Hansard, 1962-01-15

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat (Geylang Serai) - from 18th to 26th December, 1961. Mr C. H. Koh (Joo Chiat) - from 8th to 31st January, 1962.

I have to report that I have been informed by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that, on the days stated, he assented to the following Bills:- 21st December, 1961. Private Lotteries (Amendment) Bill. 22nd December, 1961. Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Bill. Sands Quarries Bill.

I have to inform Honourable Members that on the 22nd day of December, 1961, I duly sent a letter to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, containing the Address agreed to by resolution of this Assembly on the 21st day of December, 1961. I received a reply from His Excellency dated the 23rd December, 1961, reading as follows:- `Dear Mr Speaker, I acknowledge receipt of the kind message of the Legislative Assembly which you transmitted to me in your letter of the 22nd December. Yours sincerely, (signed) YUSOF BIN ISHAK YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA.'

Mr David Marshall. The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) rose -

A ministerial statement?

Yes.

A ministerial statement comes after Question time under the Standing Orders.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the Government's intention to recommend the appointment of a Commission to investigate and report on the political aspects of the employment, activities and dismissal of the staff of the People's Association, both paid and voluntary, from its formation up to date, with particular reference to the stoppage of work and dismissal of employees of the Association since 20th July, 1961.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are four Commissions of Inquiry which are being considered. The first is to inquire into the causes of the agitation over the Chinese middle schools' conversion from the 3:3 to the 4:2 system which led in particular to the organisation of an attempted boycott of the first Secondary Certificate Examination in December last year and with particular reference to the Communist cadres behind the scenes who are responsible for it all. The second is to investigate the events which developed into open insubordination and defiance of the authority of the Board of Management of the People's Association by some 130 workers out of 480 workers of the Association and to establish the connection between these persons, their leaders, and leading members of the Barisan Sosialis who had recruited these leaders whilst they were on the Board of Management of the People's Association. The third is the Commission asked for in the motion by the Member for Anson and the Member for Upper Serangoon to which the Government agrees, provided that all statements and allegations made in this Assembly by the two movers of the motion and by any other person who speaks in support of the motion be undertaken to be given in evidence on oath by such persons before the Commission of Inquiry. The fourth is asked for in item 13 of the Order Paper, to inquire into the content and administration of the education policy other than vocational and technical education, including the question of the six-day week. This Commission of Inquiry will, in response to a letter dated the 19th of December from the Member for Anson to the Minister for Education, also include the terms of the Member for Anson's letter, an inquiry into political activities and machinations in primary and secondary schools, the extent thereof, and the persons and organisations responsible therefor. Sir, it will not be possible at any one time to have more than one Judge available to conduct a Commission of Inquiry. It is the Government's intention to proceed with the first Commission of Inquiry as soon as a Judge is available, and then in turn with the other three.

Would the Prime Minister recognise that there is a distinction between what is sought in respect of the People's Association, particularly where it is requested that the Commission inquire into the political aspects of the employment, activities and dismissals, and could the Prime Minister give us an indication as to when these Commissions of Inquiry would be appointed? Would he consider some person other than a Judge in respect of some of them?

Sir, the subjects of the four inquiries are matters where it is more than likely that serious charges of persons and organisations being politically partisan will be made. I think, if the Commission of Inquiry is to have any value at all in commanding respect for its deliberations and for its recommendations, it will be difficult to find persons suitably qualified who are not politically coloured in one way or another other than members of the Bench.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, in the matter of education policy, surely it is not really appropriate or necessary to seek the chairmanship of a High Court Judge. We are rather anxious to ascertain when the Prime Minister considers it possible for the Commissions of Inquiry to start their investigations.

I would agree with the Member for Anson that in the terms of the motion in item 13, it might be possible to have someone other than a member of the judiciary to conduct the inquiry. But since that motion was first introduced, he has written a letter dated the 19th of December to the Minister for Education. I know of the contents of this letter only today after I had drafted the reply to the answer to Question No. 1. The Member for Anson has asked for the first limb in the terms of his motion in item 13. But the second limb-political activities and machinations in primary and secondary schools - if I had used this word "machinations" it might be said that there again we are out to pin the Barisan Sosialis and their comrades down, but this is by a fair and impartial Member of the Opposition. I would hate to have it said that the findings of the Commission are valueless because the member who presided over the Commission was not completely disinterested in every party political sense of the word. I think it will serve a useful purpose to have these machinations brought out into the open.

Can I ask a supplementary question?

Yes.

I am much obliged, Mr Speaker. Would the Prime Minister consider then leaving the first part of that motion to a commission of educationists and public persons, and the second part of the motion to be attached to the terms of reference of the Commission which will be inquiring into the question of the boycott of the Chinese school examinations? Then we would have two separate inquiries into really one political field and one education field.

This is quite a different turn in the presentation of the request for a Commission of Inquiry. If the Member for Anson will write in those terms to the Minister for Education, I am quite sure we will be quite happy to consider breaking up the two terms of reference, one purely on the content of the education and the other on the political activities which can go in with the school boycott.

There is one question which has been asked - the time the Commission will start.

The first Commission, namely, the one on the agitation of school children and the persons responsible for it, my latest information is that the case will be ready for presentation sometime in February. I hope the Judge will be available to commence deliberations in February.

asked the Prime Minister whether water rationing in Singapore, in his estimation, is likely to go beyond March 7th, and whether he will suspend water rationing during the public holidays of Thaipusam, Chinese New Year and Han Raya Puasa.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the opportunity that this question offers me, I will incorporate my ministerial statement in my reply to the Member for Tanglin. The brief reply to his question is -

Order. If it is to he a ministerial statement, the Prime Minister has to wait until after Question time. Do I understand there is to be a ministerial statement? If there is, then the Prime Minister can say that he will answer the question when he makes the ministerial statement.

As you will, Mr Speaker, Sir. I shall then wait my turn at the end of the questions.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the new free-piston generating machinery installed in the St. James Power Station is no longer functioning properly, and what steps will be taken to avoid any danger of a sudden shortage of electricity leading to blackouts and rationing.

Sir, it is not a question of the St. James Power Station no longer functioning properly because the new plant has not yet been put into commission. A tender for the construction of a Free Piston Gas Turbine Generating Plant at the St. James Power Station was accepted by the previous City Council in March 1957 to replace the obsolete and worn out steam plant which was then no longer serviceable. Construction and installation was completed towards the end of 1959, but the City Council has not - I repeat - has not yet taken over the plant as it has not passed the reliability test because of faulty materials and the technical modifications necessary. Defective parts are being replaced by the manufacturers free of charge. The plant is expected to be available for full commission by September 1962. As regards the maintenance of electricity supplies, the Pasir Panjang Power Station Extension Scheme is now in progress and a seventh 25,000 K.W. turbo generator is scheduled for completion in June this year. Furthermore, a new power station to meet the needs of industrial expansion is also being built and a World Bank loan is being sought for this. The consultants for this project are already in Singapore. The first phase of the new station is for plant capable of generating 60 M.W. which is scheduled for commission in 1965. With these developments, it is not expected that there will be any sudden shortage of supply in the future. On the contrary, our total generating plant, once installed, should enable us to meet our expanding needs, including the Jurong Industrial Development project. However, I may add that the failure of the free-piston plant has been a great disappointment. The new plant was intended for peak loads and there have been anxious moments lately on this account during peak periods. It is possible that these may recur again between now and when the extension scheme in Pasir Panjang is ready in June this year. It is doubtful if the City Council should have agreed to install a free-piston plant. They were advised in 1957 that such a plant had not been proved and tested on such a scale and that St. James was to be the biggest of its kind in the world, and the present City Electricity Engineer was opposed to this project. But, however, as I have stated we have not as yet taken over the plant.

Sir, is the difficulty with the St. James Power Station not really one of improper supervision which has led to the present position?

Sir, from time to time, I have been troubled by the faults of what has been going on. In fact, the City Electricity Engineer had been sent to the New Hebrides in order to restore his confidence in the free-piston engine - I was told - not because of the improper supervision but because this was the first time that a free-piston engine was installed on such a scale and not by the original patentees of the free-piston engine. I do not understand the technical intricacies of the term "free-piston", but I am told that it is something quite new. It is a gas turbine and it was developed by the French. In 1957, Mr Chan Kum Chee - I think he was the Chairman of the Public Utilities Sub-Committee - was persuaded, in spite of The views of the City Electricity Engineer, to undertake this project. Tenders were called for to install a free-piston engine although it had never been attempted on such a large scale and the tender was given not to the original French patentees but to an English firm which was going to manufacture under licence. It had sent the best qualified men to supervise and install this machine and there had been an endless amount of trouble since the trial test. The City Electricity Engineer lost confidence in the machine. To restore it, the World Bank team, which was out here at that time studying our request for a World Bank loan for the industrial project we had in mind, recommended - I think the gentleman's name was Monsieur Shereschewsky; the Minister for Finance is not here but I think it was Monsieur Shereschewsky - that the City Electricity Engineer, Mr Fuiczek, be sent to the New Hebrides where they had installed a free-piston engine which works. Well, he has seen that one work. I am told he is quite convinced that given time and the necessary modifications and materials, ours will work and it is hoped that by September 1962 it will work. But it has nothing to do with supervision. It was the best that the firm had available and the pity was that it was not good enough because they did not invent the free-piston engine.

Is it not correct that the work was undertaken sometime in 1958 for the first time when the P.A.P. was in power in the City Council under the guidance of Mayor Ong Eng Guan and the work really started then? If so, could the Prime Minister not inform this House - from the files in his possession he will surely know - that this has resulted from improper supervision rather than from an improper decision of the City Council?

I beg to differ, much as I would like to explain things away in such an easy and facile manner. I think I must be quite fair in saying that I am not suggesting that Mr Chan Kum Chee made an improper decision in giving the tender. All I am saying is that he was advised not to try something new and he went on to try it. The tenders and all were already completed when the P.A.P. came into the City Council in December 1957. The project was one which was already on the cards as far as the City Council which the P.A.P. inherited was concerned.

If the Prime Minister has looked into the files - and I expect he has looked into them - would he not agree with me that it was not Mr Chan Kum Chee who made the decision but that it was the City Council as a whole that made the decision?

I do not dispute that in the ultimate analysis it was the City Council as a whole, but it was he, as the Chairman of the Public Utilities Sub-Committee, who recommended this over the views of the City Electricity Engineer. As it turned out, he was wrong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if only the Prime Minister will look a little deeper into those files he will find that it was done on the recommendation of the then Electrical Engineer. Mr Fuiczek, who is now the present Electrical Engineer, was merely an employee of that Department.

I will have further research done on the files for the benefit of all Members concerned in order that history can do justice and accurately apportion the blame which I am sure the manufacturers shoulder fairly and squarely.

The Prime Minister has said that, as a result of the extensions at Pasir Panjang, the first intake of supply will be in 1965.

No, June 1962.

I beg your pardon.

asked the Minister for Labour to state (a) the total number of workmen as at 30th September, 1961; (b) the total number of unemployed registered by the Labour Department as at 30th September, 1961; (c) the total number of unemployed receiving Public Assistance allowances, and the total amount of such allowances paid out to them, in 1959, 1960 and 1961 respectively; and (d) the total number of registered unemployed who were successfully assisted in finding jobs in 1961 compared with 1960 and 1959.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in answer to (a), the returns showing the number of workmen in employment on 30th September, 1961, are now being processed in the Mechanised Tabulation Section of the Statistics Department and the tabulated figures are not expected until the end of January 1962. In view of this, it is regretted that the figures cannot be made available until then. As regards (b), the record in the Labour Department shows that on 30th September, 1961, 53,028 were actively seeking employment. It must be noted that not all of them are unemployed. Some of them have registered themselves with the hope of finding better employment. As regards (c), the total number of unemployed persons as heads of households receiving public assistance allowances and the total amount paid out to them in 1959, 1960 and 1961 are as follows: 1959 - total number of unemployed 7,264 receiving public assistance total amount of public $3,050,880 assistance paid 1960 - total number of unemployed 7,606 receiving public assistance total amount of public $3,650,880 assistance paid 1961 - total number of unemployed 7,113 receiving public assistance total amount of public $3,414,240 assistance paid As regards (d) , in 1961, the Employment Exchange found jobs for 1,495. In 1959 and 1960, the Exchange found employment for 3,973 registrants and 1,308 registrants respectively.

Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister confirm whether it would be true to say also that there are many unemployed who have not registered?

I think it is very difficult for me to say whether there are unemployed who have not come for registration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Minister assure us that no names registered for employment were dropped out? Or shall I reword the question this way, Sir? Could the Minister assure us that the unemployed who were registered previously were not dropped out from the last total just because they did not seek re-registration?

Mr Speaker, this is what we have got from the Employment Exchange. The official record shows the figure as on 30th September, 1961.

The Minister has not answered the question. The question was whether the Minister can assure the House that those who had registered their names with the Labour Exchange were asked not to re-register.

It is not necessary for those who have already registered to re-register so long as their names are on the record.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he will give reasons why Women Teachers, Principals, Lecturers and Inspectors of Schools are paid less than their male counterparts.

Can we take the next question together?

If it is convenient. Question 6 will be taken together.

asked the Minister for Finance whether equal pay for equal work and parity in terms of service will be extended to all women in the Civil Service.

The reasons, as far as I can make out, are historical. This grade of officers have been paid less than their male counterparts as far as recorded history goes. This period includes, of course, the period of office of the previous Government when the colleagues of the hon. Member were in office. Nothing was done then even to examine whether there was any justification for a perpetuation of this differentiation. The Government received a memorandum last November from the People's Action Party Women's League. The memorandum draws attention not only to the women teachers, principals, lecturers and Inspectors of Schools but to all grades in the civil service. It is under close study in the Ministry of Finance. The examination of the ramifications of this subject has not been completed. I therefore do not wish at this juncture to anticipate what the final outcome will be. All I can say is that the People's Action Party has stated quite clearly that it supports the principle of equality for women.

Hear, hear!

This principle will be implemented to the extent that circumstances and the resources of the State permit. Hon. Members will realise that the implementation of equal pay and parity of treatment for the whole of the civil service amounts to a major administrative and political reform of great significance. The importance of the subject demands that it be treated with due care and deliberation. It is not merely a matter of arguing the merits or demerits of individual grades of officers. We have to study what the effects would be not only within the civil service but in other sectors of the economy. We have also to study precedents in countries which have effected this reform to see just how and how far similar measures can be taken in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that this question has been studied and considered by "men" Governments since 1948. It has been a question of negotiations between the Singapore Teachers Union and the Government since 1948, and the women are beginning to lose confidence in all the studies that the Government has been making. Would the Parliamentary Secretary he kind enough to give us an idea of when he thinks, very roughly, the Government will come to a decision?

I cannot answer that now, Sir.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary conscious that the reasons he has given seem to suggest that it is the desire to bury the subject under the soot of time? If not, would he indicate if there is, in fact, a Committee, or an individual, or a number of individuals, or just nobody studying the issue, but it is being carried benevolently in mind?

There is a Committee, Sir.

Sir, what Committee is that?

It is ministerial responsibility, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance aware that the City Council have, in fact, accepted the equality of status for men and women so far as work and pay are concerned, and have a long time ago implemented that principle?

The question really gives some information to the Parliamentary Secretary. He may or may not know. Therefore, it is out of order on that score. But a supplementary question can, of course, put it in order.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the problem is one of urgency because of the fact that the City Council employees have now been amalgamated into the Government service; and as the City Council have accepted equality in pay, does he say that it will take him years to study this question?

The City Council is a very small institution, and it is difficult to implement this in a matter of a few months or so. It will take some time, Sir.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he will introduce a Bill to amend the Property Tax Ordinance for the purpose of exempting vacant property from property tax.

I have been asked to reply. During the debate on the Second Reading of the Property Tax Bill, the Minister explained the reasons why tax would be levied on vacant property. May I refresh the hon. Member's memory to what he said then? [Hansard, 29th December, 1960, col. 904]: `Today we know that there is a shortage of housing. It is very difficult to get accommodation at reasonable rents. There is no excuse whatsoever for any large number of houses to go vacant for any long period of time. If that happens, it merely means that the landowners are charging too high a rent. This being the case, it is only fair, taking the long-term view of their net income, that they should be taxed during the periods when their property is vacant.' The Minister also said that "where there is a surplus of housing and many houses are vacant, although the rents charged are reasonable ... there would be a case for reconsidering the position." The position today does not differ very much from the time the Property Tax Bill was introduced; just over a year ago. There is, therefore, no reason to exempt vacant property from property tax.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the property tax on vacant property does hinder developers from developing? I have given reasons before and so I shall not waste the time of the House now.

This was dealt with during the debate on the Budget, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all that he said was that he would like to see me in the C.P.A. Room and have a chat over it. Would you take that as an answer to the question, Mr Speaker, Sir?

I am not the Parliamentary Secretary, and I do not know. Mrs Seow, Question No. 8.

asked the Minister for Health and Law why the United Nations Seminar on the Status of Women in Family Law, which was scheduled to be held in Singapore at the end of this month, was cancelled.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Seminar has not been cancelled but will be held in Tokyo in May. The venue of the Seminar was changed by the United Nations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to tell us - we would be obliged if he would - why the United Nations changed the venue when it is almost time to hold it. Time was short; they gave such short notice of a change of venue.

Sir, the United Nations Secretariat was informed that the Singapore Government would not be able to issue entry permits to the delegates from Formosa. Then they decided to change the venue.

asked the Minister for Education whether he is aware that when the schools reopened on 2nd January, 1962, some classes had no teachers and the children were told that a teacher would be available only after two weeks, and whether he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the recruitment of new teachers for the opening of schools each year is a massive annual event. The recruitment of more than 1,300 new teachers for the reopening of the new school year on 2nd January, 1962, was officially begun with advertisements published in the local newspapers calling for applicants on 26th October, 1961. A record number of 11,713 application forms were issued, and 6,542 completed forms were returned. Twenty-three selection boards were then constituted to interview 5,370 candidates. The process of calling up hundreds of those considered suitable, replacing those who have since decided not to accept appointment, getting them to sign the various requisite papers, having them medically examined, and issuing letters of appointment and posting orders, are time-consuming factors. As the Member for Mountbatten is fully aware, all this volume of work was done within two months. But for the devotion and loyalty of the staff of the Ministry and the long hours put in by the Establishment arid Inspectorate staff, principals of schools and lecturers of the Teachers' Training College, I think we should consider ourselves fortunate that only 85 vacancies were left unfilled when the schools reopened on the 2nd of this month. However, by the 10th, only 33 vacancies remained unfilled. Of the 33 unfilled vacancies, eight have been given up to today to accept offers of appointment. Seventeen, now working in other Ministries, are waiting to be released from their present jobs, and another eight to be found who would be willing to be posted to island schools. To ensure that more time could be given to processing of future applicants and to complete full posting of new teachers to schools for the beginning of each school year, it is proposed to advertise in August this year for 1963 recruitment of teachers instead of waiting till October, i.e. two months earlier than was done last year.

asked the Minister for National Development whether he will introduce a Bill for the purpose of (a) protecting and helping occupants of existing unauthorised huts, and (b) controlling the further building of unauthorised huts.

Sir, I do not consider it either feasible or desirable to legislate to protect the occupants of existing unauthorised huts, as to do so would be tantamount to condoning the acts of law-breakers and giving official encouragement to the erection of more unauthorised huts. Sir, I have already mentioned several times in this House, to queries from Members of the Opposition, that Government will take steps to control or regularise unauthorised houses. As a first step, I have already set up a Committee to consider the disposal of mandatory orders which have obtained over the past years in respect of existing unauthorised structures. This Committee is now examining the circumstances of each case and will recommend the action to be taken for the retention or demolition of each unauthorised structure. In the case of an unauthorised structure which cannot be recommended for retention, the occupants will be given a final extension of time to find alternative accommodation before proceeding with demolition. As regards the second part of the question, a Committee of officials has gone into the question of tightening up and providing more stringent legislation for centralised control of unauthorised structures in the future. A Bill will be drafted for this purpose as soon as the Committee has completed its deliberations and submitted its recommendations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that hundreds of unauthorised huts were going up in Kampong Amber at the time of the P.A.P. mayorship? Almost all of them, with the exception of 56, I think, were given numbers as authorised, and it has been said that they were authorised for political reasons. Would the Minister consider looking into the question? And if existing huts, which are not authorised but deserve to be authorised as they conform more to the law than those that have been authorised, would the Minister rectify the position?

Sir, I am leaving the decision of authorisation or regularisation of unauthorised houses all over Singapore to this Review Committee.

Will the Minister indicate whether the Review Committee will hear the occupants and, furthermore, whether he will give consideration to the question of offering alternative sites to persons whose houses have to be demolished?

Sir, what the Member for Anson is asking the Government to do is to give alternative sites to those people who have erected unauthorised structures on lands that do not belong to them. Sir, the Government cannot undertake to do this sort of thing. As regards hearing the occupants, when the Review Committee has advised all the occupants of unauthorised houses, if they have legitimate complaints to make, I am sure their views will be listened to.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, it is admitted that those who erect unauthorised houses are transgressing the law. But this is a matter of humanity in respect of people who have no homes. All I ask is: would the Government consider, if it has land available, offering alternative sites to those whose homes will be demolished?

Mr Speaker, Sir, at this juncture all that I can say is that we will offer alternative accommodation to these people.

Mr Prime Minister, a ministerial statement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to bring the House up to date regarding the position of water supplies. The necessity to ration water is determined by the rainfall and the water stocks in all our reservoirs. In spite of 11.23 inches of rain in December, rainfall for the year 1961 has been below average and our stocks, in spite of partial rationing, are 40 per cent short of total capacity. The rainfall for 1961 amounted to 71.32 inches as against a yearly average over the last 86 years of 95.7 inches, the shortfall being 24.48 inches. The shortfall for 1960 was 34.15 inches, and we are, therefore, starting the year 1962 in only a slightly better position than we did in 1961. The levels and capacity of all our reservoirs are below normal, particularly those in Johore. In order to improve the Johore stocks and to take advantage of the rainfall distribution, more water is now being drawn off from the Singapore reservoirs. However, present total stocks in all the reservoirs are as follows: MacRitchie, shortage 219.6 million Peirce, shortage 101.3 million Seletar, shortage 75.2 million Gunong Pulai, shortage 615 million Pontian, shortage 1,351 million The total capacity of all these five reservoirs is 5,856 million, and we have at the present moment a shortage of 2,362 million. In other words, the present capacity is only 60 per cent of the total capacity. The result is that we have started 1962 with depleted water stocks. It remains to be seen if the remaining period of the current monsoon will bring sufficient rainfall to make up this deficiency. Up to the present, the monsoon has not brought as much rain as we had hoped and expected. I am advised that it would be imprudent to lift rationing altogether as then there would be the danger of having to reintroduce it more severely later in the year. We can better decide on when to stop the rationing when we know our exact position after the North-East Monsoon is over in a few weeks' time. However, since Friday the 5th of January, a less stringent water rationing programme was put into effect by which there is rationing only twice a week in the mornings, instead of three times a week in the mornings and afternoons. The only exception is in Zone 7 because, being an industrial area and including the Harbour Board, it is rationed once a week on Sundays only. If the rain continues for the remainder of the monsoon to fall as heavily as it has fallen in the last few days and our capacities are brought up to normal, we can probably resume full supplies by the end of this month. The practice of discontinuing rationing on public holidays, such as Christmas, will continue for Thaipusam, Chinese New Year, Han Raya Puasa and all the other holidays if rationing is still necessary by then.

Mr Speaker, I do not know whether the Prime Minister is aware that the standpipes are made differently. Some standpipes cannot be conveniently let running. They are made in such a way that unless you press the nob water does not flow. That is good because it ensures no wastage of water. But there are some standpipes where you just turn on the tap and water flows, and if the last man takes the water and does not turn it off, the water runs until some good Samaritan goes and turns it off. This happens in quite a lot of areas in Singapore. Is the Prime Minister aware that this is happening? Would he consider taking steps to see that water is not wasted and that the taps are installed in such a way that water is not wasted by the standpipes?

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a city full of capable and apt, particularly ingenious, people. I have been assured by the people who contrive these mechanical devices that there is almost no conceivable method of manipulation which can be fashioned or modelled which someone cannot, with equal ingenuity, contrive to keep under pressure and water flowing for a small charge. If we spend our time in creating more business for those who make these counter appliances, then I am afraid the problem would still remain unsolved. I think the Member for Mountbatten might like to put this picture in perspective. The consumption from the standpipe is seven million gallons per day, about ten per cent of the total consumption of the whole of the island. Our water shortage last year was something quite out of proportion to the saving that could conceivably have been brought about by preventing wastage. I am not suggesting that there is not one or two million gallons of waste everyday. But I would be grateful if, apart from just vague and broad suggestions, something concrete and positive could be brought to the attention of the Water Engineer. It has been suggested that one decisive method to enforce economy is the coin system. If somebody has got to put a coin into a meter before the water begins to run, then we can be almost certain that there will be somebody to receive every ounce of the water that drips out before the coin runs out. However, I am told - my colleagues and I - that it is an unsocialist practice to sell water. Therefore, the plan is not being proceeded with, if someone can contrive to give consumers of water an incentive to be at the receiving end of the tap to ensure that nothing is wasted, the Water Engineer would be greatly indebted, and, I am quite sure, a suitable commendation would be given and awarded.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to that is the usual question of education. The Government has tried to educate the public by having posters all over the place to tell them not to waste water. Would the Prime Minister consider looking at those posters and consulting the audio-visual aid experts? Sir, any audio-visual aid expert will tell him that the posters are asking people to waste water. I will not go into details, but the posters pyschologically, influence the people to waste water -

Order. The Member for Mountbatten is very fond of entering into a debate at Question time. She is not entitled to do so. If she asks a simple, straightforward supplementary question, I am sure the Prime Minister will try and answer.

May I ask whether the Prime Minister has seen the posters that are meant to educate the public not to waste water, and whether he is satisfied with them?

After hearing the somewhat gruesome explanation of the autosuggestion contained in those pictures, I am quite happy I did not go to the S.P.A.!

Sir, I got the impression from the Prime Minister's statement that until our reservoirs reach their normal capacity, that is to say, they are increased by another 40 per cent, there is no hope of rationing being lifted. Would the Prime Minister agree with me that, on that basis, it would take us at least another three or four years, even so only if there is rainfall greater in extent than there is consumption of water? If that is a correct assumption, how then does the Prime Minister hope to build up his 100 per cent capacity?

As I was saying, every year we fill up the stocks over the monsoon period of November, December, January and sometimes part of February. With the 5,800 million gallons in hand, and the annual rainfall, we are then safely through the whole year without any question of rationing, provided of course nothing catastrophic happens to the rainfall. Last year, 1961, we started off with a shortfall of 34 inches of rain. May I just refer to the exact figure? The shortfall in 1960 was 34.15 inches. We started off the year with about 50 per cent of our water stock. It was in the expectation that the rainfall for the year 1961 would be normal that neither the Water Engineer nor anybody else considered taking any steps at all. But by June, it became obvious that the rainfall was already short for the first half and was likely to continue. We ran into a drought. There was water rationing by August. I could lift it straightaway without any serious difficulty. But we would all be running the risk that if the rain does not come as normal, that means 95.7 inches, the yearly average for 86 years, but is as low as either in 1960 or 1961, then by August we may be in trouble. Whereas if we hold the control on probably by the end of January, if the rains continue in the last few days as they have - the rainfall being sometimes on one day three inches in one continuous fall of 24 hours - then we can safely say that we have done all that human beings can possibly do in such a situation before we open all the taps. I think we shall be reproaching ourselves if we lift it imprudently and at a later stage enforce inconvenience on everybody, and everybody is buying containers, pots, kettles and pails all over again. People have got used to the time of the rationing - the cycle is twice a week now for mornings only - and it is more than likely that if the rains continue as they have, we shall safely do away with rationing for the whole year by the beginning of February. I am not saying that I expect the water stocks to be completely 100 per cent before we lift rationing. But the moment there is an indication that we are not going to run into another drought without reserve, we shall lift it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Prime. Minister took the question of the posters quite lightheartedly, may I remind him that the Ministry of Culture spends a great deal of money on posters to educate the public? Since his attention has been drawn to the fact that the posters do produce the opposite effect, could I ask him to have a look into the matter so that public funds will not be wasted on posters that have the opposite effect to what the Government wishes?

I am troubled to think that I am leaving the hon. Lady under the impression that I have in any way agreed to her suggestion. I have done nothing of the sort. I invite her to bring forward any evidence to prove that the sight of a tap dripping autosuggests to the mind of the looker that he should leave his tap dripping. I think that is a proposition which first needs substantiation before all the logical consequences flow from her argument.

"to amend the Singapore Military Forces Ordinance (Chapter 89 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 14th March, 1962, and to be printed.

"to amend the Diphtheria Immunisation Ordinance, 1961 (No. 6 of 1961)", presented by the Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 14th March, 1962, and to be printed.

"to amend the Minor Offences Ordinance (Chapter 117 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 14th March, 1962, and to be printed. 3.34 p.m.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the absence overseas of the Member for Joo Chiat, I rise to move the motion* standing in our joint names. * The motion reads as follows: That the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee) is guilty of abuse and breach of privilege in that he did on 18th day of December, 1961 in this House wilfully and dishonestly make false and malicious statements of and concerning the Member for Anson (David Marshall), to wit:-

The relevant Standing Order is Standing Order No. 93, paragraph (7) (d) (i), which reads: `Upon a motion complaining of a breach of privilege or affecting the powers and privileges of the Assembly being moved, the same shall stand referred without any question being proposed thereon to the Committee and no further proceedings shall be taken on such motion until the Committee has reported thereon.' I accordingly refer the motion to the Committee of Privileges.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a number of notices of amendments have been received from the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown a few days ago. Officials of my Ministry require time to scrutinize and consider these proposed amendments. I therefore propose under Standing Order No. 23 (1) (b) that the Second Reading of the Bill be taken on the 14th of March, 1962.

The Minister is perfectly entitled to do that under Standing Order 23 (1) (b), the relevant part of which reads: `The Member in charge, however may upon an order of the day being read, name a later sitting day and the Bill or other matter shall thereupon become an order of the day for that day.' Therefore, the Second Reading of the Singapore National Referendum Bill becomes an Order of the Day for the 14th of March.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the purpose of this short Bill is to amend the Criminal Procedure Code to give a commissioned officer of the local forces in Singapore the same power as is at present held by a Queen's commissioned officer in the armed forces, or seconded to the local officers in Singapore, to disperse an unlawful assembly on his own authority when the public security is manifestly endangered by such assembly. At present, under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, whenever it is necessary for the public security that an unlawful assembly should be dispersed and it cannot be otherwise dispersed, except by the use of military forces, the Minister for Home Affairs or a magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or the Deputy Commissioner of Police may require: (a) any commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the British armed forces, subject to the prior consent of the United Kingdom Government to the use of such forces having first been obtained; or (b) any commissioned or non-commissioned officer in any local force in Singapore to disperse such assembly by military force and such officer can then take action to disperse the assembly. But when, the public safety is manifestly endangered by any such assembly and when none of the four authorities mentioned above can be communicated with, only a Queen's commissioned officer, which term does not include a locally commissioned officer, can proceed to disperse such assembly by military force on his own authority. It will, therefore, be seen that there is an anomaly in the present provisions of the Ordinance in that in one set of circumstances only a Queen's commissioned officer can disperse an unlawful assembly, but in another set of circumstances, any officer can do so. Sir, the reason for this anomaly appears to be that when the Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter 132, was enacted in 1955, there were no regular officers of the local forces; nor until 1957 were the volunteer officers liable to be called out to perform internal security duties. In view of the fact that our local forces are now very largely officered by local personnel, it is necessary to remove this anomaly and this is what this Bill seeks to do. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.40 p.m.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment sought is a legitimate and proper one in the circumstance of our having our own military forces, and so far as I am concerned in the Opposition, I support it without question. But I rise to inquire whether there is, in fact, any definition of "local forces" in order to avoid misunderstanding on the subject when we speak of officers of a local force?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the term "local officer" refers to any officer in the Singapore Military Forces.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Ong Pang Boon]. Bill considered in Committee. 3.43 p.m.

The figure "1961" will be amended to read "1962" as a matter of course. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have here the Singapore Military Forces Ordinance and I can find no definition of the term "Local Force". I am quite sure there is no intention to mislead, but I would draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the term "Local Force" could be interpreted as including, say, the Police Force, which he certainly does not seek. I would inquire whether, in the circumstances, he would agree to amending it to "an officer of the Singapore Military Forces".

The proper way to do it is for the hon. Member to move the amendment and the question can be posed, and if the Member is satisfied, he can withdraw.

If it please you, Sir.

Of course, the hon. Member will have to have the assent of Members present because he has not given any notice of the amendment.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, then I formally seek leave of this House to move an amendment to read "or of the Singapore Military Force".

Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be moved? No dissentient voice? The amendment may be moved. Yes, Mr Marshall.

I move, Sir, In page 1, line 9, to leave out "Local", and insert "Singapore Military". Mr Speaker, Sir, it must be obvious now that what I seek is merely to limit it to what I am sure the Minister intends, because from his opening speech on the Second Reading, it was obvious that he did not intend to seek authority for each and every member of the Police Force or any other force that this territory may have to have these considerable powers. He merely sought, quite thoughtfully, to place the officers of the Singapore Military Forces on the same basis as Her Majesty's officers, and in that I fully support him. The amendment is merely to clarify and to give precision to what is intended.

The amendment is accepted. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.49 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that the Bill be proceeded with. My Parliamentary Secretary will move the Second Reading.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As early as 1954, a World Bank Mission recommended the introduction of anti-dumping legislation to protect industry in Singapore against unfair competition. Now the United Nations Industrial Survey Mission in its Report has again made that recommendation. The Mission is convinced that there have been some instances of exports of other countries being dumped into Singapore at prices below cost, and that there have been other instances in which the exports of industries in Singapore have been discriminated against. Therefore, without anti-dumping legislation, any country can set up a high tariff wall against Singapore's products and dump its exports into Singapore at unfair and destructive prices. This very vulnerability is psychologically unhealthy. Besides, anti-dumping legislation for Singapore has the advantage of strengthening the State's bargaining position against that of other countries in trade matters. It may also be advantageous in negotiations for trade arrangements with other countries for mutual protection of each other's goods. The Federation of Malaya already has an anti-dumping Ordinance, and similar legislation for Singapore is desirable. New legislation is considered necessary in this instance, because the Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance is not suitable for the purposes outlined above, and the existing Customs Ordinance does not provide for levying of import duties on items on grounds of dumping. With the new legislation, adequate countervailing duties can be levied without the time-consuming processes provided for in that Ordinance. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that industries in Singapore are not choked off by a flood of goods dumped into the State at uneconomic prices. Manufacturers had complained to the Government that there were instances of new industries that have been established in Singapore which suffered almost instant death because the prices of imported products were reduced just as these factories commenced production. I am not in a position to say whether these complaints of the manufacturers are well founded or not. There was, at the time when these alleged offences occurred, no proper machinery for the investigation of such complaints. The Bill sets out in clause 7 two tests for the imposition of countervailing duties. These are that the effect of dumping is such as either to cause or threaten material injury to an established industry in Singapore or to retard periodic establishment of industries in Singapore. I can assure the House that the powers given under this Bill will be used with care and discrimination. In an entrepot economy such as ours, import duties should be introduced only when it is established beyond doubt that the gain to the State in terms of employment, national income and economic growth outweighs any possible loss to the entrepot trade. The mere existence of this Bill may itself make any action unnecessary for importers, and the manufacturers abroad whom they represent would know that any attempt to destroy Singapore's economic growth by unfair economic practice can be frustrated with ease. This factor alone will serve as a constant reminder to everyone - a reminder which I trust will make it unnecessary to enforce the provisions of this Bill. In the Federation where a similar Ordinance has been enforced for some years, there has been no instance, to my knowledge, where countervailing duties have had to be levied. It is my hope that our experience in Singapore will be equally happy. The Customs (Dumping and Subsidies) Ordinance, 1961, does not in any way contravene the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Under Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, any contracting country is permitted to protect itself against the flooding of its market by products of another country at less than normal value. It is also permissible to impose countervailing duties to offset any bounty or subsidy given to the exported products of another country. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Singapore has a century - old tradition of being a free port. Again and again, we have often heard legitimate requests for the imposition of duties to protect the establishment or even the survival of existing industries, and we have repeatedly resisted these requests until very recently, because we are conscious that once you introduce the thin end of the wedge and start imposing duties on imports, that tradition which is of such value to us will slowly evaporate and Singapore will lose much of its trade and goodwill. In those circumstances, Sir, every attempt to impose duties on imports should be carefully scrutinised and no responsible government should attempt to introduce measures to that end unless the case for such measures is overwhelming. Is the case for the provisions of this Bill overwhelming? The Second Reading of this Bill is moved by the Parliamentary Secretary and he tells us that he knows of no single instance in which the Ordinance was utilised in the Federation. He tells us that he knows of no single instance in Singapore where a complaint of dumping was justified because they do not have the machinery to prove what a fair price is. In those circumstances, it must be obvious to this House that the conditions do not exist for this Bill or for the need of this power. The Parliamentary Secretary goes on further to say that he hopes - no doubt he has every reason to hope - that the powers here would never be used. In those circumstances, Sir, the powers should never be sought. They are great powers which are given to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara without the advice of any Committee. We appreciate constitutionally that it means the Cabinet, but the Cabinet can take these decisions without the advice of any Committee in whom we can place reliance that they should view these matters from the purely economic aspect. We who survive by virtue of serving our neighbours should never place ourselves in a position whereby our Government could in a moment wangle or otherwise utilise these provisions against a neighbouring State. In fairness to the Government, Sir, they have put in provisions whereby orders made under this Bill when it is made law would be submitted to this House so that this House would have scrutiny of government conduct in each and every instance. I must say, Sir, that that very fact, to my mind, takes away the sting from the provisions which lead to the exclusive discretion of the Cabinet the decision whether to impose duties or not on the whole range of goods which come into this area. But I do deplore - and I speak not as a businessman but as a citizen who is conscious of the life-blood of this country in its service in commerce - the action of the Government in seeking to introduce a Bill which gives powers of imposing duties where the need for such a Bill has not been made out, and it is frankly admitted that there is no such need.

Sir, I listened with astonishment to the outburst by the Member for Anson. He said that the Government had admitted that the need for introducing the Bill has not been established. I think it may be that he misunderstood what the Parliamentary Secretary said. The Parliamentary Secretary made the point that in the past the Government had received complaints from manufacturers that goods were being dumped, as a consequence of which factories had to be closed down. All that the Parliamentary Secretary said is that in the absence of suitable machinery for investigation, it was not possible for the Government - and he was not referring to the present Government but to previous Governments - to establish whether or not these complaints are true. They may be true, they may not be true. Until a full and thorough investigation has been made with the backing of the law, it is not possible to draw definite conclusions. As for the Member for Anson's contention that no case has been made out for the necessity of this Bill, surely, Sir, the opinion of experts of the World Bank is not to be set aside very lightly, and they made this recommendation as early as 1954. No doubt when the Member for Anson was Chief Minister of the State of Singapore - before that he was Minister for Commerce - he must have seen and studied the recommendations of the mission despatched by the World Bank. Weighty reasons were adduced in, the Report. I do not think such opinion could be lightly dismissed as unworthy of consideration by any government. But more recently we have had the opinion of another mission of industrial experts, despatched by the United Nations this time, and they urged with some emphasis that it was high time the Government implemented the recommendation of the World Bank made as far back as 1954. This is one of the principal reasons why the Government today is seeing this Bill through. Everyone, of course, is aware of the importance of the free port status of Singapore and no one in his senses would want that free port status destroyed. The Member for Anson did suggest in his remarks that in a moment of anger the Government might impose retaliatory measures against a neighbouring State wherby in that way we destroy the free port status of Singapore. Sir, I can assure the hon. Member that the Government never makes any important decision, in fact, never makes any decision in a moment of anger. He was also under some misapprehension as to the contents of the Bill. He seemed to be under the impression that this Bill empowers the Government to levy import duties on - to quote his own actual words - "the whole range of goods". This Bill does not give the Government any such powers. The powers are limited to the levying of import duties on a restricted class of commodities. They are defined, I think, in clause 7 of the Bill. They refer to goods which are manufactured in Singapore or are about to be so produced in the State. Therefore, when those goods are not manufactured or where there is no immediate prospect of their manufacture in the State, the powers given in this Bill do not apply. Now, while we have been able in the past century or more to grow or prosper because of the services being performed as a free port and the emporium for South-East Asia, it is now getting obvious to everyone that this trade is an entrepot trade by itself. If we are not able to expand fast enough to provide increasing employment and a growing national income for our rapidly increasing population, we are therefore compelled - and by "we" I do not mean merely this Government, I say the country as a whole is compelled - to ensure its future livelihood by other means. One of the principal measures open to us is to rely on ourselves and our resources to produce those goods which we are now importing, and to produce, if possible, new goods which we can export to other countries, thereby yielding income to the State and providing employment for our population. This is a task of considerable magnitude. The whole of our future prosperity and well-being will depend on whether the country as a whole can achieve success in this endeavour. The Bill now before the House is one of those very necessary measures which we must take if we decide to accept accelerated industrialisation as a serious objective of our endeavours. Many other things will have to be done. Perhaps some of these will require greater efforts, amounting to sacrifices on our part, if we are to succeed in the great effort that lies ahead of us. So all we can say at this moment is this: that the Government must have these powers to ensure that the new industries which are established in Singapore can have reasonable security against dumping from foreign sources. At the same time, we must take into account the demands of the free port, and where any particular instance of a request for the levying of countervailing duties arises, the Government will be in a position to make the necessary calculations of profit and loss to strike a proper balance sheet, and, after all relevant factors have been taken into account, to make the proper decision in the interests of the people.

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

4.12 p.m. Clause 1 -

The figure "1961" will be altered to "1962" as a matter of course. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

I beg to move, In page 1, lines 8 to 10, to leave out the whole of sub-clause (1) . Mr Speaker, Sir, sub-clause (1) refers to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade concluded at Geneva in 1947. But there is no reference to this General Agreement in the whole of the Bill. Therefore, it becomes necessary to leave this out. Amendment agreed to.

A consequential amendment will be made, that is to say, the renumbering of the subsequent sub-clauses. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 4.15 p.m. Clauses 3 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Hon. Members of this House may wish to know the brief history of the principal Ordinance which this Bill proposes to wind up. The War Risks (Goods) Insurance Ordinance was introduced in 1941 with a view to insuring goods in Singapore (then a British Colony), against certain risks in time of war. A similar Ordinance with the same intention was also introduced in the Federation of Malaya. The War Risks (Goods) Insurance Ordinance required persons and companies holding stocks of goods for sale worth $10,000 or more to take up War Risks (Goods) Insurance policies. The policies were obtainable from those insurance companies in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya which were accredited agents of the Board of Management. The latter body was set up under the provisions of the War Risks (Goods) Insurance Ordinance. It controlled and managed the funds collected from premiums on insurance policies for goods insurable under the Ordinance. The policies covered the goods against damage, loss and seizure through enemy action. Goods that were insurable included rubber, tin, clothing, provisions and other merchandise. In 1946, the Board of Management under the Ordinance was reconstituted to register claims and to pay compensation to those cases that were proved. Since 1947, no claims of payment under the War Risks (Goods) Insurance Fund Ordinance have been reported, and it is apparent that no further claims are expected. It is, therefore, necessary that the principal Ordinance be wound up. However, in doing so, no further expenditure of public money is expected to be incurred. The Bill before the House is a straightforward one and the provisions in it are mainly procedural. Clause 4 provides that within a further period of three months from the coming into operation of the Ordinance, the Board of Management can continue to apply the Fund in the payments of outstanding claims. Should there be a dispute in respect of any claims, the amount of the claim shall be paid into court or other arrangements made, as deemed fit by the Board of Management, after obtaining approval from the Minister. At the end of the three-month period from the coming into operation of this Bill, the unexpended balance and assets of the Fund (if any) shall be deposited with the Accountant-General, and shall be disposed of as directed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, as provided for in clause 5 of the Bill. Clause 6 requires that the accounts of the Board of Management be audited by the Director of Audit and published in the Government Gazette. After the publication of the Board's accounts, the Board of Management shall be wound up. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I quite appreciate the desire of the Government to wind up this fund. I am completely in sympathy with it. I rise merely to seek clarification of certain seemingly contradictory aspects of the Bill. You will see that in clause 3, all actions are barred as from the date of coming into operation of this Ordinance, both against the Government and against any member of the Board. Clause 4, however, suggests that if there is any disagreement in respect of claims, monies will be paid into court, which does suggest that one can then make a claim in court contrary to the provisions of clause 3. It may well be that I have misunderstood the purpose of these clauses. I would like a clarification. Sir, I would furthermore inquire as to what is the extent of the fund at the present moment. Surely this House is entitled to basic information when it is sought to wind up a fund. What is the total of the claims outstanding? Furthermore, Sir, they seek indemnity provisions under clause 10. You will notice that fortunately clause 10 does not come into operation forthwith. But by virtue of the provisions of clause 1, sub-clause (2), it will come into operation at a later date. It is my earnest hope that the Government will not seek its introduction without giving an opportunity to all those who seek to make claims, to make them before that indemnity applies. But in any event, Sir, this House again is entitled to know. You are seeking to give indemnity. Are there any claims at the present moment outstanding? Are there any claims anticipated? What is the true position?

In reply, Mr Ramaswamy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 4 is not in contravention of anything in clause 3. Clause 4 only provides that within a further period of three months from the coming into operation of this Ordinance, the Board of Management can continue to apply the fund in the payment of outstanding claims - not new claims. Since 1957, there have been no claims filed, and I do not know whether there are any outstanding claims still unsettled. If the Member for Anson wants to know, I shall be prepared to let him know the facts.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

Yes.

Do I understand that under the circumstances, the Second Reading of this Bill will then stand adjourned to a later date?

It is not what the Parliamentary Secretary has said.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Ramaswamy]. Bill considered in Committee. 4.23 p.m.

Clause 1 -

The figure "1961" in page 1, line 5, will, as a matter of course, be altered to read "1962". Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 - Question proposed, "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has informed this House that there is no conflict between the provisions of clauses 3 and 4, because clause 4 deals with outstanding claims and clause 3 deals with fresh claims. Sir, will you please look at clause 3: `...no suit, action or other legal proceedings shall lie, be instituted or maintained...' Maintaining a suit is with reference to an outstanding claim. Now, Sir, it deals "in respect of any claim or award.... debt or liability incurred". Let us turn to clause 4. Clause 4 does not necessarily mean a claim in a court of law. There may be the payment of outstanding claims which may refer to claims which have been made to the Board. How is the Board then going to pay money into court when, by clause 3, it is completely shut out from all jurisdiction? I do urge the Parliamentary Secretary - and I say this in no nasty spirit of criticism - That he should take this Bill back. I do appreciate his position and sympathise with it. Perhaps he could have the State Advocate-General reconsider the point. There seems to be no urgency about it. But I do say, Sir, that, as it stands, it seems to shut out completely all claims of any character except such as the Minister may wish to pay. The proviso of payment into court is not applicable, and furthermore an indemnity is sought without giving this House information as to whether there are any outstanding or potential claims. The Parliamentary Secretary has been good enough to say he will give me this information. He misunderstands the whole procedure, if I may say with respect, Mr Speaker. Firstly, the information is necessary in order that we should decide on the merits of this Bill. Secondly, it is a matter for this House and not for the individual concerned that the information should be made available.

Mr Speaker, Sir, though I may not be a lawyer, I am advised that clause 4 refers to outstanding claims and clause 3 just prohibits or denies anyone to put in fresh claims.

Sir, it has been some time since I last dealt with the subject and, therefore, I am speaking very much from memory. But in general the position is that payments out of this fund have been going on for a very long time, since more than 14 years ago, if my memory serves me right. In fact, nearly all the claims made under the principal Ordinance have been settled. I would say, therefore, for a large number of years no new claims have been made for payment. Nevertheless, as a precautionary measure, it will be necessary to set aside certain funds and assign it to the Accountant-General to meet some odd claims that may by chance have been overlooked in the past and submitted in the future. This Bill has been vetted by the State Advocate-General, and I assure you that it is perfectly in order and will meet all contingencies that may arise in the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may we go back? It is very elementary. Clause 3 says: `... no suit, action or other legal proceedings [notice the words "other legal proceedings"] shall lie, be instituted or maintained...'. Maintained either in respect of existing outstanding claims we are told there are none. Right, then, no suits can be brought. Clause 4, however, says the Minister can pay the money into court. Sir, how is anybody going to get the money out of court if no legal proceedings, not merely suit or action, or other legal proceedings, may be instituted or maintained? I am just trying to draw to their own attention, Sir, the fact that the Ordinance shuts out what they seek to do. It is inconsistent and illogical and should be taken back and redrafted. I move the deletion of clause 3.

The hon. Member can vote against the Question "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 4 to 9 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 - Question proposed, "That clause 10 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister inform us whether there are any actions covered within the ambit of clause 10 or whether any actions are anticipated?

The Question is, "That clause 10 stand part of the Bill," and, therefore, the debate should be on the principle of it. Perhaps the hon. Member for Anson can convert that inquiry into an argument on principle.

I appreciate your advice, Mr Speaker. I say that we should not pass this clause unless a need is shown for it or unless this House can be given information which satisfies it that the Government is justified in seeking indemnity in respect of claims by citizens who are lawfully entitled to them at this juncture.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to tell this House that this Bill does not only operate in Singapore alone. A similar Ordinance - I do not know whether it has been passed in the Federation or not, but this is a Pan-Malayan War Risks (Goods) Insurance. This clause 10 does not only affect claims from Singapore, but it may also affect claims from the Federation. Therefore, we cannot ignore the provisions there.

I am at a loss to understand the Parliamentary Secretary, Sir. Do I understand that he now says there is no need for this clause in Singapore, but there is a need for it in the Federation, and we should, therefore, copy it?

I do not say so, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.39 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that the Bill be proceeded with. My Parliamentary Secretary will move the Second Reading.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As hon. Members can observe from the Explanatory Statement, this Repeal Bill seeks to wind up the 1946 Rehabilitation Loan Ordinance, 1947, and to close the accounts arising from it. The principal Ordinance was introduced to sanction the expenditure of $50 million raised during 1946-47 under the provisions of the Loan Ordinance, 1946. The $50 million was raised to meet financial expenditure arising out of the Japanese occupation of Malaya, as well as to meet the expenditure of the economic rehabilitation of Singapore. Expenditure for the said purposes has been incurred and there is, at the moment, a balance of $9,439,381. Out of the balance, it is the considered estimation of the Accountant-General, Singapore, that only about $1 million will be sufficient to meet future outstanding claims. To be exact, the estimated amount is $1,117,563. This estimated expenditure will meet outstanding claims which include arrears of pay, gratuities and pensions to volunteers and their dependants; arrears of pay to Government servants who were interned; claims for services rendered and goods supplied prior to occupation; pensions, retired allowances, gratuities, and other similar payments. As only very small yearly expenditure for these claims is envisaged in future years, little purpose is served in keeping alive the Rehabilitation Loan Appropriation Account. I therefore move that the 1946 Rehabilitation Loan Appropriation Ordinance, 1947, be wound up by this Repeal Bill which is before the House. In winding up the principal Ordinance, however, provision has been made in the Repeal Ordinance to transfer all the unexpended balance of monies to the Development Fund and also to meet all future outstanding claims from the Consolidated Fund of the Annual Estimates. Members of the House will note that this Repeal Bill is a relatively simple one and has received the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Again, Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of principle and draw attention to the provisions of clause 3: `notwithstanding the provisions of .[the principal Ordinance] ... all expenditure of moneys ... shall he deemed to have been lawfully incurred.'. Now, why should the Government seek to shut out inquiries that may be necessitated into this expenditure? Why the need for this particular clause that "all expenditure of moneys raised under the provisions of the Loan Ordinance ..... shall be deemed to have been lawfully incurred"? I would like to inquire, Sir, what is exactly intended by this provision? Whether it is feared that there would be an inquiry into any misappropriation, or, if not, why is it necessary?

Sir, surely my Parliamentary Secretary has fully dealt with this point, namely, that this particular loan was raised in 1947 for specific purposes, mainly in connection with the reconstruction that was necessary to rehabilitate the country after the period of the Japanese occupation. Certain amounts of money have to be set aside yearly to meet those items of expenditure listed out by my Parliamentary Secretary. No further expenditure is required other than that, and it is quite useless to set aside permanently the sum of $9 million when a sum of just over a million dollars would be sufficient. There is no question whatsoever that the money has been mis-appropriated. Certainly it was not mis-appropriated during the term of office of the present Government, but I cannot speak, of course, for the terms of office of other governments.

Mr Ramaswamy, in reply? 4.45 p.m.

In order to satisfy the Member for Anson, I wish to give information about this $1 million. The estimated outstanding financial expenditure will be $1,117,563 as I stated on the Second Reading of the Bill. The arrears in respect of pensions, retired allowances, gratuities, etc, for the period 1942 to 1945 is $109,981; the arrears of pay, gratuities and pensions to volunteers and their dependants - $150,000; the arrears of pay to Government servants who were interned - $l0,000; claims for services rendered and goods supplied prior to the Occupation - $500,000; back-pay to non-interned Government servants - $12,582; Malaya Unallocated Account - $300,000; expenses in connection with the Malaya Overseas Agency - $20,000; maintenance allowances during the Japanese Occupation for dependants of Government employees ex-Malaya - $15,000. These are the particulars of expenditure in the outstanding claims. As the Minister has said, there is no point in keeping these accounts alive. Therefore, I beg to move that this Bill be approved.

The Parliamentary Secretary need not move that the Bill be approved. The Question before the House is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

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

4.48 p.m. Clause 1 -

The figure "1961" will be altered to read "1962". Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 - Question proposed, "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have asked a simple question and I am quite sure the Parliamentary Secretary genuinely misunderstood me, but neither he nor the Minister has really answered it. I will try and spell it out very simply, Sir. Clause 3 says that all moneys spent shall be deemed to have been lawfully spent. That is the gist of it. I have no complaints to make about the transfer to the Development Fund. It is quite proper. I am not making any complaint about the exact proposed expenditure of public moneys of which they sought to give details. I merely draw attention to this requirement of the clause, that all moneys which have been spent shall be deemed to have been lawfully spent. Now, Sir, if they have been lawfully spent, the Government should not fear and should not require any such indemnity. If there is a suggestion that they have not been lawfully spent, we should not give this indemnity unless we have a full explanation and a full exoneration. The Minister seeks to make it a political issue by saying, "I am not responsible for the misappropriation of other governments." Fair enough. But he is responsible for protecting the misappropriation of other governments. He himself is responsible. This is a P.A.P. measure which seeks to shut out all enquiries into past expenditure from this Fund. I am asking why? It is an unusual request - why, just why?

Sir, the form of the Bill is a standard one. In particular, where the loan raised in 1947 specified that the moneys raised under section 3 of that Ordinance should be disbursed for certain objectives in winding up the loan, I regard this as no more than the necessary step. There is no question at all that there has been any misappropriation of the moneys raised under this Ordinance or under any other Ordinance. The Constitution lays down quite clearly that the Director of Audit has full powers of investigation. Indeed it is his constant duty to see that all expenditure incurred by the Government is lawfully incurred and properly accounted for.

If the expenditure has been lawfully incurred and properly accounted for, why do we need the protection of the law to shut out inquiries into a possible misuse of the powers of expenditure? Why do we require this section? Money has been properly spent.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 4.53 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Stamp (Amendment No. 2) Bill provides that the Commissioner of Stamps may refund any stamp duty which was overpaid provided that a claim is lodged with the Commissioner within six months from the date of overpayment. The Commissioner is given discretion to entertain a claim which is made later than six months after the date of overpayment if he is satisfied that the circumstances are exceptional. Provision is also made to enable the Commissioner to demand repayment of any duty which may have been erroneously refunded. You will recall, Mr Speaker, Sir, that under the Stamp (Amendment) Ordinance, 1961 (No. 24 of 1961), the annual duty payable on a Certificate to Practice which is required to be taken out by every practising advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court was raised from $50 to $500 per annum with effect from 1st January, 1961. Clause 3 of the Bill reduces this duty from $500 to the original $50 with effect from the same date, namely, 1st January, 1961. This is in accordance with the Government's policy not to levy new, nor to increase existing, fees on professional persons in private practice, as announced by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Speech in December last year. Sir, I beg to move.

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

4.56 p.m. Clause 1 -

There are amendments which will be made as a matter of course. The "No. 2" will be deleted in line 5 and the figure "1961" will be altered to read "1962". Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.58 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend subsection (3) of section 6 of the Civil Law Ordinance by exempting any contract or agreement which purports to be a contract or agreement for the sale or purchase of rubber from the gaming and wagering provisions of the Ordinance. The intention of the Bill is to remove uncertainty prevailing in the rubber market as to the validity of rubber contracts. This uncertainty arose from a decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Mizrahie versus Stanton Nelson. In this case, one of the two grounds on which the appellant based his appeal was that the contracts which the plaintiffs as rubber brokers entered into on his behalf with third parties were in no sense genuine contracts for the sale and purchase of rubber but were merely colourable transactions entered into for the purpose of enabling him to gamble in differences and as such unenforceable under section 6 of the Civil Law Ordinance. Representations were made to both the Singapore and Federation Governments that amending legislation was necessary to restore confidence in the rubber market and to remove any doubt as to the legality of rubber contracts. Singapore's economy is founded largely on the rubber trade and today she is the world's largest rubber market. In 1960, trade in rubber accounted for about 37 per cent of her total trade. It is essential, therefore, that nothing be allowed to jeopardise the effectiveness of the Singapore rubber market. The proposed amendment would render forward contracts for the sale or purchase of unascertained rubber by description legal and therefore enforceable. Legitimate hedging operations can be carried on without fear that such contracts would be declared void. At the same time, reckless and undue speculation would be curbed as the relevant contracts become enforceable and no defence can be brought on the grounds that such contacts are gaming contracts. Similar legal provision is contained in the Federation of Malaya Rubber Exchange (Incorporation) Act, 1961, which will soon come into force in the Federation. I should mention here that the present Bill is linked to the Rubber Dealers (Amendment) Bill which will be considered by the House at a later stage. I should say they are complementary to each other, having the same objective of restoring confidence in the Singapore rubber market. Sir, I beg to move.

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

5.03 p.m. Clause 1 -

The figure "1961" will be altered to read "1962". Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, line 22, after "rubber", to insert "either for immediate or future delivery". The Stanton Nelson case brought to light two matters which require clarification and rectification if the confidence of the rubber trade is to be restored. The first of these will be met by an amendment to the Rubber Dealers Ordinance. That amendment, however, will introduce a definition of "purchase" for the purpose of the Rubber Dealers Ordinance, which requires the purchaser of specific rubber to hold a licence, but not of purchases under forward contracts. A doubt has been expressed that, in view of this definition of "purchase" in the Rubber Dealers Ordinance, the amendment proposed by sub-clause (3) of clause 6 might be construed to be limited to contracts for the purchase of specific rubber only. It is, therefore, proposed to add "either for immediate or future delivery" at the end of sub-clause (3) to remove this doubt in order that all contracts, whether for the purchase of specific rubber or of rubber for future delivery, may be removed from the category of wagering contracts and thereby rendered enforceable. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

I think it is time for a tea break. I suspend this sitting. I will take this Chair again at 5.35 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.07 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend section 2 of the Rubber Dealers Ordinance by providing a definition of the word "purchase" with the intention of removing uncertainty prevailing in the rubber market as to the validity of rubber contracts. This uncertainty arose from the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Mizrahie versus Stanton Nelson. In this case, one of the two grounds on which the appellant based his appeal was that as he did not hold a licence under the Rubber Dealers Ordinance to purchase rubber, the forward rubber contracts which the plaintiffs as rubber brokers entered into on his behalf with third parties were illegal and void. Although the Court expressed no opinion as to whether the contracts were null and void because the appellant did not hold a licence under the Rubber Dealers Ordinance, sufficient doubt and uncertainty have been created which affect confidence in the Singapore rubber market. As it stands, it is not clear whether the word "purchase" appearing in section 2 of the Ordinance refers to all purchases or only to such purchases completed by delivery. The proposed definition makes it clear that only purchases of specific rubber completed by delivery will need to be covered by a licence and that forward contracts for the purchase of unascertained rubber by description do not require a licence on the part of the purchaser. It is understood that corresponding amending legislation is being considered in the Federation of Malaya. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know how many Members of this House are really conscious of the radical principle involved in this Bill. Mr Speaker, there are in Singapore business firms who indulge in the purchase of forward rubber for legitimate means for satisfying the requirements of purchasers in the United Kingdom, U.S.A., and elsewhere. It is a perfectly healthy business and vital for our economy. There are others who use this as the grand gambling game. Mr Speaker, by putting a small deposit you can purchase forward rubber three months forward, and during those three months hope to make a fortune if it rises by one cent - I think you are supposed to make more than $1,000 on a 25-ton contract, and so on it goes. I am not speaking in vacuo, Mr Speaker. I know of actual cases where even housewives who do not know a bale of RSS.1 from a tin of rubbish, purchase forward contracts at the instigation of rubber brokers seeking to get their commission, being promised an El Dorado of wealth. Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to legalise large-scale gambling. I would like to put it a little differently, Mr Speaker. If there is a legitimate business in dealings in rubber, every firm can easily take out a licence and pay for it. There is no difficulty at all there. It is a question of a formal application for the purchase of a licence, and its annual fee is a very moderate sum. Even big firms may wish to indulge in gambling - if they want to, it is their own affair. But I do urge this House and I do plead with this House not to open the door to large-scale gambling for small people as this Bill would. It has been proved in the past. Sir, the rubber brokers cannot really be blamed very much. They are there to make profits, and if they can persuade you to buy rubber even if they know you are going to lose - they hope you will make - they get their commission. It is a question of the effect on the ordinary citizen. There are many of them who had been involved in this grand gamble and who have had their fingers burnt and who have not had the money to go to court like Mizrahie had and fought it to the end. Those people were cornered and pauperised. Let us recognize that the rubber brokers have very little mercy when it is a question of owing the money on these contracts. They seek not to extort but to compel payment of what is their lawful due. But I say with respect, Mr Speaker, that this Government, which calls itself socialist, that all of us, who have any respect for the principle that we should seek to protect the common man from an unhappy propensity, to gambling in so far as it is legitimate, instead of bringing up this Bill, we should instead make it definite that all unascertained rubber by description is included in the word "purchase" and is not excluded. That is what we should do in order to protect the small man from an organised business which seeks to make a profit out of its commission. Also at times let us remember that brokers, jobbers themselves, in their own names or through the facade of their friends, purchase rubber in the hope of its going up or sell rubber in the hope of its going down; and then when they are caught they seek to unload on the unsuspecting victim. Sir, I do not know if the Government is really conscious of what it was doing in this matter, or whether it was merely seeking to please its friends and did not understand the extent of the dangers which it seeks to unleash upon the people. But I do plead with the Government to reconsider this Bill, a Bill which authorises gaming on a tragic and ruinous scale.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson may have a good case if only he will put it in proper perspective and refrain from grossly exaggerating or distorting the picture. Now, of course, there is gambling in the rubber market. There is gambling in any extensive producing market. There may be isolated cases of private individuals who gamble in the rubber market. They may gamble in the stock market. They may gamble in any other markets or indulge in various forms of gambling. Is it seriously suggested that just to protect a small number of foolish people - I do not agree with the Member for Anson that this is an extensive social menace - in order to prevent a few foolish people from getting their fingers burnt in transactions of which they have no understanding, we are to put the rubber market in a straitjacket? That is what it amounts to, because the real difficulty is how you are to distinguish the small operator from the big operator, the business operator from the non-business operator. One certain criterion is set out. Once you have a Government board that controls transactions, then I say the functioning of the rubber market, if not reduced to a standstill, will certainly cease and be crippled. The volume of operations in the rubber market is tremendous. This is the largest rubber market in the world. By and large, transactions conform to certain standards of commercial ethics, and the volume of downright gambling undertaken by ignorant people is simply marginal. But to say that this Bill unleashes on the people a new danger, and at the same time say that this has been happening all the time is surely inconsistent. If we unleash a new danger, it means that housewives may enter the rubber market, and by introducing this Bill we are inviting housewives to do so. I do not agree that the remedies proposed by the Member for Anson meet the case. The purpose is quite simple. It is to ensure that contracts in forward purchases, dealings in what is called paper rubber can be enforced legally, and, indeed, if such were to be the case, then perhaps there would be less temptation on the part of people not familiar with the workings of the rubber market to try their luck there. Now the problem posed to the Government as a result of the decision of the court case, although simple in principle, involves quite a number of intricate issues; and one of the reasons why the Government has taken such a long time before it presents this Bill to the House is that we have carried out consultations not only with the rubber trade in Singapore but also with our opposite numbers in the Government of the Federation. The solution that they have arrived at after long months of deliberation are the two Bills which are now before the House. As I have said, their purpose is to ensure that transactions in the largest rubber market in the world have a proper legal standing. 5.50 p.m.

Mr Ramaswamy, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson says that common people and housewives all deal in rubber contracts. I beg to differ from his view. Only people who know the rubber trade deal in these contracts. Maybe there are a few foolish people who venture into this kind of business. I would like to tell the House that the Federation of Malaya has also passed similar legislation which will come into force very soon. Another point is that these two Bills - this one as well as the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill which I have just moved - only enable legitimate hedging operations to be carried out without fear that such contracts would be declared void. Reckless and undue speculation would be curbed as the relevant contracts become enforceable and no defence can be brought on the grounds that such contracts are gaming contracts. Therefore, the Bill protects genuine rubber dealers who deal in forward contracts.

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

5.55 p.m. Clause 1-

In page 1, line 5, to leave out "1961" and insert "1962". That will be done. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 - Question proposed, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, the Minister for Finance has indicated that rubber purchase and sale in this territory is vital for our economy, and quite rightly, as it is one of the largest centres of the rubber trade in the world. I am glad to hear it. The question is, what difficulty will there be on the part of a legitimate rubber dealer in taking out a licence? None at all. That the Minister has not answered. If you make it necessary for a person to take out a licence before there can be any sale of rubber to him or any sale of rubber by him, it would be deemed to be enforceable; then you would protect the common man from being made the victim of the rubber broker. I am not seeking to limit in any way the rubber trade. All I am seeking to do is to limit the rubber trade to legitimate traders. Let them gamble if they will. The Parliamentary Secretary completely misunderstands the Bill, if I may say so with respect. It does not protect anyone from gambling losses. It does not only protect legitimate hedging of purchase and sale, but it also protects all gambling transactions as well as legitimate transactions. And it is Unnecessary. All I ask this Government to consider is that it should leave it at the position where a licence is required before you indulge in the purchase and sale of rubber. The Minister has said, "How can you exaggerate so much as to say that we are opening the floodgates of a grave danger when you say it has existed already?" Again he mis-understands me, Mr Speaker. The Mizrahie decision in the court of appeal is of a character which has considerably lessened this activity. Now we are going to wipe out the Mizrahie judgment. The floodgates are there. The poor man, the simple man who is going to be told, "You are earning $200 or $300 as a teacher. Come, give me your life savings of $5,000, and in five days I will give you $50,000." Maybe you can make $50,000. But, on the other hand, the probability is that you will lose it. And there is no protection. But if the same teacher were to be told, "Take out a licence first. Become a rubber dealer," he would think twice. All I am asking the Government to do is to leave the protection of the Mizrahie judgment for the commoner, by making it necessary for dealers in rubber to have licences. I do urge the Government to see the justice of that request. 6.00 p.m. Question put, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

Division. Sir. The Committee divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 23; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 3; Paired, 2. Ayes. Noes. Ahmad bin Abdul Hamid bin Ibrahim. Haji Jumat. Buang Bin Omar Ahmad Jabri bin Junid. Mohammad Akib. Byrne, K. M. Bani, S. T. Chan Chee Seng. Chan Sun Wing. Chor Yeok Eng. Fung Yin Ching, Goh Chew Chua. Miss. Goh Keng Swee. Lee Siew Choh. Hoe Puay Choo, Leong Keng Seng. Madam. Lim Yew Hock. Kandasamy, G. Lin You Eng. Lee Khoon Choy. Lingam, S. V. Lim Cheng Lock. Low Por Tuck. Mammen. John. Marshall, David. Mohd. Ariff Bin Ng Teng Kian. Suradi. Ong Chang Sam. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Eng Guan. Ong Pang Boon. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Seow Peck Leng, Ramaswamy, S. Mrs Sahorah binte Sheng Nam Chin. Ahmat, Madam. Tan Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan. Tee Kim Leng. Toh Chin Chye. Teo Hock Guan. Wee Toon Boon. Thio Chan Bee. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Wong Soon Fong. Yong Nyuk Lin. Abstention. Nil. Absent. Koh, C. H. Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Teck Him. Paired. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. (absent). Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi.

The result of the voting is 23 Ayes, 23 Noes, 3 Absent, and 2 Paired. Under section 53 of the Constitution - and I will read that section - it says: `Save as otherwise provided in this Order, all questions proposed for decision in the Assembly shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the Members present and voting; and if, upon any question before the Assembly, the votes of the Members are equally divided, the motion shall be lost.' Therefore, the motion is lost. There is now no clause 2 and the Bill is meaningless. Anyway, the Bill will have to be reported.

I beg to report that the Bill has been considered in Committee and approved with amendments.

No.

The Bill has not been approved?

The Bill has been agreed to only as in clause 1. Third Reading, what day? I do not suppose the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to move the Third Reading?

I am not moving.

How about resigning?

Order. 6.08 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I move, That under Standing Order No. 33 (2) (b), I name Thursday as the day on which the proceedings on item 10 shall be entered upon.

The relevant Standing Order is Standing Order No. 33, paragraph (2) (b): `(2) A Member may, in respect of a motion of which he has given notice, either - [the second alternative]. (b) upon the notice being read, name a later sitting day and the motion shall be placed on the Order Paper for that day.' This motion will therefore be placed on the Order Paper for Thursday.

6.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, in moving the motion* standing in my name, it would be appropriate to make a word or two in explanation. The first matter is the question of the meaning of political nepotism. I want no misunderstanding on this aspect. What I seek, Mr Speaker, is not a re-hash of what has transpired before. Nepotism is favouritism towards one's relations. Political nepotism is favouritism arising from political relations. It is in this sense, Mr Speaker, and in this sense only that the words are used in this motion. * The motion reads as follows: That this Assembly calls upon the Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry consisting of at least one High Court Judge and two retired Civil Servants to investigate political nepotism and improper political interference with the Civil Service and employees of Statutory bodies and to make recommendations. Another matter - in his speech on the Privileges Bill the Prime Minister indicated that he was under the impression that I brought up this motion at the request of the Barisan Sosialis. This is not correct. I have for a long time been troubled by a growing impression, perhaps from minor things in themselves inadequate, but cumulative, leaving an unhappy impression that the P.A.P. Government is utilising its position and its ministerial responsibilities to plant P.A.P. men in key positions. When the strike of the People's Association employees took place, which the Government, like good capitalist employers, refuse to term a strike because the workers have no union, it became apparent that a vast number of the People's Association employees were P.A.P. members and that they were indulging in political activities in community centres with a view to shepherding our people and our youth towards the P.A.P. as a political Party, interlanded with perfectly legitimate activities. It was because of this that I tabled my motion. As you are aware, Mr Speaker - unfortunately I am the only representative of my Party in this House - An hon. Member: Shame!

I agree with you. And as you are furthermore aware, Mr Speaker, a motion requires not only a proposer but a seconder before it can be accepted for discussion in this House. Therefore, it has been one of my trials at various times since my election to seek the assistance of Opposition Parties in this Assembly and the assistance of the independent Member for Joo Chiat to second motions of mine.

Order. To put the record straight, it is not a question of a seconder being required, but it is a question of a supporter under the Standing Orders.

Indeed the word is "supporter". It is somewhat colloquially better understood as seconder. But the Standing Orders require one or more supporters. In fact, Mr Speaker, in the case of one Opposition Party, it was made clear to me that they would refuse to support or second - not a question of supporting in the House but supporting in writing any motion which is not brought up by a Member of their own Party -

Order. That seems to be quite irrelevant to the motion.

If I might explain. Sir, my field is limited and that is why I obtained a seconder from the Barisan Sosialis, which fact gave the Prime Minister the impression that the motion is not mine, but that of the Barisan Sosialis. What I am seeking to do is to remove the suspicion of any - how shall I say it? - family dispute in this matter. I would like to assure this House and the Members on the Front Bench that in truth and in fact this motion is my motion. Sir, at no time prior to seeking by letter and receiving by letter agreement to support this motion have I been in communication with the Barisan Sosialis or received information from them on this particular aspect. On 23rd October, I forwarded the motion to the Clerk of the Assembly together with a question to the Prime Minister on the same date. It was tabled for the 16th November, and if you remember, Mr Speaker, it was very pertinent to this motion. It reads as follows: `To ask the Prime Minister to state the number of persons appointed since 1st June 1959 by Ministers to public bodies, the names of such persons, the offices to which they were appointed, and their political affiliations, if known.' The Prime Minister was good enough to send me a list of 527 persons appointed by the Ministers to various public bodies since 1st June, 1959. I ask the House to appreciate that the list which is now printed and which they have is the list of persons appointed by Ministers in pursuance of their powers and does not include a list of employees employed by various statutory bodies, and therefore does not include the vast numbers of P.A.P. members who were taken into the employment of the People's Association, or a list of the employees of the Work Brigade. The Prime Minister, however - though he gave me the list - did not give the party affiliations of the persons appointed by the Ministers. If you remember the reply to the question - in order not to misquote - I quote in full: `The number of persons appointed since June, 1959, by Ministers to public bodies is 527. Their names and the offices to which they were appointed are given in the list tabled in this Assembly. Their political affiliations, if any, are of no relevance to the duties they perform. Some are known to be members, and some are publicly reputed to be members, of both the Government party and Opposition political parties in this Assembly.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I have sought assistance to ascertain who amongst these 527 shown in the list were P.A.P. members and I shall give you a detailed analysis. But before I do so, I want to make it quite clear that it is not my suggestion that the Government should not appoint a member of its Party to public office just because he is a member of the Party. Quite naturally, it can and does happen that a member of the political Party in office is, by virtue of his own merits, worthy of appointment to a public office. I recognise that those who are prepared to go through the travail of dedicating themselves to the ideals of a political Party often are sincere in their dedication to public service even though I may not agree with their political views or their political conduct. But what I do say, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that the number involved is of such a character that it legitimately raises a query as to whether, in fact, such appointments were made not merely on merit but took into account the fact that the persons in question were P.A.P. members in pursuance of a policy to seek control of all aspects of public life for party ends. That is the issue. Now, Sir, as to the list given by the Prime Minister, I shall be giving the numbers of those who were P.A.P. members at the time of their appointment, which is a material time to consider what the Government had in mind. The fact that some of them have since defected is not a relevant consideration. The question is, were they P.A.P. members at the time of their appointment? If I may take the list in the order in which it was sent to me - and I trust I will not try the patience of the Assembly - this is somewhat important. The first is the Ministry of National Development. The Board of Management of Nature Reserves - one P.A.P. Assemblyman out of five trustees appointed. The Board of Trustees, Singapore Improvement Trust - one person appointed, not a P.A.P. member. The Housing and Development Board - Chairman and one other member were P.A.P. members out of a total of five appointed. The Board of Architects - nine persons appointed, no P.A.P. members. It seems that there are no architects amongst the P.A.P. The next is the Ministry of Finance. The Malayan Board of Income Tax and Income Tax Board of Review - I can trace no P.A.P. members. The Property Tax Valuation Review Board - I can trace no P.A.P. members. The Industrial Promotions Board - only one member appointed, not a P.A.P. member. The Economic Development Board - one member is a P.A.P. Assemblyman out of six appointments to the Board. The Property Tax Advisory Committee - all six members, including the Chairman, appointed to this Committee were and are P.A.P. Assemblymen. The next is the Ministry of Culture. The National Theatre Fund Committee - this Committee consisted of one Chairman and nominees from various bodies. The Chairman was a P.A.P. member of this Assembly. The Committee was dissolved in February. The National Theatre Trust - the Chairman is a P.A.P. Assemblyman, and there is one other P.A.P. member out of a total of 11 members. The National Library Board - no P.A.P. member that I can trace. The next is the Prime Minister's Office. The Rent Conciliation Board - 11 are P.A.P. members out of 30 appointments to the Board. Of these 11 P.A.P. members, 8 were P.A.P. Assemblymen, none from the Opposition Parties. The Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee - everyone of the 15 members, including the Chairman of this Committee, was a P.A.P. Assemblyman. Four of these appointments were revoked on 21st July. 1961, the day after the debate in this Assembly, and these four are all now Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen. The Board of Management of the Malay Settlements of Jalan Eunos, West Coast Road, Ayer Gemuroh and Sembawang - I can trace no P.A.P. member, and it seems obvious that the Malays can protect themselves from P.A.P. infiltration. The Light Dues Board and the Pilot Board - I can trace no P.A.P. member. The Singapore Telephone Board - only one P.A.P. member out of five appointments. The Omnibus Services Licensing Authority - I can trace no P.A.P. member. The Ministry of Labour. The Panel of Advisers to the Juvenile Magistrate's Court - three P.A.P. members out of 15 appointments. The Parole Board, Gimson School - one P.A.P. member out of ten appointments. The Probation Committee - I can trace no P.A.P. member. The Advisory Committee of the Singapore Amateur Sports Council - all members are nominees of sports organisations, and I could find no P.A.P. member except, I understand, the Secretary, but I wish to make it quite clear that I make no issue of this as he himself was not a nominee of the Government but a nominee of a public sports body. The Board of Visitors, Social Welfare Homes and Institutions - five P.A.P. members of whom three are members of the Assembly out of a total of 35 appointments. One of these, Mr Speaker, Sir, is an Assembly woman on the Opposition. The Ministry of Health. The Leprosy Board - one P.A.P. Assemblyman out of four members. The Midwives Board - no P.A.P. members that I can trace. The Nursing Board - the Chairman is a P.A.P. Assemblyman. The Pharmacy Board - no P.A.P. affiliation that I can trace. The Trafalgar Home - I can trace no P.A.P. member. The Woodbridge Hospital Visitors - two P.A.P. members out of 15 appointments. The Medical Advisory Council - one P.A.P. member out of 13 appointments; that one had been previously appointed, and I am not suggesting that his political affiliation was a factor in his appointment. The Poisons Advisory Committee - only one out of five appointments. Again, he is a person who seems eminently fitted to be on the Committee, and I am not suggesting that in this particular case his political affiliation affected his appointment. The Ministry of Law. The Muslim and Hindu Endowments Board - two P.A.P. members out of eight. The Ministry of Education. The Education Finance Board - no P.A.P. member that I can trace. The Education Advisory Committee - 3 out of 16 are P.A.P. members, one of them an Assemblyman. The Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa - the Chairman and five other members are P.A.P. members including one Assemblyman (six out of a total of 14 appointments). The Ministry of Home Affairs. The Board of Visiting Justices - I can trace no P.A.P. members. The Hotels Licensing Board - the Chairman and three others out of a total of nine appointments were P.A.P. members. The Chairman resigned; the present Chairman is not, in so far as I can trace, associated with any political Party. The Pawnbrokers Licensing Board - two P.A.P. members out of six appointments. The Singapore Citizenship Committee of Inquiry - one P.A.P. member out of four appointments. The Reformative Training, Singapore Advisory Committee - I can trace no P.A.P. member. The Cinematograph Appeal Committee - out of 19 appointments. 14 were from amongst P.A.P. members, including the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Board. The Hindu Advisory Board - the Chairman is a member of the Opposition (that is the second), but I can trace no P.A.P. members. An omission from the list, as I have indicated, given to us by the Prime Minister is the omission of any reference to the Board of the People's Association which, by law, includes the Prime Minister as Chairman and one of his Ministers as Deputy Chairman, and another Minister as well as the Director of Social Welfare as members, but requires the Chairman to appoint other members. How many of the members of the Board are P.A.P. members? My information is that this Board was constituted in 1960 and the People's Association took over the management and the running of all existing community centres and is now in charge of about 60 community centres, and of these the overwhelming membership of the Board are P.A.P. members. We also know from information from the Prime Minister that the overwhelming majority of the employees are P.A.P. members. With reference to the Work Brigade, I am informed that the Camp Supervisors who supervise all nine camps are, all three of them, active P.A.P. members. Whilst on the subject of the employees, I regret to inform the House that I am reliably informed that it has been the practice of the P.A.P. to levy a monthly payment from employees in Government service and in the service of statutory bodies who obtained their employment as a result of intervention by Ministers, P.A.P. Assemblymen or P.A.P. Branches. This so-called voluntary contribution, which was collected by P.A.P. officials, was allocated to the P.A.P. welfare fund. The number of employees so affected, in so far as I can ascertain - and they include car park attendants - as in June 1961 are as follows: Employees Ministry of Home Affairs 24 Prime Minister's Department, City Council 10 Deputy Prime Minister's Department, Vehicles Department 20 20 Ministry of Education 10 Ministry of National Development 8 and in the P. W. D. 17 Ministry of Culture 4 Ministry of Labour and Law 3 Ministry of Health 2 Ministry of Finance 1 People's Association 95 Singapore Harbour Board 1 Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a allegation to make against the Party which is governing, and this alone should merit a Commission of Inquiry to ascertain the truth or otherwise. If the procedure has not been stopped, it must forthwith stop and the public are entitled to the full truth. It is a terrible thing that the Party in power should take advantage of its powers of patronage to inflict a private levy on public employees for Party finances, or by its conduct to suggest that it would only take into its employment those who are prepared to contribute to the Party's finances. One other matter, Mr Speaker. I am reliably informed that the funds of the People's Association have been utilised by the P.A.P. political machine for purposes of hiring buses in order to send P.A.P. members and supporters to political rallies during both the Hong Lim and the Anson by-elections. Mr Speaker, I would not wish this House to consider that the fact that some of them were sent to Anson is in any way a factor in my bringing up this motion. At the time I brought it up, although we knew that the P.A.P. sent its supporters by buses, we did not know that the P.A.P. was utilising public funds for the purpose. But whether it is Anson or Hong Lim or any other election, it is grossly improper for a political Party to utilise public funds entrusted to the Government or to its members in this fashion.

On a point of order, Sir. Sir, the subject of the motion by the Member for Anson and the Member for Upper Serangoon is for an inquiry consisting of at least one High Court Judge and two retired civil servants to investigate political nepotism and improper political interference with the civil service and employees of statutory bodies. Sir, there has been no mention of the civil service whatsoever. May I ask in what respect the subject which has been touched upon comes within the ambit of this motion? I am not trying in any way to conscribe the scope of this debate. In fact, on reading serious the motion, I was under the impression that there were going to be serious allegations made as to misdemeanours, corruption, and so on. Therefore, beforehand, we moved an amendment taking into account the serious nature of these allegations, that we would accept this motion provided evidence would be let. I would very much like a ruling on this. If there is no evidence whatsoever, not even an allegation of political nepotism and' improper political interference with the civil service and employees of statutory bodies, then the wording of this motion must be definitely enlarged to cover the subject of the Member for Anson's present speech.

The point of order, I take it, is whether or not this allegation - that public funds were used for paying for buses to bring members of the People's Association to rallies - is covered by this motion. Is that it, Mr Prime Minister?

I have been here only for a few minutes, Mr Speaker. As I understand the allegation, the impropriety, which is the subject of censure in this motion calling for an inquiry, is political nepotism, improper political interference with, first, the civil service, and second, employees of statutory bodies. There has been no statement of fact coming within the ambit of that subject. If it is alleged that there has been misappropriation or misuse of funds, then I say, let it be stated there.

I think the Member for Anson has touched on what he calls political nepotism. He has given a definition which might not be accepted by the Assembly. I take it he will be touching on improper political interference with the civil service and employees of statutory bodies. But I must say that his allegation now - that public funds were used for improper purposes by the Party in power - does not seem to be covered by the motion itself. Therefore, that allegation must be out of order if we are to debate the motion of which notice was given, unless the Member can assure me that the allegation comes within the ambit of the motion.

I am obliged, Mr Speaker, I did not think it was necessary to spell it out. But if I might, Mr Speaker, the Chairman of the People's Association is the Prime Minister. I have alleged - and it will remain to be proved - that, in fact, the majority of the Board are P.A.P. men. Therefore, they utilised the People's Association funds, which are for public purposes, for political nepotism in order to support their own candidate by sending their men at public expense to his rally. Sir, it is political interference in the use of public funds for party political purposes, and the nepotism is favouritism towards their own members.

Mr Speaker, Sir -

Order. Has the Member finished?

My explanation, Sir, but I have not finished my speech.

I would like to hear the Prime Minister again on his point of order.

As you know, Mr Speaker, Sir, as a result of this motion being tabled in this Assembly before the first sitting of the Third Session, we had a discussion, albeit informally, consequent upon which we moved the Privileges Bill under a Certificate of Urgency. We expected serious allegations to be made and wished to do the right thing in the circumstances. Sir, although the Bill is in Select Committee, you will recall that it has been agreed -

Order. The Prime Minister is leading into a debate. I would like to ask him whether or not he considers that the allegation of misuse of public funds by the People's Association Board comes within the ambit of item 11. That is the point I wish to decide.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I need hardly explain to you, with all your experience in the interpretation of words, that the first thing one looks at is to give every word its normal and ordinary meaning. We have come here ready to listen to charges of political nepotism; in other words, patronage for an improper purpose, improper political interference, seriously alleged, in the civil service and employees of statutory bodies; in other words, we are tormenting or otherwise doing improper things to them. All I have heard so far is the quite proper, correct and legal appointment of members to statutory boards, be they P.A.P. or otherwise. They are quite correct and constitutionally impeccable appointments of myself and my colleagues, as managers of the People's Association Board of Management passed in this Assembly. I now hear a charge that we have misused or misappropriated public funds in our capacity as statutory trustees of the People's Association. If that is seriously alleged, then I say, "Put that down," and the Member for Anson will have full opportunity to justify it.

Order. The Hon, the Prime Minister will have an opportunity of going on that tack. What I have to decide is whether or not the allegation does come within the ambit of item 11. I will give the Member for Anson one more chance to satisfy me that it does.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the matter was raised on a point of order by the Prime Minister. In so far as I can see, he has not stopped to justify that point of order on that particular aspect, although it has been taken up by you. I will try to explain it, and if I might try to do it once more, Sir. Politicians in the P.A.P., in Government, have utilised public funds for the support of their candidate. And I say, Sir, showing their favouritism towards their Party members and improperly using monies with which they were entrusted for public purposes.

Order. I am afraid the Member for Anson is surely stretching the meaning of the words. To my mind, "political nepotism" does not imply an improper use of public funds, and "improper political interference" does not, to my mind, imply the improper use of public funds. Therefore, I rule that those allegations are out of context in so far as this motion is concerned. Of course, it is open to the Member for Anson on another occasion to move another motion.

May I suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if the Member for Anson wishes now to move an amendment, I have not the slightest objection to his expanding the scope of his allegations, but it must be spelt out seriatim.

No, I cannot allow that because, as I have always stated, an amendment must restrict the debate on any motion. This allegation certainly expands the ambit of the motion and, therefore, any attempt to amend it on those lines will be completely out of order. The other alternative is for the Member for Anson after his speech to ask leave to withdraw the motion, and then to put in another motion which will cover all his allegation.

Mr Speaker, I would ask merely this. Is not political interference in the utilisation of monies for the purposes of one of their candidates political nepotism? Is that what you have ruled?

I have made my ruling.

If it please you, Sir, I shall go on with it. Mr Speaker, I do not think it appropriate to refer to the amendment until it is made, although it would be simpler if you would permit that I should deal with it. Could I have your ruling on that, Sir?

Order. I take it that the Deputy Prime Minister will, in due course, move the amendment. If he will, then I would suggest that the debate should from now on cover the proposed amendment so that any Member wishing to speak will speak not only on the motion but also on the amendment. And there can be one vote taken at the end of the debate - one vote on the amendment, and one vote on the motion as amended, if it has been amended.

If it please you, Mr Speaker -

On a point of order?

Point of clarification.

Order.

Sir, your ruling will therefore mean that every Member will have only a chance to speak only once?

That is the ruling, unless any Member wishes to dissent. It is not a ruling which I can impose on Members, but it is only for the convenience of Members. No dissenting voice? Mr Marshall.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, I think I have made it clear that there have been what I consider indications of abuse of the power of appointment. I have indicated Mr Speaker, that to my mind and there certainly are - how shall I put it? - I recognize the existence not only in myself but in the people of Singapore a belief that there has been improper interference with members of the civil service. And the purpose of this motion, Sir, is to protect the public service from the abuse of power entrusted to Ministers. It is a very important principle, and that is why it is important that we appoint a Commission of Inquiry to investigate into these fears and suspicions, to ascertain and report on the truth, and to make recommendations for the future protection of our civil service. Sir, I ask for two retired civil servants to be on the Commission because it is my view that our civil service has been trained along the right lines of integrity and independence from political interference. And they are the best people to advise the Commission on means to protect the civil servants from any infringement of that tradition. On the further issue of political interference, you will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that it is not appropriate, except before a Commission appointed to investigate, to make allegations with reference to individuals, nor is it permissible under Standing Orders to make allegations with reference to Ministers' private conduct outside this Assembly. To my mind, the conduct of officers in Radio Singapore gives cause for genuine concern as to the extent of ministerial interference in the departmental discharge of responsibility. It is also generally believed that the P.A.P. has interfered with little respect for the civil servant in all fields of civil service administration.

Sir, on a point of order. We have come here to listen with seriousness to what we expected to be grave charges and not to vague allegations of political policy of interference, or giving orders to officials of Radio Singapore. Let these allegations of misdemeanour or misconduct be spelt out seriatim or let them be withdrawn.

Order. I think the Member for Anson is entitled to say what he is saying under the terms of the motion. When the Prime Minister speaks, he can point out what he is now endeavouring to point out on a point of order. It is a matter for debate.

On a point of order. Purely as a matter of privilege, these are allegations made against the conduct, albeit indirectly, anonymously and collectively, of each and every Minister in the Government. Nine of us are responsible for the affairs of State, and exercise the powers of patronage formerly exercised by the Governor, the Mayor and the Chief Secretary. Sir, we are prepared to answer any charge of any misdemeanour in any place under anybody.

This is not a point of order. If the Prime Minister is rising on a matter of privilege, then I say, if he wishes to pursue the matter as a matter of privilege, he must move a motion in that respect, because I am not here to judge whether or not there is any truth or otherwise in the allegations. We are now debating a motion on political nepotism and a Commission of Inquiry. The Prime Minister will be entitled to argue this point when it comes to his turn to speak. I cannot see how the Member for Anson is out of order under the Standing Orders by saying what he is saying. Mr Marshall.

Mr Speaker, I seek further elucidation. Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

A very simple point. An accusation is being made which is to be investigated, as I understand it. I am asking from a man who is eminently knowledgeable in these matters to follow the simple rules of justice, namely, that an accusation must be made specifically; where, in what respect, in what department, at what time, was there impropriety, mis-demeanour, improper political interference. If a man is charged -

Order. That certainly is not a point of order for the Chair. That is a point of argument. The Prime Minister was possibly rising on a point of elucidation. As the Member for Anson sat down, the Prime Minister is entitled to ask for elucidation, "Will the Member for Anson give specific cases?" But it is not a point of order for the Chair.

It is curious, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are here on matters of principle. Mr Speaker, I seek to speak on the general disquiet and dissatisfaction on the part of the public. It is not merely allegations that I make or allegations that another person makes that I seek to have a Commission of Inquiry to investigate. I seek to give an opportunity to the people at large, to the civil service, to make their complaints in proper form to a tribunal which will hear them impartially and which will adjudicate. That is the simple issue, Sir,If we accept the fact that there is disquiet, it may be that it is without reason. I am not so much seeking to condemn the Government-if you will notice the issue-as seeking to have the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry to investigate a general disquiet throughout the country with reference to the conduct of this Government in the particular field of interference with the civil service and with employees of statutory bodies. The Prime Minister says that I have not made specific allegations. I have already made some. It may be that with reference to some other matters, I will be able, in due course, to implement what I have said here, because I can assure the Prime Minister and other Members of this House that there is nothing which I have said here which I am not prepared to repeat and, within my ability in so far as I can, to amplify before a tribunal if and when it is appointed. As regards the amendment, it is a curious amendment. The first is a simple and factual one. They delete the two civil servants. To my mind, Mr Speaker, a retired civil servant is eminently desirable to assist, not so much in the question of condemnation, but in the question of future protection of the civil service from attempts to interfere by the overbearing Ministers. I do urge the Government to recognise the value of having two retired civil servants attached to the tribunal for purposes of assisting in the making of recommendations. I am very happy to notice that though there is an amendment, it does, in fact, incorporate the spirit of my motion and that the Government does accept. But, Sir, you will notice a limitation which may well not have been intended. It seeks to limit the investigation of this Commission only to the allegation made in this House, to investigate all allegations and those who have voiced those allegations. It may well be that that was not the intention, and I hope that it is not the intention to limit the Commission's powers to investigation of allegations of nepotism that are made in this House and to shut out the cvil service, the employees of statutory bodies and the public from making their appropriate representations. Furthermore, Sir, it says the Commission will be held provided all Members will undertake to repeat these allegations before the Commission and to give evidence of such allegations on oath or affirmation, notwithstanding any provisions in any Standing Order or written law. Sir, in so far as I am concerned, I am very happy to give that undertaking. But it seems to me a little absurd, if you will permit me to say so, Mr Speaker, to incorporate it in an amendment. If one person is not prepared to give that undertaking, it does not mean that the people of Singapore should be deprived of a Commission, the principle of which is conceded by the Government. It is perfectly true that Members are protected from being compelled to repeat outside what they have said here. But I think, Sir, if we at times recognise that if we give Members the credit for having a sense of responsibility and accepting the fact that a Commission of Inquiry would be called and they would be subpoenaed to it, and if they refuse to give evidence, then they will be placed in an acutely embarrassing position vis-a-vis the Government. I can find no merit really, Mr Speaker, in this amendment except that the Government, seemingly to save face rather than accept my motion, has sought to amend it so that it seems that we are accepting its own amendment. I do urge the Assembly to accept the motion as it stands, a simple motion which seeks merely to investigate, report and make recommendations. Question proposed.

It might be convenient if the Deputy Prime Minister moves now.

Seconder?

There is no seconder required to the motion.

No, I am not moving yet.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, speaking of personal relationships, the leaders of the P.A.P. have always credited me highly. It is a sorry matter that I should have inevitably parted ways with them on political lines. I know the Prime Minister is very angry over the motion on political nepotism. He takes it to mean that we of the Barisan Sosialis want to have a bout of Siamese boxing with him. In fact, we have no intention of hitting out at the P.A.P. on questions which do not concern any political principles. Let me explain here why I signed as the seconder of this motion. There are two reasons which led me to do so. First, it is because, after the 13 Assemblymen of the Barisan Sosialis have left the P.A.P., those who were serving in Government departments or statutory boards and who were not satisfied with the Right-wing inclination or political line of the P.A.P. leadership were oppressed by the P.A.P. in respect of their livelihood, and so lost their jobs. Among those who were forced to leave their jobs were the community centre district leaders of the People's Association, centre leaders and assistant leaders, members of the Work Brigade, car park attendants in the Vehicles Registration Department, temporary clerks in the Citizenship Registration Board, photographers and typists in the Ministry of Culture, and even receptionists in the Prime Minister's office. They were sacked as from 21st of July last year. The Government did not give any reason to explain the mistakes they had made in respect of their duties. The Government also did not point out where their ability did not meet the duties they shouldered. They were sacked merely because they would not attend the P.A.P. Branch Committee meetings to support the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P. which had already changed its political nature. They were a group of very efficient people, as, for instance, the team leaders of the People's Association and community centre leaders. The Prime Minister had praised them. He said that if the work of rehabilitating the over 10,000 fire victims at Bukit Ho Swee had been carried out without the help of these people, and if it had depended only on the help of the police and troops, then there might very well have been violence and disturbances. These people had loyally supported the P.A.P. for many years. In carrying out their duties they did not haggle over the length of time. They wholeheartedly served the people. But on the 21st of July, they were sacked. On the contrary, the Government is paying about $1,000 salary every month to the former Labour Front Organising Secretary, Mr De Cruz, George Thomson and the like. Since the P.A.P. is carrying out a kind of unprincipled political oppression and divesting the right of these people to serve in Government departments and statutory boards, why then should I cover up the P.A.P.'s practice of employing personnel for Government departments? The second reason is that the Barisan Sosialis has acquired new evidence which shows that the P.A.P. is continuing to exploit its position in power to carry out improper actions in respect of the public services. Mr Speaker, Sir, here is a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs. It was written on the 27th of September, 1961, to Mr Chang Yuen Siang, who was a team leader at the Paya Lebar Work Brigade camp. This letter reads: `Comrade Yuen Siang, Chai Chee and Ang Chee are Executive Committee members of the Toa Payoh Branch. They had their supper earlier in order to go to the Branch to carry out their work. When they leave, please take over their work. It is my hope. Yours faithfully, Chee Seng.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to table this letter in order to comply with the procedure. It was on the 4th of October, 1961, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs wrote a similar letter to the camp leader of the Paya Lebar Work Brigade camp requesting him to release two P.A.P. members who were working in the Work Brigade so that they could leave the camp and have their supper earlier in order to enable them to go back to the P.A.P. Branch to work. From what I know, in July last year, the Paya Lebar camp of the Work Brigade had withdrawn all leave papers of its members, that is to say, it disallowed members of the Work Brigade to leave the camp at night at any time they liked. But these two letters explained that if the members of the Work Brigade were members of the P.A.P. and they were also executives of the Branches, then they would have a special privilege to leave the camp and go to the Branch to work. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have another piece of evidence. Let me give a copy of this evidence to the Clerk of the Assembly. This evidence is in a letter written by the Chairman of the P.A.P. Toa Payoh Branch to the camp leader of the Paya Lebar Work Brigade. This letter reads as follows: `Comrade Yuen Siang, Your members, Choo Chua Tee and Cheng Mao Shih, were absent from the camp on Monday because they had gone to the Toa Payoh Branch of the P.A.P. that day to help paint the table tennis table. So I hope you will excuse them and give them their pay during their absence. Kim Yuen Chee, Toa Payoh Branch Chairman.' There is also the seal of the Toa Payoh Branch Publicity Section. It was dated the 8th of November, 1961. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether this can be considered as a sort of political nepotism. So long as a person is a member of the P.A.P., and at the same time he is a member of the Work Brigade, he need not go to the Work Brigade camp. He can absent himself and still get his pay on the day he is absent from work. Mr Speaker, Sir, here again, I do not wish to talk too much. My Party has indicated to me clearly the importance of the neutrality of the civil service. The Central Executive Committee of the Barisan Sosialis has, by a majority, agreed that we must stop and correct the practices of the P.A.P. in engaging employees for the public service. We must do this in order to maintain neutrality in the civil service. Otherwise, all talk of neutrality is but humbug. Because of these two reasons I have signed as a seconder of the motion tabled by the Member for Anson. Regarding the amendment moved by the Deputy Prime Minister, it is my opinion that I should endorse the views of the Member for Anson. I feel it is absolutely unnecessary to move such an amendment. In the meantime, I feel that to add this amendment to the original motion is an act to restrict people from ventilating their views, doubts and suspicions of Government policies. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now table copies of the two letters I have quoted. I shall produce the originals, if necessary, to the relevant Commission of Inquiry. Copies of the letters handed in to the Clerk. 7.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I expected the Member for Anson or the Member for Upper Serangoon to divulge startling details of political nepotism, but actually what we have heard is nothing but a general ramble on certain appointments we have made, particularly to statutory boards and certain temporary posts. Let me say this quite clearly: that the Government, in order to carry out its policy, must certainly have the means to be assured that its policy is going to be carried out. Part of the system of administration and the execution of policies of the Government is left to statutory boards. It is natural and stands to reason that when some appointments are made to these statutory boards we should include people who we believe will do their best to see that our policies are carried out. Certainly the Member for Anson does not expect the Government to appoint him to any of the statutory boards like the Housing and Development Board or the Income Tax Board. Let me put a simple instance before him. The House is fully aware of the previous Board constituted under the Singapore Improvement Trust. Under that Board, little was done in accelerating or building cheap houses. Since we took over, we have placed people in the Housing Board who we know are sympathetic - although not necessarily members of the P.A.P. - to the policies of the P.A.P. and who are sincere and honest in carrying out our policies. It is because we have done this that today the Housing and Development Board can claim to have put up the biggest number of houses for 1961 - more than at any time in the life of the previous S.I.T. Now assuming that we had no control over the Housing and Development Board, where would these houses be today? Assuming that we had no control over any other Board, the policies of the Government could be sabotaged and jeopardised. It is not enough for us to put up a Five-Year Development Plan or an election programme and say that we will do this and that for the people, if we do not have the means to ensure that these policies are going to be carried. The execution and administration of these policies is left in the hands, to some extent, of the statutory boards and it is necessary - desirable, in fact - to place in them people upon whom we can rely and people who we know for sure are sympathetic to our policies and our plans and who will honestly and sincerely spend a considerable part of' their time to see that they are carried out. Let me add this. By the term "political nepotism", I have the impression that favours are granted to people because of their political affiliations. But let me tell the House that the majority of the Members of the statutory boards do not receive any emolument whatsoever. They do not receive a single cent. And let me tell the House too that many of the members who are on these boards and whom we trust have spent a considerable amount of their time and energy to attend meetings because of their dedication to public service. They have volunteered but they have not been compelled to become members of these boards. The House and the public cannot expect us to appoint Members of the Opposition to these boards. Instead of executing the policies of the Government, we will find that they will be using these boards to sabotage our development plans. That i3 the natural conclusion: What is the grumble? What is the fuss that the Member for Anson has kicked up? He read out a list of statutory board memberships - a list which had been given to him by the Prime Minister - and tried to examine how many members of these boards are P.A.P. members. From his speech today, he has acknowledged that in many of these boards there are very few P.A.P. members. Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the difficulties that we face in this country is the paucity of people who are prepared to dedicate their time in the public service without receiving any reimbursement for the time and energy they spend in the public service. Is it not natural, therefore, that we should, as a first recourse, look towards people whom we know and who are prepared to come forward and serve on these public boards; and if these persons should also be members of the Party, are they not more reliable? In fact, many of those whom we have appointed to these statutory boards have been appointed not solely on account of their party affiliation but, as the Member for Anson has acknowledged, there are a number sitting on these statutory boards who have been recognised for their merits. The Member for Anson has suggested that there has been improper political interference with the civil service. Does he suggest then that any political Party which comes into power should draw a clear-cut line between the Government and the civil service? Are not the policies of the Government to be executed through the civil service? If stopping corruption in the civil service means raising its efficiency, if insisting upon the civil service to be more polite and more prompt in their public relationship with the people is regarded as interference, then I say that such interference is warranted. Members of the House will accept that even civil servants are not infallible and they are not robots. They are not machines on which you press a button and orders are carried out. They are human beings with human failings. With several thousand civil servants, is it not possible that there is a minority whose efficiency is suspect, whose integrity may also be suspect? In fact, it is customary for me to receive letters - albeit anonymous and which I therefore do not treat seriously - alleging inefficiency and corruption. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, you yourself could be aware of letters appearing in the daily Press complaining of inefficiency in some departments of the civil service. They appear periodically in the Press. Therefore, it is up to the Government to see that these inefficiencies are removed. How would you expect them to be removed? Should the Minister himself go and do the job of the civil servants? It is humanly impossible. Therefore, we have appointed certain Assemblymen to some Ministries to ensure that the civil service is always kept on its toes, that all complaints of inefficiency and any allegation of corruption can be immediately investigated. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have in my amendment deleted the appointment of civil servants on the Commission of Inquiry. Sir, the reason for that is very simple. If you put civil servants on a Commission of Inquiry - whether they be retired or not - it is tantamout to asking civil servants to sit upon the heads of the Government or to sit upon the heads of elected leaders of the country. That is a contradiction which must not be allowed to get through. Another reason is this. Any recommendations or any conclusions arrived at by such a Commission which includes civil servants will always be suspect, because however the Commission makes its findings, there will be people who are bound to say that the civil servants are prejudiced against or biased for the Government, and it is solely in the interest of a fair judgment being arrived a by such a Commission that we are prepared to appoint a High Court Judge to constitute this Commission. As everybody knows, the Judiciary is independent of the Executive. Allegations which are made must be specific. No Commission can spend its time listening to fairy tales or stories. The Commission, which will consist of a High Court Judge, will have its patience sorely tested if it has to listen to general ramblings all round. It is therefore important that such a Commission must investigate specific allegations. Lastly, Members of this House are called honourable Members. It stands to reason that if honourable Members are prepared to make specific allegations in this House, then they are also honour bound to put them down in writing and to produce the evidence before such a Commission.

Hear, hear!

Therefore, I have inserted in my amendment a clause saying: `provided that all members who have voiced these allegations in' this Assembly will undertake to repeat these allegations before the Commission'. Mr Speaker, I know full well that under the Privileges and Immunities Bill, which is now in Select Committee, no Member of this Assembly can be compelled to attend a Commission of Inquiry. Now, if we were to stick solely to laws, to rules and regulations, any Member in this House today under the pretext of privilege could utter anything under the sun and utter any falsehood.

No.

Therefore, I say to hon. Members of this House that it is not enough for a person to stand on a soap-box and say certain things and before a Judge say other things, knowing full well that what he says on a soap-box will be treated quite lightly and he may get away with it. But if you say certain things on oath before a Judge, then there is also the possibility of being charged with perjury. Therefore, I have included that proviso in this amendment. I ask hon. Members who are going to speak on this motion, if they are going to speak, let them undertake to repeat all their allegations before the Commission on oath. Mr Speaker, I beg to move an amendment, To leave out from the word "Inquiry" in line 2 to the end and there to insert - "of one High Court Judge to investigate all specific allegations of political nepotism and improper political interference with the Civil Service and employees of Statutory bodies and to make recommendations, provided that all members who have voiced these allegations in this Assembly will undertake to repeat these allegations before the Commission and to give evidence of such allegations on oath or affirmation before such a Commission notwithstanding any provision in any standing order or written law giving protection or privilege to any Member of this Assembly.".

The original Question was, "That this Assembly calls upon the Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry consisting of at least one High Court Judge and two retired Civil Servants to investigate political nepotism and improper political interference with the Civil Service and employees of Statutory bodies and to make recommendations.". Since which an amendment has been moved, To leave out from the word "Inquiry" in line 2 to the end and there to insert - "of one High Court Judge to investigate all specific allegations of political nepotism and improper political interference with the Civil Service and employees of Statutory bodies and to make recommendations, provided that all members who have voiced these allegations in this Assembly will undertake to repeat these allegations before the Commission and to give evidence of such allegations on oath or affirmation before such a Commission notwithstanding any provision in any standing order or written law giving protection or privilege to any Member of this Assembly.". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." And as has been agreed, the debate shall proceed to cover both the motion and the amendment, and the Question, if necessary, will be put at the end of the debate. 7.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me straightaway make it quite clear that I am against the amendment for two reasons. Firstly, the amendment seeks only to have investigated any allegations of political nepotism made in this Assembly; secondly, the proviso, to my mind, is completely objectionable, in that it seeks to hamstring Members of this House into agreeing to something which the law says nobody can hamstring them into.

There is no law yet.

I think that is most improper, Mr Speaker, Sir,I am surprised that the Leader of the House, instead of protecting the privileges of Assemblymen, seeks, by virtue of this amendment, to destroy it. Mr Speaker, Sir, I should have thought that the Government having conceded that there should be such a Commission - and they must have thought about the matters carefully - then they would have decided that the wider the scope of the Commission, the better for the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have very often heard from a number of people whose opinions should be respected about the P.A.P. Government, about what it is doing, about what it is not doing, and about all the difficult and hard things the P.A.P. Government is doing. We hear all these things. They have been a matter of market talk and coffee-shop gossip for the last two years. But as responsible Assemblymen, we do not bring such talk and such gossip into this Assembly and voice them because we are not quite sure whether they are correct or not. But from the point of view of the Government, the important thing is not, I venture to suggest, whether what I have been told is correct or not, but that it is being said. If more than one person is saying it, if quite a lot of persons are saying it, then it becomes a matter of importance for the Government to clear itself. I hope this Commission will clear the Government, Mr Speaker, Sir. But if the Government puts restrictions on the Commission, then people will doubt whether the Government is honest in its statement that it wants a Commission. I think the Member for Anson has been quite fair in his motion. What the Government want is this: they want allegations to be made here, and only for those allegations to go to the Commission. They also want the persons who make allegations to go and give evidence. But what we want in this Assembly is not for Assemblymen to go and give evidence, because we Assemblymen are not the ones who can give evidence. The people who know and who suffer the difficulties are the people outside. This Commission is intended to protect those persons who go before the Commission and give their evidence, not to protect Assemblymen. A civil servant might have a just grouse against a Minister. But under the rules governing the civil service, he is not entitled to talk; he is not entitled to open his mouth. This Commission will give him scope, and I hope that -

On a point of information, Sir. Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

Am I to understand now that the wording of the motion is such that the idea is to have a Commission in which civil servants can go before it and have a grouse? I was under the impression that a serious allegation has been made against the misconduct of the Government, and the Commission is to investigate such misconduct; not for the civil servants just to have a general grouse - a Complaints Bureau!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the motion here, the motion as moved by the Member for Anson: `That this Assembly calls upon the Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry consisting of at least one High Court Judge and two retired Civil Servants to investigate political nepotism and improper political interference with the Civil Service and employees of Statutory bodies and to make recommendations.' Mr Speaker, Sir, if this Commission were appointed!, the first thing it would do, I take it, would be to meet and put out a statement through the Press and the radio, inviting anybody who can give any evidence on this particular matter to send in either written statements or to appear before the Commission. Now, I may be silly in this, Mr Speaker, Sir. Who can better give evidence about this than the civil servants themselves and employees of statutory bodies? What evidence the Member for Anson can give - he is not a civil' servant - and what evidence the Member for Farrer Park, can give, Mr Speaker, Sir, would' be purely hearsay.

It is not even hearsay.

Oh, yes, I have heard a lot, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going to repeat it here, because I am not quite sure of the facts. I am not going to make any statement in this House which, to my own knowledge, is not true. And the Prime Minister is not going to bamboozle me into making statements which I do not want to make in this House. The best persons to make those statements are the civil servants. And if the Prime Minister is really sincere in getting the name of his Government cleared, then let it be an open Commission, not with these restrictive provisos attached to it - we shall only investigate what has been said in this House and then only if the Member alleging it will go forward and say it. No, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not support the amendment at all.

I am often surprised to find the finer instincts of the Member for Farrer Park carried away `in the wrong direction. Not only do I share the same democratic and liberal training that he underwent, but we went through a harder school - that of the smear and Siamese boxing. And I say this to him - this is my frank and honest opinion - that if we work on the basis that the Opposition is honourable (we call ourselves honourable in this Chamber), then we shall waste the time of the Judges, their secretaries, the court ushers, and other people who give valuable time for a public cause. You do not appoint a Commission of Inquiry just because somebody bellyaches and wants a Commission of Inquiry. You appoint a Commission of Inquiry because there is a prima facie case for it. The Member for Hong Lim made some fantastic allegations. We forced a Commission of Inquiry upon him in order to clear ourselves. I would have thought, Mr Speaker, Sir, that particularly our erstwhile colleagues in the P.A.P., the 13 Barisan boys, would have known better than to believe that the P.A.P. is not prepared for the closest scrutiny. This is basic and fundamental. If one's conduct bears political scrutiny under any magnifying glass, then one can stand up in any form, unblemished and undislodged. For that reason, I say to the Member for Anson when he mentioned all those appointees. So what? I supplied him with the names of those appointees and their political affiliations. I am proud they are my friends. I supplied him with a list in this House when the Member for Hong Lim was casting all kinds of serious aspersions on the Government. Sir, if we appoint a Commission of Inquiry, just a roving Commission - let us hear whether there is any rumour, let us hear whether there is any truth - I say this. This is Commission number 4 on the list, as I answered earlier in the afternoon. The Member for Farrer Park knows there are five Puisne Judges in the High Court. One Puisne Judge will have to sit down and spend no less than about 30 sitting days discussing and listening to evidence and cross-examination. He will probably spend another week sifting the evidence and writing a report. We are not doing this for fun. It costs public money and effect. As the Member for Hong Lim's allegations cost effort. It costs him a lot of effort and many other things beside. It costs us some effort too to dig up a few things.

It cost you Hong Lim!

That is all right. But I would rather lose a thousand elections than go under false pretences. That is the quality of this Government. The Member for Upper Serangoon is the man who came back from Israel, and I want him in the witness box for very important reasons. He alleges nepotism when he is the man who practised it in the People's Association. We sent him off to Israel on a youth training course in order that he could come back and the better discharge his duties in the People's Association. I am prepared to give evidence on oath and cross-examine him under oath. He came back and told me that he had been to see Histadruth, the Israeli trade union organisation, and the Israeli Labour Party. He says the way to do it is just to ignore all these things and pack the whole thing with your party men, the whole Government. I say this in this Chamber. I will repeat it on oath. He will have to repeat it on oath. I am not meaning this for the Member for Anson. As the Minister for Culture has just told me, "If we start talking about vague allegations and `I have heard it said in the market place that some chaps are certifiable.' " But does that mean that we should have a Commission of Inquiry to investigate whether it is true that some chaps are certifiable?

Maybe the Prime Minister!

Or an hon. Member of this House? For we should all be coin pos mentis in this House. Quite frankly, I say this. We put down this amendment. I expected some fierce allegations to be made after the fashion of the Member for Hong Lim. And we say, all right, let them say whatever they like. But let them go up before this Commission, take the oath, and repeat it. I was really not interested in the Member for Anson, because, after everything is said and done, he does not really fight Siamese style. Once in a while he does land a blow below the belt, but then he apologises' for it. But the Member for Upper Serangoon is brought up in a different tradition. He claimed certain property in the Upper Serangoon Branch as his - sewing machines, printing presses and other furniture. He removed them. We said it was theft. He brought an action. He went to the Police Court. There he discovered, for the first time, that if he gave evidence on oath and claimed that the property was his he would have to go to a Judge, because, being a member of the Government, if he took bribes from his constituents and never reported them -

Order. It seems to me as though there must be another Commission of Inquiry. Is all this relevant to the motion?

It is relevant. A man claimed property belonging to the P.A.P. He stole it. We said he stole it. We claimed it. The police impounded it. He claimed it in the Civil District Court.

Order. Is that political nepotism or improper political interference, or does it come within the amendment? I cannot see how it does.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been at pains to explain the obvious. I must apologise, for sometimes I assume the obvious. We are making this proviso in the amendment, that a man who makes his allegations here must repeat them before the Commission, because we have experience of people, making charges lightheartedly. In particular, the Member for Upper Serangoon had made a serious claim that certain property was his when he stole it.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Point of order.

I have no brief for the Member for Upper Serangoon though he seconds my motion. But I would draw the attention of the Speaker to the fact that there is a Standing Order which precludes hon. Members from making reference to the conduct of Members outside this House except on a substantive motion.

The Standing Order is Standing Order 46, which refers to the personal conduct of Members: `The personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose.' I do suggest to the Prime Minister that his allegation that the hon. Member for Upper Serangoon stole something is a serious allegation, which is not within the ambit of this motion. If he wishes to make an allegation, then he should make it by way of a motion. If the Member for Upper Serangoon wishes to take it up, then it is a matter probably for the Committee of Privileges.

Surely, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Upper Serangoon having claimed certain property which we said he stole. But what I wanted to point out to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the obvious, why we have moved this amendment. He claimed it. When he went to court, he dared not go into the witness box to claim it. And he surrendered the property. Why? Because he discovered in the course of the proceedings that if he had gone into the witness box on oath and sworn that the property was his, then he would have been charged for having received gifts without consideration as a member of the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, people make all kinds of fantastic statements. But when they know that they have to repeat them on a certain formalistic ritual, they think twice. I am prepared to meet the Member for tipper Serangoon. I have nothing personal against him. This is all highly political. But I will tell him this, through you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Political or not, there are certain standards of honour and conduct. When a man incites me to nepotism and I check him, and he comes here and moves a motion and says that I am guilty of nepotism, then I say I want that man in the witness box.

That is your tragedy, Mr Prime Minister.

Indeed. And I have paid so bitterly and dearly for it, as indeed all those who make mistakes must pay. But I am suggesting that the Member for Upper Serangoon is making a grave error of judgment for the things he said. I did not bother to listen to his rigmarole because I thought if I stayed behind I might act as an inhibition to some of the more flamboyant things he would say. I wanted him to say everything he wanted to say in order that it could stand up to the test of close scrutiny. We say by all means have this Commission of Inquiry. The Member for Anson - I really was not concerned about him - knows just how far he can go. He is as well trained as the Member for Farrer Park. He says, "I was told, this and that." Generally - there is the "generally". There is a general belief. The Minister for Culture informed me as to the wrong estimation of one's sanity and so on. [Interruption] I do not want to be ruled out of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. There is cunning behind all this calculated insanity. But the Member for Upper Serangoon blunders into this. I say here and now that he incited me to nepotism when he came back from Israel. We sent him on a training course, and he said the whole approach was wrong. In fact, you could never implement anything through the civil service. Sack the whole lot. Appoint all P.A.P. chaps, then you can implement it. Mr Chan Sun Wing rose ---

On a point of elucidation?

Yes.

If the Prime Minister will give way? The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

(In Mandarin): I think it is necessary to clarify certain points which the Prime Minister has raised. Perhaps the Prime Minister was too excited. I did not say the things he mentioned just now.

This is important. Cher sie hua wo ping mei yu na yang chiang. [Certain things I did not say]. Say exactly in that way. But many things were more or less like that. That is on the record, it may not appear in the translation. But I repeated it for the purpose of memory. Iu i sie hua wo ping mei yu na yang chiang. But more or less, he was inciting me. And I say a man who has the perfidy to ask me to do something which I was against and then comes to this Chamber and acts as a seconder to a motion calling for a Commission of Inquiry to investigate wrongs which he - very fortunately for me - failed to get me to commit - I say that takes the cake. What I would like to do is to meet him under Queensberry rules, Mr Speaker, Sir, - on oath - in order that the truth can be ascertained. We have appointed all these chaps to various posts. So what? What is wrong with it? But when the Member for Anson says - and I was watching the Member for Nee Soon very closely - that I, as Chairman of the People's Association, wrongly used or misused the funds of the People's Association to bring P.A.P. members to Anson and Hong Lim rallies, then I say, he puts it down in writing, he produces his witness, and we shall question the witness. There has not been one single word on the real nub of this motion, which is what the Member for Farrer Park has talked about - political nepotism and interference with the civil service. With people trained in the English democratic traditions, it is a very serious matter when you intimidate or otherwise undermine the morale and integrity of the civil service by unlawfully or improperly interfering with it. Not a single word of that from the Member for Anson, let alone from the Member for Upper Serangoon. Strangely enough, I do not know whether this is a failing of the Member for Upper Serangoon or whether he reflects the 13 Barisan Members. As I understood his ten-minute speech which I heard before I left the Chamber in order that he would not be inhibited, what he was bemoaning was not the fact that he got all these various chaps jobs in the People's Association but that after we discovered he was up to no good, we got him out and we got rid of his chaps. That was the complaint. I should have thought the proper wording for the motion by the Member for Upper Serangoon would have been that "This House condemns the P.A.P. Government for not allowing all those persons - community centre leaders, assistant leaders, watchmen and so on - recruited by him and the Member for Nee Soon to carry on and act, not at the behest of the Board of Management's rules, but, I would say, to the tugs and pulls of the chaps who installed them in their jobs." They are two different matters entirely. The Member for Anson is worlds apart from the Member for Upper Serangoon. They signed the same motion, Mr Speaker, Sir, but they were talking of two completely and entirely different things in two different languages. And I want to say, in brief, that we are prepared, as indeed any government which desires to maintain its integrity as a matter of honour is prepared, to have any Commission of Inquiry or any scrutiny into anybody's conduct. For only in that way can we justify acceptance of the fact that whatever we do, be it right or be it wrong, is not for personal advantage and personal interest. But I say, when it comes to a thing like this - and we have gone through all this rigmarole with the Member for Hong Lim and whatever that Commission of Inquiry achieved or did not achieve - that is a debatable point - a year has since elapsed and we have heard no more' about all these wild allegations. They have stopped. 8.00 p.m.

Order. Moment of interruption.

Mr Speaker, I move, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1875 there was passed an Ordinance [Foreign Recruiting] which is still on our statute books to control recruiting in the Colony for the service of Foreign States. Section 3 of the Ordinance reads as follows: `If any person is, within the limits of the' Colony, obtaining, or attempting to obtain, recruits for the service of any Foreign State in any capacity, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara may by order in writing, signed by the Minister, either prohibit such person from so doing or permit him to do so subject to any conditions which the Yang di-Pertuan Negara imposes.' Then section 4 of the same Ordinance reads as follows: `The Yang di-Pertuan Negara may by general order notified in the Gazette either prohibit recruiting for the service of any Foreign State, or impose upon such recruiting any conditions which he thinks fit.' And section 5, which is the last `section, is the punishment section for any violation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's orders set forth in the Gazette. Recruiting under this Ordinance, Mr Speaker, Sir, could be either recruiting to a foreign civil service, or perhaps recruiting to an army. This is still on our statute books and, therefore, it becomes pertinent to inquire how this particular section 3 is to be worked. Under section 3 of the Ordinance, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the Yang di-Pertuan Negara who, by order signed by the Minister, prohibits or permits. We know, Mr Speaker, constitutionally, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara never acts on his own. He either acts on the advice of the Cabinet or on that of a particular Minister and it would seem on some occasions, under the Constitution, on the advice of the United Kingdom Commissioner. Section 72 (1) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, reads: `Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Order, defence and external, affairs shall be the responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom.' Section 74 (1) reads: `The Government of the United Kingdom may, whenever it is of the opinion that the discharge of its responsibilities for defence sir external affairs so requires, request the Government of Singapore, by a communication made through the United Kingdom Commissioner, to take any action specified in that communication or to discontinue or refrain from any action which is so specified; and. subject to the provisions of subsection (8) of this section, the Government of Singapore shall, as soon as may be, comply with any such request except to the extent that the Internal Security Council decides, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (7) of this section, that the subject-matter of the `request is a matter of internal security and not of defence or external affairs.' Then section 74 (2) reads: `If the United Kingdom Commissioner is satisfied that the provisions of the preceding subsection have not been complied with, he may, by writing under his official seal, so inform the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and advise him to make an Order giving effect to the request of the Government of the United Kingdom; and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara shall make an Order accordingly.' Section 74 (4) of that Ordinance reads: `Every Order made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara under this section shall have the force of law, and shall be published in the Gazette.' The Foreign Recruiting Ordinance, from 1875 up till the date this Constitution Order in Council came into force, regulated recruiting in so far as such recruitment took place in the Colony for service in a foreign State. The question now arises, Mr Speaker, Sir - and on this, perhaps the appropriate Minister could tell the House - who is the Minister who advises the Yang di-Pertuan Negara under section 3 of the Foreign `Recruiting Ordinance? Is it the Minister for Home Affairs, or is it the Hon, the Prime Minister or is it the United Kingdom Commissioner? The matter is of some importance at this stage, Mr Speaker, Sir, because there are attempts being made to recruit in the Colony -

Colony?

- in the State of Singapore, and there should be a categorical statement made by somebody in charge of these affairs as to what the proper position is with regard to foreign recruiting. If that matter is under the control of the United Kingdom Commissioner, then a categorical statement should be made to that effect. If that matter is within the ambit of any ministerial portfolio, a ministerial statement should be made to that effect. But whatever it may be, it does appear. Mr Speaker, Sir, that under section 4, some general order should be put out in the Gazette to comply with the provisions of the Foreign Recruiting Ordinance.

Are there any Members wishing to speak before the Ministerial Bench replies?

Mr Speaker, Sir, you see some hesitation on the part of the Front Benches of the Government not because an answer is not there to be given, but because the problem is, how do we give the answer? Do we talk about anti-colonialism, or do we talk about law? Having heard the Member for Farrer Park talk law, I have decided that the matter should be answered in a purely legal and proper manner and the appropriate Minister who should answer the Member for Farrer Park is the Minister for Law. The Minister for Law feels that behind the jargon of the law, really what it means is: do you really seriously object to people enlisting members of the Barisan Sosialis who want to volunteer to go to West Irian? Do we really and seriously feel that their loyalty to Singapore will be undermined if they are engaged in the anti-colonial struggle? First of all, I think the Member for Farrer Park has acutely and subtly posed the problem. It is not a question of portfolio because the Cabinet as such act together, and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara can only act on the advice of the Cabinet as such. I would, however, like to draw the attention of the Member for Farrer Park to section 74 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, which specifically spells out the powers over defence and external affairs in the hands of the British Government. If there is any doubt as to where the matter rests, whether it is internal security encroaching upon defence - this is purely a hypothetical case and I am not suggesting that somebody who wants to go to West Irian to fight Dutch colonialism is necessarily a danger to the security of the State of Singapore. In fact, I would think that there is no better guarantee of the security of the State of Singapore than to engage all the anti-colonial fervour and zest and enthusiasm in something really worthwhile, something which I had the honour to sign in a declaration jointly with the First Minister of the Republic of Indonesia, to which my former Parliamentary Secretary was a witness. He stood solemnly by as we declared and he solemnly supported that West Irian should go back to Indonesia. But the crux of the matter is: has the U.K. Commissioner raised the question as one which infringes upon their rights under the Constitution and therefore requiring us to take action? The answer is no because, being wise colonialists, they leave well alone. If chaps want to sail to West Irian, I say to them that the British Navy will not stop them. I think so. I have not received any assurance from the Commander-in-Chief, Far Eastern Station, but I have a good hunch that if they want five blasts of the whistle to send them off, I will try and arrange it, so that they can get a proper send-off to the best landing beaches in West Irian.

What about yourself?

No, Sir, I will not go myself because, like a good democrat, I feel that the matter should be settled by peaceful negotiations. Not that I am adverse to a bit of bloodshed. I think sometimes bloodshed is inevitable when you meet recalcitrant - [Interruption]. No, even my own, if it becomes necessary. But in this case, it is such an interesting and exciting exposition of the art of brinksmanship - I think it will all be settled peacefully. More is the pity when I think of it, all the untapped valour and bravery in the Barisan Sosialis and the three girls whom they marched forward, Sir,I really admire them, Sir,I was away when I read all this. The last time they fought for Chinese culture and education - wrongly fought, they used school kids. Now they want to down the Dutch and liberate West Irian, and they put three girls forward. No, Sir, the short answer to the Member for Farrer Park - I am sorry. That is why I really do not want to answer this. I do not want to say anything in reply because, apart from giving him a purely legal answer at which he already. I imagine, has a very shrewd guess, I have to touch upon the basic reality which the camouflage of legalistic argument is really intended for. I say foreign enlistment, notwithstanding the fact that the Treasurer of the People's Action Party has assured me that we have got enough funds to pay for the first 100 passages to West Irian - the Barisan Sosialis Committee members immediately, first passage, also to volunteer - An hon. Member: One-way ticket!

Or two if they can come back. Why not'? But if the U.K. Commission raises any objection, I am prepared to risk the reputation of my Government in standing up to British colonialism in supporting Dutch colonialism. We stand for anti-colonialism.

In Singapore too?

In Singapore too; everywhere in South-East Asia, anywhere in the world -

Hear, hear!

But after anti-colonialism is over, we stand for an independent, democratic non-Communist socialist society. That is where the sheep and the goats part; that is where anti-colonialism ends and nationalism begins, or Communism begins; and this is the threshold where we are at. The Member for Anson is gleeful because - [Interruption]. I am happy, Sir, that he went up to Kuala Lumpur and had a chat with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya -

Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. [Laughter].

Order.

I can see nothing to laugh about, Sir,I do object to the fact that the personal conduct of a Member should be referred to. Not that I am ashamed in the least to have had lunch with the Prime Minister of the Federation. That was a confidential meeting and I consider it grossly improper on the part of the Prime Minister to divulge it here.

Why do you not tell me -

The point of order has been taken. It is personal conduct of the Member for Anson, and the Standing Orders are quite clear on it. It cannot be referred to except on a substantive motion. Objection has been taken and, therefore, I must insist that no further reference be made.

Sir, the Member asks us to withdraw any aspersion from a reference of that kind. There is no aspersion -

Order. There is no aspersion alleged. It is the personal conduct of a Member which cannot be referred to under our Standing Orders. That is all there is to it.

This is no personal conduct, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is a public figure - a former Chief Minister. I hear all this from my colleague, the Minister for Culture. He told me that the Member for Anson went up with him in the same plane, together with the whole of the Malaysian delegation from Sarawak, and they all -

Order. I think the Prime Minister must keep order. That is personal conduct and he must not refer to it. The objection has been taken.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at some other time and at some other place, I think I will question that ruling; but on a night such as this when we are all getting a bit hungry, I will let it pass. But, nevertheless, let me make this point, which I was on the point of clarifying. We are on the threshold of either a nationalist non-Communist socialist Malaya or a Communist one, and we support anti-colonialism anywhere provided that is where it is going to lead to. If it is going to lead to some other dead-end - and I say those who want to go to a dead-end, God bless them. But that does not mean we do not support West Irian because, as far as we can see, that leads to, for a long while yet, a nationalist Indonesia. What history has in store for us and our neighbours we do not know, but West Irian belongs to Indonesia and we support it - foreign enlistment notwithstanding. The Singapore Government gives a firm and categorical assurance to all those who wish to volunteer that we will stand up for the anti-colonial rights of all those who wish to sacrifice life and limb for a sacred cause.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there has just been a suggestion that there is recruitment going on in this country for the military purposes of a foreign nation. I think we want to put the matter in proper perspective. That is, in fact, inaccurate. I have read in the papers of a statement issued by the Indonesian Consul-General who has stated merely that he has noted these applications for service overseas, that they are not being utilised at the moment, but that they would be considered in due course. That is not recruitment, Sir. That is no more than a polite K.I.V., as if the Member for Farrer Park writes and tells me that he is referring my letter to his client for consideration. It means nothing at all and I do not think it is fair to imply - though I do not know if the implication is intended - that, in fact, the Consul-General for Indonesia is in any way transgressing any of our laws. To my mind, he seems to have acted with complete propriety and constitutionality. There is no suggestion really of recruitment. Insofar as the volunteers -

On a point of elucidation. Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

It might be useful for the Member for Anson to know that the Consul-General for Indonesia Is in no danger of being charged that.

I know that the Consul-General for Indonesia is in no danger of being convicted whatever the P.A.P. may do, because in law he has not recruited. Insofar as the citizens of Singapore are concerned - how shall I say it? - they wish to express a certain emotional reaction and it is a ceremonial gesture on a ceremonial occasion, as Churchill once said. Surely we cannot take them to task, nor shall we make fun of them even though they be women. I say, Sir, that there is nothing here to take objection to in any way that I can see.

Sir, I think the Member for Anson has completely misunderstood the intention of the P.A.P. Government. We have no quarrel with the Consul-General for Indonesia. If he wants to invite people to fight in the campaign to liberate West Irian, so be it. In this great anti-colonial struggle fully supported by the Barisan Sosialis - indeed, Sir, last Sunday, they had a tremendous mass meeting, I am told, whereby they had to rally all the unions under their charge to effect a decent turn-out, which it never had until then - our quarrel is not with the Consul-General for Indonesia. We say that there is an anti-colonial struggle to liberate West Irian. The Barisan Sosialis say, "Yes, they must." We say, "Let West Irian return to Indonesia by peaceful negotiations." But at that mass meeting, they said, "No, we must fight." Mr Lim Ching Siong said, "The example of West Irian clearly shows that constitutional methods of opposing colonialism are ineffective. We must use arms." So be it. He has set the pattern for behaviour. The Member for Anson said, "This is just a ceremonial gesture appealing to the emotions of man". That may be his view. He may be a very emotional man who believes in ceremonial gestures. But the Barisan Sosialis are neither emotional nor ceremonial. Behind them they have the organised ranks, the Communist underground and the open front organisations. They have said openly and' in public at a mass meeting that West Irian must be liberated by force, and that they do not believe in a constitutional effort to win independence from colonial rule. Quite naturally, Sir, it follows, as day follows night, that Members of the Barisan Sosialis, particularly the leaders in the Assembly, feel very strongly about the issue. If they do not feel strongly about the issue, then they are a bunch of hypocrites. If they do feel strongly about the issue -

Order. I take it that the word "hypocrites" was used in reference to Members of the Assembly and it has been ruled in the past as being unparliamentary.

I hasten to say that I have never called them hypocrites. I said if they did not believe in what they publicly stated, that they must liberate West Irian by force, then they were hypocrites. I assume, of course, that they are honourable gentlemen and they' believe in what their Party says and that there is no doubt that they will be the first contingent to land on the shores of West Irian. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

In that happy event, I think this House would want me to strike medals in their honour. And in this gallant anti-colonial struggle, if any of them falls a victim to the machine-gun fire of the wicked Dutch colonialists, then I have no doubt that my Ministry will release sufficient funds to build a monument to his memory.

Order. I suppose this is all related to foreign recruiting.

Sir, we have before this House a motion in support of the anti-colonial struggle in West Irian. I am very glad indeed that the Member for Farrer Park has brought out certain legal obstacles that might stand in the way. The Barisan Sosialis are great anti-colonial fighters, but if they think that the law enacted in 1875 stands in their way, we will sweep it aside and pass an amending legislation to repeal it. Now, Sir, we await with great interest these gallant, brave anti-colonial fighters. What do they have to say? Will we perhaps have the opportunity to go to Clifford Pier to see them off on a tongkang or a junk, because the President of the Republic of Indonesia -

Order. I tried to indicate that the Minister was perhaps going very far away from the topic we are discussing. I think he has made his point. Let us come back to the question of foreign recruiting as raised by the Member for Farrer Park.

I will wind up by saying. I wish them goodbye, good luck and adieu.

Just a few words, Sir, about goodbyes. I am sure that when the time comes, the people of Singapore will say, "Goodbye and good. riddance to the P.A.P.".

Hear, hear!

There are two volunteers now. Are you going to West Irian?

Order.

The Minister for Finance said something about our last week's rally. We do not have to rebut every time that the P.A.P. try to be-little us. `There are witnesses there. There are pictures which show the' thousands that are there. We do not have to carry the people there. They come along by themselves. But there is one thing I want to make clear for the record. He said that our Secretary-General stated that we support the use of force to liberate West Iran because that was the way it should be. Well, we never said that.

How is that?

We have said repeatedly that we support a peaceful solution.

Then why volunteer?

Order.

We quoted the case of Goa, that in this particular case, it was the intransigence and obstinacy of Western colonialism that blinded them to the writing on the wall and, under those circumstances, when colonialism refuses to leave, refuses to budge and still wants to cling on to the last pound of flesh, then it will have to be ousted, just as the P.A.P. when the time comes will be ousted by the people of Singapore. If in this West Irian issue, force has to be used as a result of the obstinacy of Dutch colonialism -

You will go there.

- then for the cause of the struggle against colonialism, we support it.

Will you go then?

If the Minister for Finance would care to come along with us, we would go along as well. An hon. Member: Coward!

You can go there alone.

When the Member for Farrer Park spoke on the' adjournment, he did not indicate whether he wished to be the recruiting officer. An hon. Member: The Barisan Sosialis can do that.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven minutes past Eight o'clock p.m.