.

(In Mandarin): With regard to the reply of the Minister for Education, does the Minister pay attention to the fact that this development has disregarded the aided schools?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the Member for Choa Chu Kang is just labouring the question. I have explained that the present Government wants to shoulder full responsibility in regard to education for all language streams. Therefore, it has decided to build 19 schools a year. This will mean that as time goes on, everyone can find a place in a Government school. But unfortunately if in the past aided schools have been going on without any assistance, we cannot solve their problem within one or two years. We can only do so when schools are available for everyone to move in. Therefore, since we have already indicated that we shall set aside $1 million to assist aided schools, mainly the rural aided schools, then I think we have done exceedingly well, provided we revise the present Grant-in-Aid Regulations and relax them somewhat, as suggested by the Member for Changi. The intention of the Government is clear.

Mr Speaker, could the Minister confirm that the Sekolah Ra'ayat is totally not entitled to grant-in-aid to build school buildings?

It is another question. Perhaps the Minister is prepared to answer now.

There is a form of aid for Sekolah Ra'ayat, which are really religious schools. Since Singapore is a secular State, we are concentrating on aid for non-religious schools, but giving also a small form of aid to religious schools. That I believe has been found to be adequate for the time being, so that the question of an increase in capital aid for religious schools is not at the moment receiving serious consideration.

(In Mandarin): Does the Minister not think that the aided schools are helping the Ministry in solving the problem of vacancies for students?

If I may assist, Sir, I think the Member for Choa Chu Kang is more or less hinting that perhaps the Ministry of Education is not prepared to assist aided schools, because aided schools do not help the education policy of the State. He is certainly going far from the subject, Sir. But I would just say that the Member for Choa Chu Kang is simply probably justifying his existence in the Assembly by putting questions when they are really unnecessary. I have, in fact, explained to the Member for Tanglin the place of aided schools in our educational system, because he has always been a great protagonist of the part which aided schools have played in the educational system of Singapore. I have already acknow ledged their importance in our educational system during the period when Government was not prepared to shoulder full responsibility for education. But when the Government has decided that it would take on the education of all its children and give them more and more education in fact, then naturally the role of aided schools will be less and less as Government schools get more and more. Therefore, we cannot build more and more schools and bring them into the Government stream and at the same time keep on pumping money into the aided schools. You cannot have it both ways. Therefore, if we build 19 schools a year to house all streams, we can only afford $1 million as capital aid for aided schools.

asked the Minister for Education (a) how many Chinese and English School teachers have had their registration certificates cancelled since 3rd June, 1959, and the reasons for such cancellations; and (b) how many applications for registration as teachers have been rejected since 3rd June, 1959 and the reasons for such rejections.

Mr Speaker, (a) No Chinese school teacher has had his registration certificate can celled since 3rd June, 1959, but one Private English school teacher had his registration certificate cancelled on grounds of moral turpitude. (b) Since 3rd June, 1959, the number of applications for registration as teachers which were rejected was 21, for the following reasons :- Security grounds 18 Poor attendance at Teachers' Training College 2 Unsatisfactory professional conduct 1 Total 21

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Minister tell this House the reasons in respect of those whose applications were rejected on political grounds?

The answer is yes. When a security objection is re ceived by the Ministry of Education from the Ministry of Home Affairs, the matter is reviewed. Sometimes the security objections are over-ruled by the Ministry, and sometimes we accept the objections and therefore reject the applications of these teachers.

(In Mandarin): Does the Minister for Education know that among those whose applications were rejected, some had been teaching for some seven to eight years, and they were then members of the P.A.P., and so there was no reason for their applications to be rejected on security grounds? But when these people became the founders of the Barisan Sosialis, they received notices regarding their rejection.

I do not think it is correct to state that because certain people are no longer with the P.A.P., therefore their applications for registration were rejected, because the question put to me was - how many have had their applications rejected since 3rd June, 1959? So this is over a period of time.

Could the Minister indicate how many of those rejections were since the 1st of July this year?

To the best of my recollection, one.

asked the Minister for Education what consideration was given to Government's proposal to introduce the 4-year system for Chinese secondary education by the Education Advisory Council before June, 1961.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is necessary, first of all to state that there is no such thing as a"4-year system for Chinese secondary education". It is either a 3-3 or 4-2 system. After publication of the 1955 All-Party Report on Chinese Education whereby the principle of equal treatment for four language streams was first announced, the officials of the Ministry of Education started work on syllabuses together with the assistance of some Chinese principals and teachers to introduce the 4-2 system in. place of the 3-3 system to achieve the desired basis of equal treatment. These syllabuses were published in 1958 and 1959. On 1st November, 1958, all principals of Chinese secondary schools were consulted regarding the proposed change over. Subsequently, on 28th February, 1959, schools were advised by circular No. Ed. 2195/58/18 announcing a gradual phasing of the change-over so that those admitted to secondary schools in 1958 would take the first Government Secondary 4 examination in 1961 (this year), but those admitted in 1956 and 1957 on the 3-3 system would take the Government Senior Middle 3 examination in 1961 (this year) and failures would take the last examination in 1962. The 4-2 system was already in progress four months before the P.A.P. Government took office and nine months before the first Educational Advisory Council was appointed in November 1959. As this Government fully supports the principle of equal treatment underlying the 4-2 system and as there was no public demand for a review of the system until June this year, the fateful month with the "parting of ways" mentioned by the Prime Minister, there was no occasion to refer the matter to the Educational Advisory Council prior to this date. But arising out of the controversy, reference to the Educational Advisory Council was made on 24th August, 1961. It should be added that on 5th October, 1961, the 4-2 system for the Chinese secondary stream was amicably resolved with the Singapore Chinese Schools Committee-Teacher Association, which is regarded as the highest educational body on Chinese education in Singapore. This agreement was announced in a joint statement and published in the local newspapers the following day.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am greatly surprised to hear the Minister say here today that there is no such thing as a 4-year system in Chinese education and that the system, in actual fact, is the 4-2 system. Perhaps the Minister would like to look up his own speech made in this House in support of the motion moved by the Prime Minister last year when he mentioned that, as from the beginning of this year, the Chinese school system would be changed into a 4-year secondary system. I would like him to refresh his own memory. Or if his memory is that bad, he might look up the Hansard.

Hon. Members must realise that this is Question Time. I have allowed the Member to carry on up till now. He can only ask supplementary questions and not enter into a debate. What is the question?

I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, Sir. The question is whether there is or there is not such a thing as the 4-year system which the Minister mentioned, and whether he would confirm that when he said so last year in this House, it was a policy statement? Which one are we to believe? The previous one or this one?

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the Member for Nee Soon will quote the relevant passage in Hansard that he is talking about. Another thing is that if he will only refer to the joint statement issued by the Committee/ Teachers' Association and myself on 5th October, 1961, he will find that it was stated very clearly there that the Government accepted 6 years of secondary education, 4 years lower, and 2 years upper secondary. The 2 years is not something very high up in the clouds. The 2 years is secondary education. So unless his mathematics is wrong, perhaps the public would like to know how he finds that four and two is still four?

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I crave the indulgence of this House for me to go to the Library and produce the relevant Hansard?

Order. That illustrates my point. Things like that cannot be done during Question Time. This point apparently will excite a great deal of debate and I would suggest that the hon. Member for Nee Soon files a motion on the matter.

asked the Minister for Education what is the number of pupils registered in the Primary I classes of each of the four streams of education for 1962.

The number of pupils registered for 1962 Primary I classes in each of the four streams of education according to the choice of parents is as follows: English Stream 30,650 Chinese Stream 20,174 Malay Stream 4,369 Tamil Stream 161 Total 55,354

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, according to the figures given us by the Minister for Education for 1962 in respect of the English stream, it is 30,650, and for the Chinese stream 20,174. May I ask him whether he has taken notice of the fact that the number of Primary I pupils in 1962 in respect of the English stream has increased by 5,000 as compared with the number of Primary I pupils in 1961; whereas in respect of the Chinese stream, there has been a reduction of 349 pupils? What is the reason for this?

Mr Speaker, Sir, 1 think there is a general answer coming from my friends in reply to the question put by the Member for Havelock. What is the reason for the increased number of registrations for English schools compared with Chinese schools? In my reply I stated that it was the choice of parents. If the Member for Havelock would like to have an answer, perhaps he would contact the 55,000 parents in Singapore and ask them why they did this. Surely it is their choice.

(In Mandarin): I would like to ask the Minister whether he has taken notice of the fact that many parents of pupils wanted to get enrolment for their children in Chinese schools, but that there were no vacancies. They had been forced to go to English schools.

The question put forward by 'the Member for Choa Chu Kang, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a vicious one. It is not true that parents did not go to register their children in Chinese schools because there were no places, because every primary school, whatever the language media of instruction, was more or less a registration centre. It was left to the parents themselves to choose which language media they wished to have their children registered for.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I have heard the reply given by the Minister just now to the effect that because there were fewer number of Chinese schools, therefore the choice depended on the parents where they wished to send their children. I want to quote an example. In my constituency there is a Chinese Primary School by the name of Hang Siang School. The number of new pupils enrolled there was 117. Because there was no vacancy there, the parents turned to other schools. Many joined English schools instead. But according to my understanding, that school has already applied for an extension of the school building, but it has not received any approval from the authorities concerned.

Is the Minister aware of that?

I could explain, Sir, that the inference started by the Member for Choa Chu Kang and carried on by the Member for Toa Payoh is that, because there was no place in the Chinese schools, the parents were therefore seduced to go to the English schools. Every school is allowed to register pupils. It is true that there is a limitation in every school to the number it can take. I mean a school does not just open and take in all Primary I pupils. Each school would indicate whether it could take in 40, 400 or 4,000 pupils. As far as possible, every primary school should have a number of different standards to give it some balance, but it is left to parents to register. If, for example, the school could take in 100 pupils, it might register 150 pupils, but the remaining 50 pupils would be offered places in a Chinese school if that is what the parents want. But if parents choose to have their children registered in an English school, well, it is only fair that they are offered places in an English school. So the determinant factor lies with the parents. Members on the opposite Benches, including the Front Bench, are aware that many Chinese families do send their children one-half to English schools and one-half to Chinese schools. Let us face it. That is the composition in which the schools are at present.

Would the Minister kindly tell us, in view of his policy of equal treatment for the four streams of education, why he just picks out one example? There is not a single Chinese Primary School in Queenstown, in which there is a huge population and in which there are round about 9 or 10 English schools?

It is a different question. The Member for Queenstown will have to give notice of that question if he wishes to pursue it. Mr Ong Chang Sam. Mr Ong Pang Boon rose -

Is it a point of order?

A supplementary question.

A supplementary question of his own Minister? It is never done. It is something extraordinary. Mr Ong Pang Boon resumed his seat.

Is the Minister aware that if the pupils are not enrolled now, then after some time when they want to enrol in a school they will have to pay school fees?

That question of school fees is a different question.

(In Mandarin): According to the figures given by the Minister, whether we can say that was formerly under the colonial four-year education plan, the chief purpose was to increase the number of pupils in -

Here again, I think this will be fertile ground for exciting debate, and I suggest if the Member is interested he should file a notice of motion. We will have several motions before the year is up. I must remind Members this is Question time. Mr David Marshall.

asked the Minister for Education what assistance the Government has given the Nanyang University since June 1959, to a latest convenient date; what financial assistance it proposes to give in future; and what is the present stage of the negotiations with that University.

asked the Minister for Education what financial aid does the Government propose to give to the Nanyang University.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take question 28 together with 29? It is related, I think.

That seems to be convenient.

In the matter of financial assistance to the Nanyang University, the Government has made its position clear when it stated that financial support to the University would be given subject to re-organisation being carried out in accordance with the Report of the Nanyang University Review Committee. It is a matter for regret that to date this condition has not been fulfilled, with the result that since June 1959, the University has not been given financial assistance. However, financial assistance in the form of bursaries is being given to the Singapore students in the University. Up to date a total of 1,012 bursaries has been awarded, amounting to $1,051,690. Break-down figures are as follows: Year Number of Amount bursaries awarded $ 1959 290 321,190 1960 321 328,500 1961 401 402,000 ----- --------- Total 1,012 1,051,690 ----- --------- There were two meetings of the Liaison Committee comprising representa tives of the Government and the Nanyang University authorities in 1960. But unfortunately no agreement was reached. However, the Government is always ready to negotiate and discuss this matter. It is hoped that this problem will be solved in the coming year.

Perhaps this is an opportune moment to suspend. I will permit supplementary questions after the suspension. I will take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Order. Before I invite supplementary questions, perhaps I had better indicate to hon. Members that it is my intention now to cut down supplementaries as much as possible. We have 58 questions to go through today, and I might remind hon. Members that questions are merely meant to obtain information or to press for action. I have been lenient up to now with supplementary questions, but I intend to try to and at least progress much faster than we have been doing. We are on questions 28 and 29. Any supplementary questions?

We understand from the Minister that there were two sittings of this Committee on negotiation with the Nanyang University last year. This is an unhappy position and an unhealthy one. I would ask the Minister whether he would consider making an earnest and urgent effort to reopen these negotiations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it was indicated in the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on 31st October, 1961, that the Government is always ready to negotiate and discuss the matter and that we have hopes that this problem will be solved in the coming year. I think with that as an expression of hope, something will eventuate to the satisfaction not only of the Member for Anson but also of the taxpayers and the people of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the conditions laid down by the Government is that it will only give financial aid to Singapore citizens plus 15 per cent of the Federation citizens. But during the election, the P.A.P. promised to give financial aid -

Order. This is now entering into a debate and I intend being very strict about these matters. If the hon. Member wishes to enter into a debate as to what actual grant ought to be made, then let him file notice of motion. What is the supplementary question?

Mr Speaker, what I want to know is this : where is the financial aid which the Government promised to give in 1959 during the election?

The answer to the question of the Member for Changi is this. We will give aid subject to reorganisation according to the recom mendations of the Nanyang University Review Committee's Report.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the former Parliament ary Secretary to the Minister for Culture and the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister disclosed in a Singapore newspaper that the Liaison Committee of the University and the Government would soon convene a meeting. May I ask the Minister when this meeting will be convened? What steps will the Government take to have this meeting convened? The earlier the meeting is convened, the better. May I also ask whether the Minister will accept the recommendations of Nanyang University Old Boys Association as a basis for negotiation?

It looks as if my reply to the Member for Choa Chu Kang will have to be again to say that the Government is prepared to negotiate this matter and that we have hopes it can be solved in the coming year.

asked the Minister for Education when the Government intends to recognise the degrees of Nanyang University.

Mr Speaker, the Government has already given con ditional recognition to the graduates of Nanyang University, subject to interview and approval by the Public Service Commission. Such graduates, whether in Government service or Government aided schools, are given salaries at par with Pass graduates of the University of Malaya and other recognised universities. This conditional recognition of Nanyang University degrees pending re organisation in accordance with the general principles of the Nanyang University Review Committee's Report was announced in my policy statement on 10th February, 1960, vide Hansard Vol. 12, No. 3, column 143.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is willing to recognise the degrees of Nanyang University. Is it because its academic standard is lower than that of the University of Malaya?

The Government gave conditional recognition to Nanyang University degrees despite the fact that its academic standards were not considered satisfactory. That is why the Government feels that before it is prepared to give financial aid, Nanyang University should be reorganised in accordance with the principles enunciated in the Nanyang University Review Committee's Report.

asked the Minister for Education (a) how many graduates of Nanyang University who graduated in the second batch in 1960 are now employed as teachers in Government schools and in Government-aided schools; and (b) of these, how many are still being paid the salary of a teacher with middle-school qualification, and why?

Mr Speaker, Sir: (a) Of the second batch of Nanyang University graduates, 99 are in teaching service of whom (i) 24 are employed in Government schools, and (ii) 75 in Government-aided schools. (b) Of these, four are still being paid the salary of a teacher with Government Senior Middle III qualification for the following reasons:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, these Nanyang University graduates draw the same salary as that drawn by teachers with only Middle School qualification. Does that mean equal treatment to all streams of education?

Evidently, Mr Speaker, my answer to the previous question was not listened to. Or if it was listened to, it is a question which he has put forward rather automatically.

Will the Minister then refer to the previous answer?

Yes. The previous answer given to the Member for Changi -

Order. I am trying to save the time of the Assembly. Perhaps the Member for Changi will read the answer when it is printed. Any other supplementary question?

(In Mandarin): May I ask the Minister how many Uni versity graduates teaching in primary schools are receiving graduate teachers' pay?

I think the Member for Havelock asks whether the Minister for Education could give the number of graduates who are teaching in primary schools but receiving the salary of a teacher with Senior Middle III qualification. I would answer that question by saying that I would like notice of the question because it has no bearing with Nanyang University graduates.

(In Mandarin): May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the second batch of University graduates have been interviewed by the Public Service Commission since August? Why has a list of their names not been approved and disclosed yet?

The Minister is at liberty not to answer it. Mr Low Por Tuck.

asked the Minister for Education whether consi deration will be given to the setting up of a department in the Singapore Polytechnic using Mandarin as a medium of instruction to cater for students from the Chinese stream of education.

Mr Speaker, after the Polytechnic was reorganised in August 1959, it decided to modify its entry qualifications to the various courses so that the Polytechnic would be open to graduates from Chinese schools. At present, there are no less than 345 students from the Chinese stream in the Polytechnic. I would like to inform the Member for Havelock that there are altogether 31 courses being taught in the Polytechnic, requiring a total of 71 full-time staff and 96 part-time staff. In view of the magnitude of the organisation involved and the fact that the Polytechnic has barely settled down, setting up a Chinese Department in the Polytechnic is difficult and impracticable.

(In Mandarin): May I ask the Minister, if there are some people who are keen on educational matters and who want to donate freely towards this course, whether he will permit such action?

If according to the Member for Havelock there are people who want to come forward with money to set up a Polytechnic, I am sure the Government will be prepared to consider the question.

(In Mandarin): According to my personal understanding, there are people who are devoted to educational matters and who want to donate towards this public educational course. They have presented their case to the Minister but it has been refused. Will the Minister confirm whether this is true?

I think the Member for Havelock is probably thinking of a proposal which was put forward by certain individuals to start a Singapore College, and I do not think it was purely a Polytechnic. The sponsors did see me quite some time ago and I indicated to them that I would prefer that the matter be deferred until such time as the Nanyang University reorganisation was put into effect. So since the Nanyang University has not yet been reorganised, it may be said that the matter is just postponed sine die.

Mr Speaker, may I put the question to the Minister for Education clearly? I am not referring to the Singapore College. I am referring to a group of educationists who want 'to convert the Chinese High School into a Chinese stream polytechnic.

Evidently, Mr Speaker, I gave the Member for Have lock more credit than he deserves. There has been no official application put to this Ministry. Perhaps individuals have made Press statements and so on and so forth. I do not suppose the Minister should take cognizance of what he reads in the newspapers. If people are really interested, they should put forward the matter in writing together with all relevant facts and figures. So if the Member for Havelock refers to certain newspaper reports, statements and so on, then I am afraid that, officially, I am not aware of it.

asked the Minister for Education if he will appoint an independent Committee of Inquiry to investigate into the effects, both direct and indirect, of the compulsory full six-day week in Singapore's primary schools, especially in regard to the welfare of these school children, and to make recommendations for its continuance or discontinuance with effect from January, 1962.

The Ministry of Education is at present in the midst of discussions with the Malay Teachers' Union, the Chinese Middle School Teachers' Association, and the Singapore Teachers' Union for a revised version of the six-day week for 1962. Arising out of these discussions, the question whether or not to appoint a Committee of Inquiry or a Commission of Inquiry will be decided.

This matter does not affect teachers only. Would the Minister take cognizance of the widespread unhappiness indicated on the part of parents on behalf of their children?

Do I take it, Mr Speaker, that the Member for Anson speaks on behalf of parents in Singapore?

He will be a parent!

Fortunately, Sir, we do not always have to have the qualifications of those whose brief we seek to press. May I have a reply, Sir? I know many parents are very unhappy, and it is only fair that they should receive some assurance which would assuage their anxiety - that their representations would be given earnest and honest considerations.

I do feel that in a matter like this, discussions which have taken place between the Ministry and representatives of Teachers' unions way back to April 1961 would be a more effective machinery, and if necessary even refer the matter to the Educational Advisory Council. So I do think that it is quite possible to say that some parents are unhappy, just as some teachers are unhappy about the six-day week. But it would be quite a sweeping statement to say that many parents are unhappy. Mrs Seow Peck Leng rose -

I hope she is a parent!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Minister would give his consideration to this: that as there are Parent-Teacher Associations existing, they provide a good channel through which the Minister could find out the feelings of parents. And probably the Parent-Teacher Associations could elect a representative to make representations to this Committee that the Minister is going to appoint, and therefore he would, in effect, be having parents' opinions too.

As an elected Assemblyman and a Minister, I receive lots of letter from various sources and, of course, I shall always be available to receive memoranda, be they from some of the Parent-Teacher Associations in Singapore. But there are so few Parent-Teacher Associations in schools. They are found in a few English schools. But if they care to get down to submitting a memorandum putting forward their views, I shall be very pleased to read it and absorb anything worthwhile for consideration.

Sir, the Minister looks very .tired and I do not want to tax him any more than is necessary. But I wonder whether he is in a position to confirm that it is, in fact, the Government's intention to make the six-day week into something like a 5�-day week.

It may be a top secret!

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I wish to say that I am far from being tired because I do not have nocturnal meetings like the Member for Thomson. I have already indicated that whether or not we shall form a Committee of inquiry or a Commission of Inquiry as proposed by the Member for Tanglin is a matter which we will take up after discussion with teachers' unions. It will be a revised version of the six-day week in that teaching load of teachers would be somewhat reduced. Therefore, it means an increase in the number of teachers per school, by improving the staffing quota, and it will, of course, mean an increase in the Budget.

asked the Minister for National Development what steps have been taken to prevent further flooding of the Sungei Pandan area.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I have been asked by the Minister to answer this question. Regarding this question of flooding, we have started an investigation. When a comprehensive survey of the whole catchment area is completed and a scheme to prevent further flooding has been prepared, it is expected that work on flood alleviation schemes will commence towards the end of this year. And by the end of 1962, when the scheme is expected to be completed, there should be no further flooding �n this area.

(In Mandarin): Has the Parliamentary Secretary paid attention to the fact that flooding in the last two years has caused damage to crops and that the Government has not taken any action to stop this?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the flooding of certain areas, the Government has all along been paying attention to it. In the meantime, many areas in Singapore: are liable to floods, and it is the desire of the Government to attend to the area that is more seriously affected.

asked the Minister for National Development when will the construction of the road deviation caused by the extension of the Tengah airfield runway be completed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this construction will be completed by the end of this year.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) when will the link road between Serangoon Garden Estate and Braddell Road be completed; (b) how many squatters will be affected by the con struction of this road; and (c) what are the terms of compensation given to such squatters.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by the Minister to answer this question. (a) The link road is expected to be completed by the end of next year. Earth works and drainage works on a section of this link road are nearly completed, and the actual carriageway construction is expected to commence soon. (b) 144 families are affected by the construction of the road. Of these, 76 have either been resettled or have found their own accommodation. For the remaining families, suitable arrangements are being made to resettle them. (c) The terms of compensation for these settlers are in accordance with the rates fixed on the recommendations of the Land Clearance and Resettlement Working Party in 1955 and amended from time to time. The latest amended copy will be circularised for the information of Members of the House.

(In Mandarin): May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the settlers are happy about the rates of compensation?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is general dissatisfaction with the rates, then they should not be accepted by the majority of these settlers. As I have said just now, we are from time to time amending the regulations regarding compensation.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Parliamentary Secretary know that these rates of compensation are in accordance with the 1957 rates? And may I ask the Government when will these rates be revised?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the revision of these rates is now receiving our attention. The regulations are being amended, and I have already said that we will circularise the amended version for the information of the Members of the House.

asked the Minister for National Development when will work be started on the proposed link road between Boundary Road and Jalan Teck Kee, and how long will its construction take.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by the Minister to answer this question. Work on the proposed link road is expected to begin next year, and con struction work should be completed in about 18 months.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the construction work, does the Parliamentary Secretary know how many families are affected by such construction?

(In Mandarin): I think I have already answered this question in the previous answer.

(In Mandarin): We were asking about question No. 36. Now he is on 37.

Question No. 36? If the Parliamentary Secretary is not in a position to answer that supplementary question, he could require notice of it. Anyway, it is, in fact, a separate question and notice ought to be given.

asked the Minister for National Development whether it is intended to set up a fertiliser factory.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not the intention of the Government to set up a fertiliser factory.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister for National Development not notice that in the booklet of the P.A.P. there is provision for such a scheme?

I am not aware that the Party intended to set up a fertiliser factory. But I would like to inform this House that in my Ministry we have gone into the process of experimenting with chemical fertilisers in organic matters. This was gone into some time this year when I visited the experimental station in Potong Pasir. I would like to inform this House that, as far as the Government is concerned, we have experimented along these lines for vegetable farming, and we intend to reveal the results of the experiments to the farmers so that they could use such information to mix fertilisers for their own benefit.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I heard the Min ister say that he does not know anything about the booklet of the P.A.P. regarding this scheme. That means the Government has forgotten about the election promises. We can see an example now!

The question has been answered. Mr Wong Soon Fong.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Clearance Sub-Committee for the Tea Payoh Housing Scheme is still in existence, and whether it has called any meeting since July, 1961.

No meeting has been called since July 1961 of this Sub Committee. Since the Committee has received views from interested parties, the Committee has already served its purpose.

(In Mandarin): Does the Minister mean to say that this scheme for housing has stopped?

I wish to inform the Member concerned that the Govern ment intends to carry on with the Toa Payoh development.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Minister whether the original Sub-Committee includes the representatives of the Rural People's Association, and whether this Sub-Committee has been scrapped?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree that the Member who just spoke was a member of the Sub-Committee. But there were also other representatives from the Rural People's Association. As regards the other part of the question, I have already answered it.

asked the Minister for National Development what is the policy of the Government towards the memoranda submitted by the Mem ber for Toa Payoh and by the Rural People's Association on the question of resettlement of the 25,000 squatters in the Toa Payoh Area affected by the Housing Scheme, and whether he will meet representatives of these squatters and the Assemblyman concerned to settle the problem.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the present scheme for resettlement provides for four alternatives: (1) Housing Board accommodation will be given to those who are sub-tenants; (2) Monetary compensation to those who make their own arrangements; (3) A basic house in the suburban area with about 10,000 square feet of land for those who do not depend entirely on agriculture for a livelihood; (4) Full compensation for all improvements on the land plus an agricultural plot of about 2 acres with a basic house for those farmers who depend on agriculture for their livelihood. These rates of compensation have been kept in constant review and amend ed from time to time. They have been applied to more than 10,000 persons affected by the resettlement in the past five years. The Government fully appreciates that no one who is affected by resettlement likes to be shifted out of his house or home. Neither is it possible for any scheme for compensation to be absolutely satisfactory to all concerned. The present rates are considered to be reasonable, and will be applied to all cases of resettlement. However, in specific cases of hardship, other forms of assistance may be granted. But it is not intended that the whole framework of the present resettlement scheme should be changed to suit a few such cases. It must be pointed out that compensation is a ex-gratia payment made to settlers who have no legal right to the land they occupy. The Government has given every assistance to those affected by resettlement in order to avoid hardship. For this reason, development of the Toa Payoh area is planned in stages so that only a limited number of families are moved at one time, and resettlement of people affected will be a gradual process extending over five to seven years. It is not anticipated that all the people of that area will be affected, and hence the figure of 25,000 quoted is misleading. Every measure will be taken to ensure that as little hardship as possible is caused to the settlers. If the occasion arises, my Parliamentary Secretary and I will meet these squatters on any individual problems that may be better settled by discussion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, according to my information, the Government has the habit of throwing any memorandum submitted by the people into the wastepaper basket. Is that true, Sir?

Only my letters!

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the reply given by the Minister, in five years' time there are 100 families who have-got compensation at this rate. May I know whether these regulations regarding compensation are those laid down by the Lim Yew Hock Government in 1957, and whether these include the amount given by the Lim Yew Hock Government?

Mr Speaker, Sir, my answer just now stated that the com pensation schemes have been reviewed and amended from time to time, and I said that it includes the time when this Government took office. To my knowledge, I have personally settled some of the difficult problems of resettlement. When there were appeals made by cases for resettlement, I personally looked into them. I have also said that in specific cases of hardship, other forms of assistance may be granted. The figure of 10,000 includes obviously the period of the Lim Yew Hock Government, because this Government has only been in office for over two years.

asked the Prime Minister when will Kampong Kranji get electricity supply and street lights.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I have been asked by the Hon. the Prime Minister to reply to this. Investigations for providing such lights are now being investigated, after which the proposals will be submitted to the Rural Sub-Committee for consideration. Street lights in this kampong will be considered after the supply of electricity :to Kampong Kranji has been implemented.

(In Mandarin): Does the Parliamentary Secretary know that since 1958, the Government has already ordered a supply of electricity there?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I feel that the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister in front of me and the Member for Choa Chu Kang who did act as ex-Parliamentary Secretary will be in a position themselves to answer the question.

asked the Prime Minister to state the qualifications required for the posts of Senior Cost Accountant and Secretary of the Electricity Department, the name of the present holder of these two posts, the qualifications he possessed when he was first appointed to them in a dual capacity, what are his present qualifications, whether he is a contract officer, how many times has his contract been renewed, and whether the posts had been circularised before the contract was renewed.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the qualifications required for the Senior Cost Accountant are - extensive experience of contractor's costs and accounts, familiarity with electrical terminology, and also an Associate Membership of the Institute of Costs and Works Accountants or an equivalent qualification. The post of Secretary, City Electricity Department, was formerly designated Assistant Commercial Secretary, but in 1958, it was re-designated Secretary, City Electricity Department. No qualifications have been laid down for the post since its re-designation. The present holder of the post of temporary Senior Cost Accountant is Mr E. C. Gervin. He was also appointed to act in the post of Secretary, City Electricity Department, in addition to his own duties on 18.8.59, when the substantive holder of the post of Secretary went on leave. Mr Gervin has only a School Certificate qualification when he was first appointed in 1953. Mr Gervin is a contract officer and his contract has been extended on six occasions. The post of Secretary, City Electricity Department, became vacant on 23.9.59 as a result of the resignation of the substantive holder of the post. No circularization was made as the then City Council extended his contract because of his satisfactory service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister aware that the present holder of the post of Senior Cost Accountant and Secretary of this Electricity Department is an expatriate officer?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, because his services were satis factory, therefore his contract was renewed by the Electricity Department.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want an answer. I am asking whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is aware that the present holder is an expatriate officer?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the Member should also realise that the officer is also a citizen of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I ask the question, may I ask for your guidance? We have been some three and a quarter hours on questions, Sir, and I wonder whether our Standing Orders would permit some procedure whereby the remaining questions, including my two, should hold over till the next sitting so that we can get on with the rest of the business of the House.

The position is that our Standing Orders are silent on that point. It is, of course, usual in certain other Parliaments for Standing Orders to provide that Question Time should only last one hour. Unfortunately, our Standing Orders are silent on that point; but, of course, the Ministers, if they are so minded, can all say from now on that they will publish their answers in the Official Report. That will be perfectly in order. The Member for Anson should now ask question No. 43.

asked the Minister for Finance (a) what was the amount of entertainments duty collected on public performances of professional boxing (i) in 1960; and (ii) in the first nine months of 1961; and (b) whether consideration will be given to the removal or reduction of entertainments duty on public performances of professional boxing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are in all three questions to question No. 43, and my answers are (i) None. (ii) None. (iii) No.

Since he could not possibly reduce 0 below 0 to reduce the tax on professional boxing, and since it would perhaps resuscitate a useful art, would the Minister not reconsider his decision?

Sir, I am very doubtful whether any change in the rates of entertainment tax would have the effect of resuscitating professional boxing. For instance, in the Federation the rates are rather less than half of those in Singapore, and there is no evidence whatsoever that they have any effect on reviving the sport of professional boxing. It seems to me that this is very much a matter of taste. Fashions come and go. Years ago it was professional boxing; now it is running around with go-karts or what-have-you. I think it is rather independent of rates of tax on entertainment.

I am sorry, Sir. My question seems to be misunderstood. Perhaps I have not been clear. We are getting no revenue and have been getting no revenue, so the reduction of the tax could not affect our revenue in any fashion, and it could reasonably be anticipated that it might assist. In the circumstances, would the Minister not give it sympathetic consideration? Since we cannot lose, we might win.

I think the Member for Anson has a point there, mathematically speaking, and I will reconsider it.

asked the Minister for Finance whether the Gov ernment will give consideration to the question of variation of the remuneration of Judges.

The answer is yes, Sir.

Thank you.

asked the Minister for Finance to clarify what is an "appointment allowance" and a "personal allowance", who are eligible for which allowances, and in which category are principals' and specialists' allowances of teachers classified.

Officers in the Singapore Education Service who are substantively appointed to posts of Principals of Primary and Secondary Schools, Specialist Teachers, Inspectors of Schools and Lecturers at the Teachers' Training College will be eligible to receive, in addition to their scale salaries, the appointment allowances applicable to these posts at the rates prescribed. There is no such thing as "Personal Allowances". But an Appointment Allowance, being pensionable, may become "personal to the holder" if he or she is transferred to another post which carries no "Appointment allowance".

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that married women principals and specialists receive a personal allowance instead of an appointment allowance just by virtue of their marriage?

These allowances, as I have said, are pensionable, and if the persons concerned are married and are not on the pensionable status, they will not be eligible to such allowances. But if the Member for Mountbatten could give me further details, perhaps we can sort it out and see how it squares up with the regulations. Offhand, I am not aware of these particular cases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be very glad to, because the Minister might not be aware that, by giving it a different name, the married women teachers, by virtue of their legal marriage, are suffering quite a big loss financially.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he is aware that copies of the General Orders have not been made available for sale at the Publication Sales Bureau for the last few years, and the reasons therefor.

Yes, I am aware. The reason why General Orders are not on sale now is that they are out of date in many respects. General Orders are now being revised and a new edition will be published in the near future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the minister tell us how soon it will be published? Because for over two years, thousands of teachers, especially in primary schools, have been going without G.O.s and it is physically impossible for thousands of teachers to use the one copy that exists in the Education Department.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know why thousands of teachers want copies of General Orders, although, mind you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have never been a teacher and I am not quite au fait with all the multifarious duties of those posts. But I would have thought that such simple duties as the teachers may be called upon to perform in schools could well have been explained to them by the principals of the schools. Be that as it may, Mr Speaker, the new General Orders will be revised and divided into four separate manuals, namely, the Establishment Code, which deals with appointments, recruitment, promotions, leave, and all that: the Financial Code, the Stores Procedure Code, and the Office Management Code. The drafts for the Stores Procedure Code and the Financial Code have been completed, and printing should be in hand before long. The other two Codes will probably be ready early next year.

asked the Minister for Health and Law whether he has any information as to the effect on the people of Singapore of the reported recent nuclear bomb tests carried out by the Russians.

Mr Speaker, Sir, experiments carried out by Dr Huq, Lecturer in Physics at the University of Malaya in Singapore, on radioactivity from stratospheric dust produced by the recent Russian nuclear explosions disclosed that local radioactivity has increased by a factor of 2. This increase is not dangerous, as an increase by a factor of 50 to 60 would be required to produce any real danger from contamination. However, the situation needs to be watched. More sensitive apparatus is required to detect the presence of Strontium 90, which is readily absorbed by calcium and is taken into the body by foods with a high calcium content such as milk. Researches in this direction are necessary. The provision of funds for the purchase of equipment to enable the Physics Department of the University of Malaya in Singapore to detect the presence of Strontium 90 is now receiving the immediate attention of the Government. The potential radiation hazards from the fallout of atomic bomb tests are pollution of the air we breathe, the food we eat, especially milk, and the water we drink, constituting a threat not only to ourselves and our children, but also to unborn generations. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have, as you know, removed to different surroundings and I have had the pleasure of discussing with medical men the effect of permutation of genes on the production of human offspring. Mr Speaker, Sir, you yourself have kindly reminded the House of the approaching happy change in the personal status of the Member for Anson. Having now received the blessing of Abraham [Laughter], he will have no cause for alarm at the outcome of the recent Russian nuclear explosions, Sir.

I am indebted to the Minister's kind assurance on that aspect. But I had in mind rather the wider aspect of what I understand to be the maximum time of danger for the people of this area in a few months' time. Would the Minister indicate whether information is that it is anticipated that the fallout in this area, has, in fact, hardly begun and that its maximum effect would take some months to be felt? Would he indicate whether he is keeping in touch with the World Health Organisation so that he would have maximum information in case any necessary precautions are required in this area?

That has been done and, in fact, I have written to the Federation Government and asked them to join in with this Government in the purchase of equipment for the Physics Department of the University of Malaya in Singapore to enable Professor Gatha and Dr Huq to identify Strontium 90.

(In Mandarin): If as a result of the Russian nuclear bomb tests Singapore were to be affected, may I ask the Minister concerned whether he knows of any preventive measures?

My only hope is that an atomic bomb is not exploded in this Chamber! Mrs Seow Peck Leng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take the next two questions together as they are relevant, if the Minister agrees to it?

I think the way to do it is to ask question No. 48 and the Minister will give the answer.

asked the Minister for Health and Law whether he is aware of the filthy conditions of the drains along Geylang, Mountbatten and Tanjong Katong Roads, and what steps will be taken to clean them.

If it is convenient, the Minister may answer Questions 48 and 49.

The question concerns the conditions of roadside drains, Sir. The main roadside A rains along Geylang, Mountbatten and Tanjong Katong Roads have been maintained in a reasonable state but the outlet drains maintained and cleansed by a private contractor have not been satisfactorily cleansed, with the result that there has been back-damming of some of the public roadside drains with consequent mosquito breeding. The contractor has been repeatedly warned and has been penalised by a cut in the fee paid to him by the Public Works Department, but his work is still not up to standard: The contractor's charges for the work are low, with the result that the standard of the work has been poor. Steps are being taken to review the whole procedure of contract work for these outlet drains, and discussions are now taking place with the Public Works Department on how to improve the standard of work. On several occasions in the past, City Council labourers have been on the job of de-silting and cleansing these outlet drains. As soon as the strike situation improves and labour is available, work on the cleansing of these outlet drains will be undertaken. Mrs Seow Peck Leng rose -

On question 48, Mrs Seow Peck Leng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he would consider doing this immediately, because only yesterday I had some people from Haig Road complaining that the, situation is so bad that water is flowing into the compounds of the houses now.

Sir, all this will be attended to. One has to be patient. One has to get the cleansing squads organised. It all depends on the outcome of the negotiations that are going on now for the solution of this strike.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng, question No. 49.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the answer to question No. 48 has also answered my- question No. 49.

Is the hon. Member withdrawing her question?

Is the Minister answering question No. 49.

It is an entirely different question.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng.

Question No. 49.

asked the Minister for Health and Law whether he is aware that the vacant land adjacent to houses Nos. 24 to 38 in Haig Road is being used as a refuse dump and that the backlane of these houses is in a filthy condition, and what steps are proposed to be taken in these matters.

Mr Speaker, Sir, an inspection was carried out immediately on receipt of a letter of complaint signed by the residents on 28th October, and it was found that some people had been dumping refuse on the vacant land at the side of No. 24, Haig Road, and at the rear of No. 40, Haig Road. Two labourers were detailed to clean the place immediately, and this was done before the strike. The backlane referred to has a beat labourer responsible for its cleansing and it has been cleaned and restored to a satisfactory condition. The general cleaning-up operations in this area will have to be deferred until after the strike. Dumping of refuse on private land is a contravention of the Local Government Ordinance, for which those who are responsible can be punished.

asked the Minister for Culture when the National Cultural Brigade will be set up and if he will make a statement on the progress. of its formation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, plans relating to the organisation of the Cultural Brigade have been completed and a number of possible recruits have been interviewed. The Brigade will be in operation as soon as a sufficient number of suitable personnel can be recruited. We hope we will be able to launch the Brigade sometime next year.

(In Mandarin): The Minister for Culutre is aware that last year the Government promised to set up this Cultural Brigade, but up to now this has not been done. Is this due to any political reason?

It is not because of political reasons.

asked the Minister for Culture what was the total amount of public donations to the National Theatre Fund from July to October, 1960, and from July to October, 1961.

Donations to the National Theatre for the four months from 1st July to 31st October, 1960, amounted to $88,202, and for the four months from 1st July to 31st October, 1961, to $6,573. The fund was launched in November 1959, and the response in the first year had been very good indeed. The fund has been kept open for two years now, and it is quite natural that donations should taper off and will possibly come to stop one day.

(In Mandarin): What plan does the Minister have in regard to the donation campaign for the National Theatre?

The campaign for donations was formed two years ago and it is expected that in the course of time, as the donations taper off, that will be the end of the campaign.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will make a statement on the refusal of the entry into Singapore of one Mr Kong Soon Seng of Sibu, Sarawak.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Kong Soon Seng arrived in Singapore by Malayan Airways, Flight 401, at 1300 hours on 19th August, 1961. On examination by the Immigration Officer at the Airport, it was found that his British passport No. 3719 issued in Kuching on 10th January, 1956, had expired and had not been renewed. As in all cases of passengers who arrive without valid travel documents, Mr Kong Soon Seng was refused leave to land and was returned to Kuching by the same aircraft, which departed at approximately 1330 hours the same day.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Minister is aware that there were well-known businessmen in Singapore that day who were prepared to stand security and guarantee for Mr Kong, who is a well-known businessman from Sarawak doing business with Singapore. I wonder whether the Minister can allow officers on duty to relax the rules a little when it is for the benefit of Singapore, especially in respect of a person who is so well-known and coming to Singapore to do business.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not aware that Mr Kong is a well-known businessman, nor do I think the immigration officers at the Air port are aware of it. It is better to be strict than to be landed with a body which the Government may find it difficult to remove. In any case, the airline concerned should not have sold him a ticket in the first instance.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many applicants for Singapore citizenship by naturalization since 1st January, 1961, were unable to obtain Singapore citizenship because of their failure in the Malay language test.

For the period 1st January, 1961, to 30th September, 1961, 3,366 applicants for Singapore citizenship took the elementary Malay language test. Of this, 2,875 applicants passed the elementary Malay language test and 491 failed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that on 28th October this year the Prime Minister made an official state ment which was only published in the local Chinese Press to the effect that if the people of Singapore applied for citizenship, they need not have to take the Malay language examination?

Can the question be repeated again?

(In Mandarin): Is the Minister aware that on 28th October this year the Prime Minister made a special official statement which was only published in the local Chinese Press. The statement was this: if the people of Singapore applied for Singapore citizenship, they need not take the Malay language examination.

It is a statement of alleged fact. What is the question?

(In Mandarin): Is the Minister aware of this statement?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Havelock will put the question again and if he will give me the date of the newspaper re port, I shall look it up.

asked the Minister for Education how many in tegrated secondary and primary schools were opened in 1960 and 1961 respectively.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1960, two integrated secondary schools (Chinese/English media) were opened, namely, Bukit Panjang High School and Serangoon Garden High School. In 1961, seven integrated primary schools (Chinese/English media) came into being, namely, Delta West, Elling North, Guillemard, Kam Seng West, Norfolk, Pulau Tekong, and Toa Payoh. But for an unfortunate three months' delay in the completion of Jalan Kaki Bukit Primary School, the eighth integrated primary school (Malay/English media) would have been declared open by now; but because of the school year coming to an end in a week's time, the official opening is being postponed to January, 1962.

asked the Minister for Education how many un occupied classrooms are there in the Ama Keng English School, and whether consideration will be given to the setting up of a Chinese primary school next year in these unoccupied classrooms.

There are 14 classrooms in Ama Keng Primary School, of which 12 classrooms are being used in the morning session for the English medium. Consideration will always be given to any language stream wishing to use unoccupied classrooms in Government schools if the request is made. At present, the need for a Chinese primary school in this area would appear to be fully met by Kay Wah School, a Government-aided Chinese School, which is situated one mile away from Ama Keng Primary School itself.

(In Mandarin): Is the Minister aware that in Kay Wah School, 60 students are not accommodated in classrooms?

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are matters of detail which the school puts up to the Ministry and the Ministry does its best. If there are no teachers, I suppose there will be the usual delay in trying to get the correct persons to be appointed. If it is a request to extend classrooms to take in more students, then that has, I think, been met by the Ministry of Education in next year's provision.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, probably the Minister misunderstood me. He said that the Ama Keng English School has two empty classrooms, and that in the Kay Wah School there are ample vacant places. I want to tell the Minister that at present there are more than 60 students registered in Kay Wah School but who have not been accommodated in classrooms. The school has applied for an extension of its classrooms, but the Ministry has rejected the application. May I ask the Minister how he intends to solve this classroom problem?

I am afraid, Mr Speaker, that the Member for Choa Chu Kang has been misinformed. The application for extension of classrooms to take in 67 pupils for next year has been approved. Either he has just been misinformed or he is rather behind in the news passed on to him.

asked the Minister for National Development what steps does the Government propose to take with regard to people who have lived in unauthorised huts for more than two years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, unauthorised houses are dealt with according to the law. Even though they may have been lived in for more than two years, it is provided by the Local Government Ordinance that court action is instituted if an unauthorised building comes to the notice of the authority. Initially a notice is served on the person responsible, requiring him to demolish the structure within 14 days. It is only when he fails to do so that court action is taken. A mandatory order may be obtained either to demolish or to require that the structure should comply with the law. In the latter case, no further action is taken as soon as the requirements are complied with.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as this affects over 2,000 families in Singapore, I wonder whether or not the Government would consider formulating some scheme to assist the occu pants of houses that do not meet the requirements of the law. After all, I do not think Government will turn 2,000 families on to the streets.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is aware that hundreds of families are living in unauthorised houses, and for humanitarian reasons, the Government has not evicted these people from such unauthorised buildings. However, the Government has been looking into the possibility of legislation to control the building of such unauthorised huts. In considering such legislation, we have also thought of a possible scheme that will meet the processes of law as well as the welfare of the people.

(In Mandarin): May I ask the Minister for National Development whether he is aware that the P.A.P. has built branch premises that are not according to the law?

I challenge the Member who has asked that question to prove that it is unauthorised.

asked the Minister for National Development what consideration has been given to the request of the residents of the Housing and Development Board flats at Kallang for increasing the number of lights in the common corridors of these flats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Housing and Development Board has given consideration to the matter of lighting in the common corridors of flats since the Member for Mountbatten questioned it sometime last year. They are satisfied that the standard of lighting in the common corridors is adequate and comparable with the standards maintained in the Board's other estates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Minister or his officers have actually visited the Kallang Flats to investigate the justification of the complaints. I admit that the flats are all differently built, and in some areas it can be said that the lighting is sufficient. But there are blocks where the lighting is so bad that it is very easy to fall over unexpected steps which exist in some of the flats. I myself have experienced it. So I wonder whether the Minister or his officers have visited such flats, and, if not, whether the Minister would send officers to investigate the different types of blocks before deciding not to reconsider the complaints.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very odd for the Member to say such things, because on the last occasion when she brought up this matter of lighting, I asked her to indicate to me which of the different blocks had such a difficult problem. In fact, she said she would indicate to me where these buildings were. I am not saying that the Housing Board has not done its duty as far as investigating the lighting of such buildings in Kallang is concerned, but I have already indicated to them that the Member for Mountbatten was concerned about this problem. They have reported that they are satisfied. At any rate, if the Member for Mountbatten could communicate with me about specific cases, I will definitely look into them.

asked the Minister for National Development whether he is aware that at the Housing and Development Board flats at Kallang some refuse chutes are without covers and the refuse containers at the bottom of the chutes are full of big holes, and what steps are proposed to be taken in the matter.

As far as I am aware, the Housing and Development Board has been efficient in the management of its housing estates. The officials of the Board make regular inspections of the 200 refuse chutes and 599 refuse containers in the Kallang estate. During the past six months the Board has replaced 18 chute covers and 200 containers, which were either stolen or damaged.

Mr Speaker, Sir, apart from the complaint that is already in the question - I will not waste your time repeating it - I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the position has now worsened to such an extent that because of the strike the rubbish now in these chutes has reached the third floor, and something must be done before an epidemic starts.

No doubt the hon. Member will write to the Ministry and ask it to look into the matter.

6.59 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to declare and define the privileges, immunities and powers of the Legislative Assembly and of the Speaker, members and committees thereof, to regulate the conduct of members and other persons in connection with the proceedings thereof, to give protection to persons employed in the publication of the reports and other papers of the Legislative Assembly and for purposes incidental to or connected with the matters aforesaid." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir.

Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of this 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. 7.01 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill, when it becomes law, will replace the existing Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, 1955. It seeks to declare and define the privileges, immunities and powers of the Legislative Assembly and of its Members. Section 59 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, provides that: `It shall be lawful, by law enacted under this Order, to determine and regulate the privileges, immunities and powers of the Assembly and its Members, but no such privileges, immunities or powers shall exceed those of the Commons' House of Parliament in the United Kingdom or of the Members thereof.' Clause 3 of the Bill, therefore, states the general principle upon which it has been drafted. The House of Commons has the right to be the sole judge of the lawfulness of its own proceedings. This right is provided for in section 48, subsection (1) of the Singapore (Constitu tion) Order in Council, 1958, which gives power to the Assembly to make, amend and revoke Standing Orders for the regulation and conduct of its own proceedings and the despatch of business. Clause 5, sub-clause (2) of the Bill takes the matter further, providing as it .does for exemption of any person from liability for any act done under the authority of the Assembly. Clause 4 of the Bill also, inter alia, provides that the proceedings in the Assembly shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any court, commission of inquiry, tribunal or any other place whatsoever out of the Assembly. The privilege of freedom of speech in the House of Commons is absolute, and any attempt to obstruct or impede any Member in the exercise of this privilege, for example, any intimidation of Members or molestation of Members on account of their conduct in Parliament is a breach of privilege. This privilege is specifically provided for in clause 4 and clause 5, sub-clause (1) of the Bill. At the same time, it is the duty of each Member to refrain from any course of action prejudicial to the privilege which he enjoys. The privilege of freedom of speech does not confer on any Member unrestrained licence of speech in the House. He remains accountable to the House itself for words spoken in debate. Clauses 20 and 21 of the Bill, therefore, seek to give power to the Assembly to proceed with cases of contempt and punish where contempt, dishonourable conduct and abuse of privilege have been proved. The House of Commons has the right to punish its own Members for contempt (including a breach of privilege), abuse of privilege (especially an abuse of the privilege of freedom of speech) and dishonourable conduct, as for example, the corrupt acceptance of payment for disclosure of information about matters to be proceeded within the House obtained from other Members under the obligation of secrecy. In the House of Commons, the punishment which may be meted out for breaches of privilege or contempt is commitment, that is, imprisonment, expulsion of Members, suspension of Members, fines and reprimands. However, it is not proposed in this Bill that the power of commitment should be given to the Assembly. If an offender is to be deprived of his liberty, it should be by order of a court of law. Similarly, it is not proposed to give the Assembly power to expel its Members. Clause 11 of the Bill, therefore, provides that the Assembly shall have no power to commit any person to prison or to expel any Member from the Assembly. However, Part V of the Bill lists out the offences under which the State Advocate-General can institute criminal proceedings. The power to suspend a Member is provided for in clause 20 of the Bill. Power is also given in clause 22 of the Bill for punishment in one session or in one Assembly of offences which have been committed in another. This clause also provides that where the Assembly considers that an offender has not been punished or not been sufficiently punished in one session or in the Assembly by reason of the early ending of a session, he may again be dealt with in the next session or Assembly until the House is satisfied. The power to impose fines is provided for in clause 20 of the Bill. It is proposed that the fine imposed be treated as a debt due to the Government, and power is given in clause 23 of the Bill for the State Advocate-General to sue for and recover the fine. The power to reprimand and admonish is provided for in clause 20 of the Bill. The House of Commons has the power to require the attendance of wit nesses. This is specifically provided for in clauses 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Bill. Power to secure the attendance of persons on matters of privilege is specifically provided for in clauses 12, 13, 24 and 25 of the Bill. Finally, the power to order and issue a warrant for the arrest of persons guilty of contempt and breach of privilege is specifically provided for in clauses 26 and 27 of the Bill. I would like to inform Members of the House that it was the intention of the Government to introduce this Bill in the last session of the Assembly. However, it was to give time to Mr Speaker to study precedents elsewhere and to discuss with the Fourth Clerk of the House of Commons when he was in London for the C.P.A. Conference during the months of September and October that the introduction of this Bill was deferred. This Bill is a non-political Bill, and that was why you, Mr Speaker, was consulted on this Bill. The provisions of this Bill apply to all Members of the Assembly. It has been drafted not from the view-point of party politics, but from the necessity to define clearly the rights and privileges of Members and of the Assembly as a whole, and to ensure that the proceedings in the House be conducted with orderliness and with dignity. When proceedings in Parliament or in the Assembly are reduced to mud-slinging and a free-for-all affair, then the practice of parliamentary democracy will be in danger. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to you, Mr Speaker, for your considerable assistance in the drafting of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard that you have already cast your vigilant eye over this Bill, we feel more satisfied that somebody has checked the possible twists and turns of the P.A.P. We know that the P.A.P. is quite capable of such things, and we are very happy, Sir, that you have discharged your duty in the interests of all of us. We realised that this Bill is not a political Bill; that the provisions apply to each and every one of us. But on principle, we do not agree to the haste with which the P.A.P. is trying to rush this Bill through. Anything done in haste cannot possibly have the best thinking given to the subject. And we remember, Sir, how the rushing through of Bills during the 1959 and 1960 sessions had led to innumerable amendments which had to be introduced in this Chamber later on. Just on that alone I am sure we would not like to rush this Bill through. Despite this we would not mind allowing this Bill to go through quickly, but for the fact that the P.A.P. has not been doing things in the proper way all these months. Just for instance, Sir, even the Order Paper of this sitting was sent to us only on the last day.

Order. I do not think the hon. Member for Queenstown perhaps appreciates who prepares the Order Paper and under what Standing Order. The responsibility for issuing an Order Paper lies with the Clerk, and he tries his very best to try and get it out as fast as possible. The delay, I think - I did inquire about the delay in regard to this particular Order Paper - was really in the printing, mainly because 58 questions are being asked. I do not think it is proper to say that it is the P.A.P. or the Government benches that are responsible for the Order Paper.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I apologise. But there are still other things. For example, on the day before the sitting, the Government suddenly pounced two new motions on us.

Order. I think I must stop this line on the Second Reading of this Bill. All that the hon. Member is entitled to do is to protest that this Bill is being taken through all its stages today. But I do not think he is in order if he tries to introduce into his statement alleged breaches by the Government benches on other occasions.

If the Government is sincere in asking for constructive criticism from the opposition, and if the Leader of the House is sincere when talking about parliamentary democracy, as he has just mentioned, then surely, Sir, proper time should be given to the Opposition to study the Bill. As it is, I do not think any of us really had sufficient time to go through the Bill properly. Under those circumstances, do you not think, Sir, it would be much better for the Government to send the Bill to Select Committee and make sure that all the possible mistakes are corrected 'and all the best thinking is given to the Bill? In addition, in the Bill itself, there are quite a number of points as regards definitions which are all very vague - words like dishonourable conduct, insult and menace. Why cannot some effort be made at definition? At least we would then know where we would transgress and where we would go wrong. As it is, none of us can be very sure. Under those circumstances, Sir, just on principle alone, we would recommend that the Bill be sent to Select Committee. 7.16 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Bill is a grand collection of punitive -provisions against Assemblymen who are charged by the Assembly or the Committee of Privileges for having committed certain offences against the Assembly. Sir, the Bill, as it stands now, is a great blow to our democratic system and will henceforth hamper freedom of speech and debate in this Assembly. There are many objectionable provisions in the Bill despite the short time we have been given to study it. The Government has refused the request of many Members of the Opposition to refer the Bill to a Select Committee for careful consideration. During the past one year, since the suspension moved a year ago, the Government has had a year to draft and study all the implications and ramifications of such a Bill. But the Opposition Members were only given a few days to study such an important Bill. Sir, despite our request, the Government is determined to steamroller such a Bill which will affect all Members of this Assembly. Sir, it is important that in such a Bill where Assemblymen, members of the public and the Press are involved, time should be given for the parties concerned to make representations to a Select Committee. I cannot see where is the urgency of such a Bill. In my view, there are more pressing problems in the country which require the urgent attention of Government than passing such a Bill. I agree with the Leader of the House just now that such a Bill should not be a political Bill. Such a Bill, Sir, should not be a controversial Bill. Such a Bill should get the unanimous assent of all Members of this Assembly. Such a Bill will lose the effect of upholding its avowed policy which is, as has been said, to uphold the dignity and prestige of the House. Sir, the Government should give up all attempts to steamroller such a Bill. It is very well for the Leader of the House to say that we are following the House of Commons, but we know very well that there are certain rules and conventions which bind the conduct of the. House of Commons. If I may say so, we are just like an infant, whereas the House of Commons is like our great-grandfather. The Bill before us has certain provisions which look attractive. For instance, Part IV starts with a very beautiful clause: `The Assembly shall have no power to commit any person to prison, nor shall the Assembly have power to expel any member from the Assembly.' But one should read clause 20 - the punitive provisions - where it has been said: '20.-

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we must express our angry and strong feelings and protest against the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Bill tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister. After studying this Bill, we have come to know that it is not the motive and intention of this Bill to let Members of the House enjoy freedom of speech. On the contrary, it is the leadership of the P.A.P. that is making use of their power to deprive Opposition Members of their freedom of speech in the Assembly. Therefore, this Bill does not aim at upholding the dignity of parliamentary democracy. On the contrary, it is a great departure from the spirit of democracy. We all know that the system of parliamentary democracy has come from England. Therefore, in England this system of parliamentary democracy has a long standing. The people of England have full confidence in the system of parliamentary democracy, because no matter which Party is in power, the spirit of parliamentary democracy is always maintained and upheld. Whether inside or outside the Parliament, the people have the right to enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of publication, and freedom of assembly. If the people are now satisfied with the policies of the Government, then no matter who they are - whether they are individuals or political parties or organisations of the people - the Party in power invariably allows them to hold mass rallies where they can attack and criticise the policies of the Government and publish their views against the Government in the papers. They have the privilege to enjoy the fruits of the basic principle of democracy. Therefore, the people's representatives in Parliament have greater freedom and they have no restriction whatsoever or run the risk of being prosecuted or suspended. They can freely - and very freely indeed - express the opinions of the people. Therefore,parliamentary democracy has gone through so many years in England. This only goes to prove that the people have the full right to enjoy the fruits of parliamentary democracy. In the organisation of the Legislative Assembly which is constituted in accordance with the spirit of parliamentary democracy, the representatives of the people should have the right to enjoy democracy. The contents and the meaning of democracy are that the people should have the right to organise themselves, to freedom of speech, freedom of publication, and freedom of assembly. Now the people of Singapore have no right to such freedom, such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. For example, the Barisan Sosialis' application for a mass rally had been turned down. A Branch of the Barisan Sosialis held a meeting and they had been restricted. Our comrades, Dr Lee and Ong Chang Sam, have been charged in court as a result of -

Order. Could the hon. Member let me know how that is relevant to the Bill? We are talking about privileges in the Assembly.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, this is relevant to the Bill because I am just quoting an example which is relevant to the contents of the Bill.

Order. I cannot understand how comrades of the Barisan Sosialis being prosecuted in court has anything to do with this Bill. Let us be relevant.

(In Mandarin): Where is the freedom of speech? Fur thermore, if the people of Singapore were to go strongly against the Government, then they would be confronted with detention under the P.P.S.O.; but we are not afraid of the P.P.S.O. when we struggle for the interests of the people.

Order. I would like to know how the P.P.S.O. comes into the Privileges Bill. I cannot find any reference there to the P.P.S.O.

(In Mandarin): But we know that the Party in power want to make use of this Bill in order to prevent us from disclosing the ins and outs of the P.A.P. Government and expressing the views of the people. In order to hide their own ugly facts, the P.A.P. Government have to amend this Bill in order to restrict us in our freedom of speech. There is a provision in the Bill - clause 20 - which reads: '(1) For any dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt, on the part of a member, the Assembly may -

On a point of order. Mr Speaker, we are debating the principles of this Bill. I do not see how what has been .said by the Member for Pasir Panjang is relevant to this Bill.

I am afraid I was busy doing something else when the Member for Pasir Panjang was speaking his last two sentences. I really do not know what the point of order is. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister will let me know what was said.

The Member for Pasir Panjang has been rambling about Africa.

I think what the Member for Pasir Panjang said was that there was similar legislation in Africa. I may be wrong. But that is the impression I got: that there was similar legislation in Africa and, therefore, because of that, this is a colonial Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, you have already given the answer to his question. Therefore, in order to uphold the system of one man one vote, we had better not pass this Bill in a hurry. In the meantime, for the sake of maintaining parliamentary democracy and the spirit thereof, and to uphold the dignity of the Assembly, I agree with the Member for Queenstown when he suggested that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the survival of democracy as represented in this Chamber depended upon the speakers opposite, I would have given up the ghost a long time ago.

Go ahead!

Sir, to hear from them, and in particular the last speaker who rattled out a speech from script, talk about democracy, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, the rights of man, the tyrannical powers of colonial government which no doubt we in this Assembly are aiding and abetting, leaves me with a sour taste. If we are to fight this according to Queensberry rules, according to the quintessence of the rules of debate as you, Mr Speaker, Sir, have been able to refine after your sojourn at the C.P.A. Conference in London, your many consultations and your no doubt delightful hours spent pouring over the definitions of words and phrases, is all a mockery because it is colonial, having come from Africa, then I say let us go back to first principles. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has been introduced on a Certificate of Urgency as a result of an albeit casual conversation between you and me on the occasion of the ceremonial opening of this Assembly. When I mentioned to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that your task in this Session would be somewhat more hectic than in the last, since the warriors of the various Indian tribes have foregathered, the drums are beating and the smoke is -

Yoo-hoo-hoo -

Order. I think the hon. Member for Anson must realise that behaviour of that nature is grossly disorderly, and I emphasise the word "grossly".

Mr Speaker, my apologies to you, but we were referred to as Indian tribes.

Order. I will have no levity in this matter. I have ruled that making unseemly noises of that nature is grossly disorderly, and the hon. Member should just apologise and say nothing more.

Sir, -

Order. I want an apology.

With apologies, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Sir, it was really as a result of this conversation in which you felt that you should have the powers in order fairly to maintain discipline and conduct in this Assembly before the fun and games begin, particularly with more charges of nepotism coming in the future motion to be debated, that we have tabled this Certificate of Urgency. But on behalf of my colleagues and myself, let me say that having grown up in the somewhat rough and sometimes rugged school of politics, we are quite prepared either for boxing under Queensberry rules or boxing Siamese style. But as I have said to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, being non-Communist does not mean one gets kicked in one's abdomen and succumbs. One often retaliates if for no other reason than sheer self-defence. I think I have made my intentions quite clear with my opening remark and that of my colleague, namely, that we have no desire to rush this Bill through at all. It was really in order to allow the referee to have sufficient protection for himself, as otherwise in an all-in wrestling bout the referee, being the least powerful of the contestants in the ring, finds himself thrown out of the ring. I would say, therefore, that since the three Members of the Opposition who have spoken have chosen to make it a party political issue - that, in fact, we are trying to shield ourselves and our fair name, unjustly acquired because we have done wicked deeds, by the provisions of this Bill which we intend to steamroller through, I say: let it go to Select Committee.

Hear, hear!

Let us hear the Member for Queenstown. Let him spend as many hours, Sir, as you have. Let the poor Member for Pasir Panjang start translating the provisions of the Bill. Let his ghost writer translate some 15 pages of legal erudition for his delectation and suggest improvements. I say: let us be done with all this mock defence of parliamentary democracy by people who would be the first to destroy it. It is as if they are going to spend time trying to understand the mechanics of it. They are out to wreck it. Let us not make any bones about it. You, Mr Speaker, are left with the professional task of trying to make this machine work. We have volunteered to try and help you make it work. I say to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I say it publicly: if you feel you are inadequately equipped as a result of inadequacies in the last Ordinance and the present Bill, we will, if you suggest, make these provisions retrospective and include a clause on it, because it can go to Select Committee for three months.

Hear, hear!

Well, I have the warm support of the Member for Anson who no doubt sees the legal point, and often - although I differ from him on so many things - we see legal points together quite easily. So be it. But in the process of refining, I say to them, particularly my former Parliamentary Secretary, when it comes to debating motion No. 9 on the Order Paper about nepotism, understand that any charge made in this Chamber, notwithstanding the Legislative Assembly Privileges Bill, can be repeated on oath in a Commission of Inquiry and in court. We will face up to any allegation of any kind from anybody. We fear no -

Order. I think the Hon. the Prime Minister has made his point there, and I do not think that is quite relevant to the Bill itself.

Strictly, Mr Speaker, Sir, no. But as you know, as a result of our conversation, this is what perhaps you fear might lead to a recrudescence of the unseemly conduct in this Chamber. It was in the hope - now it turns out to be purely pious - of not having charges wildly thrown and unsubstantiated that we had put forward this Bill. But I say: if it is to be Siamese boxing, then so be it. Let this Bill go to Select Committee, and let it be retrospective if you will, Mr Speaker. Let us play Queensberry rules if they wish, Siamese rules if they must.

Do I understand then that the Government are willing to agree to the Bill going to Select Committee?

Yes, that is quite so.

Thank you. In that case, that might affect the number of speakers. We have only five minutes.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very happy indeed to receive that assurance from the Prime Minister, and to scrap a speech that I have prepared which was directed specifically to that issue. I can assure the Prime Minister, being an Opposition Party of only one, that in so far as I can assess the feelings of hon. Members on this side of the House, there is no real objection in any shape or form to the principle of the Bill. Many of us feel somewhat strongly, I with them, Sir, that we are seeking far too big a stake. But that is a matter, Sir, which we can well iron out in Select Committee. What has not been noticed, Sir, and perhaps we should recognise it, is this - we have been speaking about the privileges of Members - that there are the public, there is the Press. They are not aware that in this Bill they could be sentenced to two years' imprisonment and a $5,000 fine for any misdemeanour, for example, disobeying the Speaker's ruling. It is only fair, Sir, that the Press and the public and the people of Singapore who have returned us to this Assembly to discharge our responsibilities should have an opportunity to study this Bill. And I am very glad indeed that the Prime Minister recognises that. Sir, he has spoken of your difficulties. I seem to be the one in a very short period to have called your wrath upon my head, Sir, and I would say this: that in so far as I am concerned, despite my ebullience which has met with your displeasure, I trust you can always count on my very sincere co-operation and support for maintaining the dignity of this House. I am very happy indeed, Sir, to be able to say that I shall vote without question on the Second Reading of this Bill, reserving my criticisms on detail for the Select Committee.

Order. The time is now two minutes to eight and I do not know whether hon. Members will assent to this item being disposed of after eight. If that is so, then I need a motion from the Leader of the House - with the assent, of course, of hon. Members - that, notwithstanding Standing Orders, the proceedings of this item of business be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that that motion be made? Any dissenting voice? No dissenting voice. Dr Toh.

7.59 p.m. Resolved, "That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the proceedings on this item of business be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1."[Dr Toh Chin Chye].

8.00 p.m. Debate resumed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, although the Deputy Prime Minister has said that this Bill was originally intended to be brought up at the last Session, the Prime Minister has admitted, without being asked, that this Bill has been brought up and intended to be passed in a hurry because the Member for Anson and I desire to move a motion in this House regarding political nepotism of the Government. This shows that the tabling of this Bill aims neither at giving more freedom of speech to Members, nor a greater sense of security. It is actually meant to protect the Party in power. Mr Speaker, Sir, I should point out at this juncture that the whole aim of this Bill is to maintain the dignity of the House. I think that any steps taken to protect and maintain the interests of the Members of the Assembly will not be objected to by Members of the Op. position. But the question is whether this Bill, if passed in a hurry, will give some Members the feeling that, instead of protecting their interests, it gives rise to a sense of insecurity. If that is the case, then the Bill will not achieve its object. I feel that such a Bill to protect Members of the House must satisfy every Member so that everyone of us will agree to it. Here, I would like to say that this artificial method to uphold the dignity of parliamentary democracy is unnecessary, because the original Bill, which was passed in 1955, already provides adequate protection for the interests and dignity of this House. Now, in the spirit of the present Bill, the Assembly is asked to judge Members of the Assembly itself as to whether the speeches they make are restrained or just delivered anyhow and at random. I think that to judge a Member of the House is definitely not in the interests of the dignity of the Member himself. If we think further that the Member has been elected by the people to the Assembly where he can make his speeches, then will he tell lies in this House to smear other people? If he does this, then what will be the impression of the people of his constituency? I say that the electorate themselves will suitably be the judges. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that as our Prime Minister is a legal expert, surely he knows all points of law. And if members of his Government make mistakes., then he will try to look for loopholes in the law in order to cover them up. But Members on the Opposition are quite lacking in legal knowledge, because there were no opportunities for them to study law. And so they will not be able to bring evidence, as could the Prime Minister. Therefore, they will not be able to disclose abnormal things. If Members of the House, especially those in the Opposition, can bring up some legitimate doubts, although they cannot find legal evidence, then they should be given the right of freedom of speech to express them, because we are just be ginning to practise parliamentary democracy. We must let Members of this House have more freedom to express their views. If I say, "I have some doubts regarding a Minister and Members of the Government, and I have grounds for these doubts, and I will bring them up in this House", then is it not right that, with the passing of this Bill, everything must have legal standing and be supported by evidence, without which it will be taken as a smear and mud-slinging? And in this case I will be penalised for my doubts and they will be taken as an insult to Members of the House. Therefore, I feel that in the present circumstances when we are practising parliamentary democracy, Members of this House, especially those in the Opposition, should be given more freedom of speech. Apart from this, there is one point which is more important. As there is not so much freedom of speech outside this Assembly, Members of this House should be given more freedom of speech in the House in order to make up for such a lack of freedom of speech. In short, to depend on this Bill to uphold the dignity of this House is not an ideal way of doing things. The main thing is that the maintenance of dignity of the Parliament should depend on the Government itself, which should find a brighter future for its people. If the Government, on greater policies, sell out the interests of the people and the country itself -

Order. I do not want this debate to go round wandering into the policies of the Government. We are now debating the Privileges Bill which affects Assemblymen. What happens outside, I think, does not come into this Bill at all.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I do not intend, and did not mean, to discuss in detail the policies of the Government. What I mean to say is that if the policies of the Government do not get on well with the people, then this Bill will not bring dignity to the Assembly. By passing this Bill, the Government hopes to uphold the dignity of this House. But if the people do. not understand the dignity of a nation or country, or uphold such dignity, then the Government should not depend on this Bill alone to uphold the dignity of the Assembly. I welcome the statement of the Prime Minister that this Bill will be referred to a Select Committee for its consideration. I feel that that is a plausible way of doing things on the part of the Prime Minister. I hope that in future the Government will not pass such a Bill right through at one sitting.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister in moving the Second Reading of the Bill did not give reasons why the Bill should be carried through all its stages at this sitting. But the Hon. the Prime Minister was stirred into rising on his feet and replying to the attacks that have been made by his ex-comrades. He said that the Government was prepared to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. But when he conceded that, I must point out to him the fact that he had said he was prepared to fight according to Queensberry rules or Siamese rules shows that there is already a tension on that side of the House and this side of the House. Sir, I remember last year, the time when the Member for Hong Lim was indulging in his attacks against the Government. Members of the Barisan Sosialis were on that side of the House. They were then so roused that each and every one of them stood up and attacked the hon. Member for Hong Lim for such conduct which they de scribed then as dishonourable. Sir, all I can say is that people who are on this side and who came from that side might adopt the same kind of training when they now know that the gloves are off - fight to the death. Queensberry rules or Siamese rules - and both sides are waiting to have that fight. But we, Sir, who happen to be on the Front Bench - and you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for whom I have every sympathy because in the days to come these sittings may be very protracted - we are going to be treated to a number of exchanges between ex-comrades on what they did, what they did not do. and for all we know, there might even be pertain confessions from those who left the P.A.P. in reply to the ugly confessions of the Prime Minister in his radio broadcasts. I hope we will not be treated to that kind of confessions which, in a way, are not helpful and beneficial to the interests of the people and do not uphold the dignity of this House. We support the principle of the Bill. We say that the dignity of the House must be upheld at any price. And we who are proud to be called honourable men and women of this Assembly must impose upon ourselves a certain code of conduct - An hon. Member: Discipline!

And that code of conduct and discipline is in this Bill. The Member for Queenstown said he supported the Bill in principle. But the other speakers in the Barisan Sosialis seem to think that this Bill is all wrong, that it is an imposition on the freedom of speech. I do not know, but perhaps they do not have the time to consult among themselves as to what they should do and what they should not do. That is all beside the point, Sir. We were treated to a sad display of conduct that did not bring credit to this House and to each and every one of us who were here last Session. Some of us felt very, very unhappy that hon. Members of the Assembly could forget themselves, particularly those who belong to the same Party, and could go at one another's throats, calling one another names. Sir, I am glad that the Prime Minister has said that the Government will agree to referring the Bill to a Select Committee. That, I hope, will take away the sting of unjust criticism that there was an intention to rush the Bill through all its stages. I can understand why it is necessary that this Bill should be carried through all its stages because of what may happen and what is going to happen in the next few days.

I trust the Member is not intimidating the Speaker!

Sir, since the Prime Minister has said that the Govern ment is referring the Bill to a Select Committee, I hope this House will not be treated to a display of rhetoric from ex-comrades who find that this is the time to go to town and hit at the 26 Members who now remain in the P.A.P. camp.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in order that other Members on this side of the Assembly do not get confused over the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on this Bill, perhaps it would be in order for me here to say that we support the principle of this Bill. But, Sir, it does not mean that if one supports the principle of a certain principle, then all the finer details of that principle must necessarily be agreed to. Let us look at the Bill, Sir. A very nice Bill. It confers upon all of us here privileges and immunities. Beautiful words in clause 4. But, Sir, let us turn to clause 20 of the Bill, "Punitive powers of Assembly" - 'For any dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt, on the part of a member ...' -

On a point of order. Sir, I thought we have already agreed that the Bill should go to Select Committee. If it is not a question of major principle, because the hon. Member has already said he agrees to the principle, but it is a matter of detail he is squabbling about, then by all means let him raise it in Select Committee. It is twenty past eight, Sir.

I was just waiting to hear what the Member for Nee Soon was going to say. I would suggest that these matters of detail could be touched upon in Select Committee. In fact, they have already been mentioned by previous speakers and there is a danger of tedious repetition. It is not the speaker being tedious, but the repetition might be tedious. If there are any details which the hon. Member wishes to raise, I take it there will be a Member of the Barisan Sosialis in the Select Committee, and that Member in Select Committee would, I am sure, urge those details.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I bow to your decision. I would like to say that it is not a small detail. It is something which I feel concerns the principle of the Bill itself.

You oppose the principle?

No, we do not oppose the principle but certain parts of it. Mr Speaker, Sir, could I have uninterrupted time? "Dishonourable conduct", Sir, is not defined, and that is very dangerous. If we were to cast our memory back to the days not so long ago, one of the Members over this side of the House was guilty, according to the consensus of opinion of the House then, of dishonourable conduct. Since "dishonourable conduct" had not been defined, it would be defined by the House. And since the Government has a majority in the House, I leave it to you, Sir, to say whether this is a matter of principle or detail. I think it is quite important.

Order. The hon. Member has invited the Speaker to say whe ther it is a matter of principle or detail. I say it is a matter of detail.

Thank you, Sir, for your legal advice. Not being a lawyer, it is not possible for me to understand the niceties of legal interpretation. There are certain parts of the Bill which provide for legal action to be taken. For instance, if a Member tables an untrue document or says something untrue in this Assembly, it might very well be that he might have meant well when he said such things, but it might consequently be found that they were not very true. If you will bear with me, Sir, the practice of parliamentary democracy, especially with benches on different sides, implies that the Opposition Members must always keep an alert eye on the Government. If at any time a Member of the Opposition should smell a rat in the Government it is up to him to use his very long nose to smell out and to smoke out that rat. Sometimes hints given to him may be true and well-founded but sometimes not necessarily so, because we on this side of the Assembly do not have access to information that is available to Members of the Government. It is, therefore, on this principle that the Bill should be very carefully studied.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, may I sympathise with the Member for Cairnhill for being in the position where he is now -facing the Opposition, and therefore, knowing very well what is going on. But he is sandwiched in between Members who claim that they do not know what honourable or dishonourable conduct is. The impression is given that this Privileges Bill is designed to curtail freedom of speech. It is only fair that I should at least give an indication of what it really seeks to do. For example - among offences - it says that it will be an offence to threaten or send a threatening letter to the Speaker, or publish any statement, whether in writing or otherwise, which falsely or scandalously defames, which reflects on the character of the Speaker or any Member touching on his conduct in the Assembly, and so on. The general impression given in some of the speeches made by Members of the Barisan Sosialis is that this Bill seeks to curtail freedom of speech. In fact, as far as I know, since we have been here for a couple of days, not one of the Members in this Assembly has felt constrained to limit what he has to say because of fear that the Government with its powers might curb him or otherwise deal with him.

The Bill is not passed yet.

The Member for Upper Serangoon has suggested that he does not know what honourable or dishonourable conduct is, or what truth or falsehood is. But I think most of us in this Assembly can, by and large, determine what is truth and what is falsehood. Therefore, in passing this Bill, we are only ensuring that the normal standards of honourable conduct, the normal standards of what is true or false are observed in this Assembly. If certain Members feel that they would be somehow curbed or restrained in this respect, I think that is a matter which they can bring up before the Select Committee, where they can define what their standards of honour, truth and falsehood are.

Dr Toh, in reply?

Mr Speaker, it is an irony that sometime early this year, 13 Members from the Barisan Sosialis were sitting on this side of the House. At that time they knew what was the meaning of dishonourable conduct. In fact, they did agree that the Member for Hong Lim had committed a breach of privilege. Now, the Member for Queenstown has led 12 of his other colleagues to a snake dance, twisting and turning round over to the other side -

Order. I do not think all this is relevant to the Bill itself. Let us get down to brass tacks, shall we?

Let me proceed then, Mr Speaker. Members of the House will remember that the Member for Hong Lim had to face a Commission of Inquiry sometime in June of this year, if my memory is correct. He faced a Judge from the High Court, and the verdict of the Judge was that the Member for Hong Lim had told lies.

Order. I am wondering whether this is all relevant to the Bill. I cannot see any relevance at all. This refers to what has happened in the past. We are now legislating, I hope, for the future.

Actually, Mr Speaker, it is because we are legislating for the future that we have to look up precedents in the past. There was one particular point which the Member for Hong Lim brought up and which the Member for Pasir Panjang has also brought up, namely, that one of the punishments for breach of privilege, a fine of $5,000, as stated in this Bill, was too heavy. But I would like to refer Members of the House a case where the former - Mr David Marshall rose -

Point of order?

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has drawn attention to the fact that on this side of the House, Members were speaking in detail. May I take the liberty, Sir, of asking you whether the matter in respect of which the Deputy Premier is now speaking is not in detail? Could we go home at half-past eight?

I would suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that the line he is taking is completely unnecessary and perhaps irrelevant to the Bill itself, and that he should proceed on a reply which is as short as possible.

Mr Speaker, if you will permit me, I was just going to wind up my argument in answer to the points raised by the other side. It was not a question of detail, but rather a question of principle, as stated by the Member for Nee Soon. And that was the question of the punitive powers which the Assembly has. I was going to refer to a case in which a former Assemblyman, Mr Lim Cher Kheng, was a plaintiff in a libel suit, and he was awarded damages to the extent of $13,000 against a newspaper. That, I think, should answer the doubts raised by Members on the opposite side. However, all I would like to say now, Mr Speaker, is that since we have agreed to refer this Bill for discussion in detail in Select Committee, I would add that, in doing so, it is on the provision that this Bill will be made retrospective from the day it was introduced.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.-[Dr Toh Chin Chye].

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

Friday, 17th November, 1961 Capital Crimes

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of persons between the ages of 18 and 21 convicted of capital crimes for each of the years 1955 to 1960, and for the first ten months of 1961; (b) the number of such persons who the Minister is satisfied were secret society members; (c) the number of such persons who were not secret society members; and (d) the number of such persons who were secret society members and were executed.

The information sought by the Member for Anson is given in the following table:- Jan. to Oct. 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 Total (a) Number of persons between 18 years and 21 years convicted of capital crimes 1 1 - 1 3 - 1 7 (b) Number of (a) who were known Secret Society members 1 1 - 1 3 - 1 7 (c) Number of (a) who were not known to be Secret Society members - - - - - - - -