Hansard, 1962-01-16

asked the Minister for Labour (a) what was the number of applications in 1961 from employees for withdrawals of monies to their credit in the Central Provident Fund; (b) the number of such applications from persons who were unemployed for more than 6 months and were over the age of 40; and (c) the number of such applications from unemployed persons aged over 40 which have been acceded to by the Central Provident Fund Board.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to (a) is: there were 6,557 formal applications made in 1961 by employees to withdraw their monies standing to their credit in the Central Provident Fund. As regards (b), persons who are unemployed are normally not eligible to withdraw their contributions to the Central Provident Fund unless exceptionally they satisfy the conditions set out in paragraph (f) of the definition "date of withdrawal" in section 2 of the Central Provident Fund Ordinance which reads as follows: '"date of withdrawal" means the day... on which any member of the Fund:-

I am obliged to the Minister for the information he has given, Mr Speaker. But recognising the principle that the Provident Fund is to assist persons on a rainy day, does he not recognise that many of these 6,000 applications which have been rejected are from persons in dire need -

Order. I think the hon. Member is embarking on an expression of opinion and inviting a debate. Is there a supplementary question?

If it please you, Mr Speaker, would the Minister consider introducing an amendment to the Central Provident Fund Ordinance in order to the Provident Fund Board to allow applications for withdrawals in circumstances which are meritorious?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I remember correctly, the Member for Anson in this House raised this question once before, and I made it quite clear that the objects of this Fund are such that I am afraid my answer at the moment to his supplementary question asking me to consider an amendment is "no".

asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government would consider introducing legislation to enforce a minimum standard of service from banks in Singapore,

The Government is introducing a Banking Bill today on a Certificate of Urgency, Mr Speaker, Sir.

I have seen the Bill and I would ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the provisions about the clearing house there would be adequate to meet the contingencies such as those which have occurred lately in respect of the curtailment of inter-bank clearances of cheques where one of the banks' employees is on strike.

Order. I think that question possibly could be asked when we come to consider the Bill.

asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government would consider establishing a State Bank.

Would the hon. Member please inform the House what sort of State bank he wishes the Government to consider establishing?

Any bank, Sir, such as every other State in the world has. I am rather surprised that he should need a clarification.

Sir, different States have different types of State banks. Some State banks are for special purposes, such as to provide credit to farmers and they are called Farmers' Banks. Again some other types of State banks provide easy credit facilities for industrial banks, and they are called State industrial banks. There are Co-operative State banks and a whole range of types of State banks. I am not trying to be facetious, Mr Speaker, Sir, when I ask the hon. Member for a clarification on this point because there are different types of State banks. However, the Member says that every State has got a State bank. I presume he means a Central Bank. Am I right in this understanding?

The question is a simple one, Sir. Is the Government considering the creation of any State bank?

The Government already has a State bank and that is the Post Office Savings Bank.

Taking it seriously, Sir, is the Minister then indicating to the House that the Government has no intention to establish any Central or other State bank?

Now we come to it, Mr Speaker, Sir. As I said, he was really referring to a Central Bank. The answer is "no". The reason is quite simple. I do not know whether I should go into any details on the functions and purposes of a Central Bank and their role in the financial system of a country. Perhaps I should not. I can give the reasons quite simply. The Federation of Malaya has a Central Bank and, after merger, I have no doubt this Central Bank will establish branches in Singapore and the Borneo territories. It is, therefore, quite unnecessary for the Singapore Government to consider setting up a Central Bank of its own. A Central Bank such as most independent nations have is only worthy of its name and status if it is, in addition to performing the necessary functions of government bankers and the lender of last resort to commercial banks, also the authority to control the monetary issue of the country, that is, the note issue of the country, and as a corollary it acts as a custodian of the nation's foreign exchange reserve. We do not have a currency of our own, and therefore to have a Central Bank of our own, while we are part of the common currency area together with the Borneo territories and the Federation of Malaya, is quite a meaningless affair.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would ask the Minister, accepting his thesis that a Central Bank is not necessary in the light of the merger proposals, would he not consider that in the context of the stature of Singapore in the commercial and financial field, a State Commercial Bank is imperative for our own commercial needs?

Sir, my own appraisal is that our banking requirements are adequately met by the private commercial banks. But if the Member for Anson thinks otherwise and if he could convince me that there is a gap in the range of services which the private banks are performing and which a further State Commercial Bank would perform, then I shall be very happy to consider his proposal.

asked the Minister for Health and Law whether Government would consider introducing legislation for the establishment of a Statutory Law Revision Advisory Committee to include members from the Bench, the Bar, the Chambers of Commerce, Trade Unions and women's organisations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while the Government accepts the need for the establishment of a Law Revision Committee from time to time, it is felt that it would be wrong to establish a permanent Statutory Committee with its powers set out and circumscribed by legislation. It is, however, proposed to seek the views of the Judges and the Bar Committee to explore the possibility of setting up from time to time Law Revision Committees to deal with particular aspects of the law which need revision.

I appreciate the indications given by the Minister. But would he not consider that a permanent committee which has to meet and has this responsibility of regularly meeting and considering the need for revision would far better meet the requirements of fast-changing circumstances than ad hoc committees from time to time?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have traced the history of Law Revision Committees elsewhere and we have found in all the Commonwealth countries that they are never appointed on a permanent statutory basis and given well defined powers. As the need arises, these Statutory Revision Committees are appointed. If the Member for Anson has any ideas on the subject, and if he were to write in to us making suggestions, we would consider the setting up of a Law Revision Committee to look into those aspects of the law which require amendment or revision. These are essentially technical committees, Mr Speaker, Sir, If the Member for Anson feels very strongly that there should be amendments to particular laws, there is nothing to prevent him from introducing a Private Member's Bill.

asked the Minister for Culture whether he will make a statement as to his routine daily relations with members of the editorial staff of daily newspapers published in Singapore.

Sir, I have no routine daily relations with members of the editorial staff of daily newspapers.

I would like to ask the Minister if it is not true that daily he is in communication with editors of daily newspapers seeking to ascertain the publication of editorials, offering suggestions for amendments to publication of political news items, and generally exercising coercive supervisory control.

Order. I must remind the Member for Anson that epithets of that nature are out of order under our Standing Orders when questions are being asked. Questions should be made simple and straightforward.

No, Sir. That is a complete figment of the Member for Anson's imagination.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether Government would consider introducing legislation to license the use of the word "Singapore" by firms and associations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this question concerns the Societies Ordinance, the Companies Ordinance and the Business Names Ordinance. Under the Societies Ordinance, we have not refused approval of the name or any Association because the use of the word "Singapore". The State Advocate-General, to whom this question was referred, because his Ministry is also concerned, is unable to advise me because the question is too vague to admit of a reply. He would like to know whether the questioner intended that the use of the word "Singapore" by firms and associations be allowed or restricted.

I am indebted to the Minister, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am all too conscious that expatriates have impertinently arrogated to themselves the use of the word "Singapore".

Order. I think the hon. Member for Anson must get use to the idea of asking just supplementary questions and not inviting a debate.

They are arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to the use of the word "Singapore". I have in mind the Singapore Chamber of Commerce, the Singapore Club. Now we restrict the use of our flag as an emblem to be -

Order. The Member for Anson is now entering into a debate. What is the supplementary question?

Mr Speaker, Sir, should we not introduce legislation to license the use of the word "Singapore" so that we could control its proper use?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Anson could put up his view on this matter, with specific examples, I shall submit it to the State Advocate-General for his views to see whether we could insist on these societies, if they are registered societies, to change their names.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether any citizen of Singapore has been refused a passport since 1st June, 1959, and the number of such applications refused.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as can be ascertained from the records, there have been since 1st June, 1959, 15 cases of Singapore citizens who were refused passports.

Could the Minister indicate the reasons for such refusal and whether it is normal constitutionally to refuse exit permits to citizens?

Mr Speaker, Sir, these persons were refused passports because (1) there were security objections against them which made it undesirable for them to be given facilities to go abroad, or (2) they were persons of doubtful standing and reliability who may cause the Government embarrassment abroad. To quote an example. There were in the past hitch-hikers of doubtful means who were stranded abroad and had subsequently to be repatriated to Singapore at public expense after causing considerable embarrassment in the country to which they had gone. Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue of passports is a privilege and not a right.

2.52 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to provide for the licensing and regulation of the business of banking, and to amend certain provisions of the Companies Ordinance (Chapter 174 of the Revised Edition)." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir.

Please proceed.

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

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

Yes, Sir. Copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that the Bill be proceeded with. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Hon. Members may recall that this Bill was first introduced to the Assembly at the June 1961 sitting, and since then the Bill has lapsed. The contents of the Bill before the House now are the same as those introduced in June last year, and except for minor changes in dates and in the bringing of the Schedule up to date, there has not been any material change. The main purpose of the Bill is to secure proper control over the activities of the banks in Singapore and to provide proper supervision to ensure a sound basis for banking business which is so important to the State. The provisions of this Bill are modelled on the lines of the Banking Ordinance and the Central Bank Ordinance now in force in the Federation of Malaya. It is desirable that Singapore and the Federation should have parallel banking legislation as the banking system is common to both territories. The Banking Bill now before the House has been held in abeyance since June 1961, because of more urgent business that has occupied the House since the present Session began. It is now being re-introduced on a Certificate of Urgency. I am proceeding with this Bill throughout its three stages because of the recurrence of industrial disputes between certain local banks and their employees. These disputes have resulted in considerable inconvenience to the public and to the trading and business community in the inter-bank clearance of cheques, and ths has interfered with the efficiency of the banking business in the State. At the moment, the Malayan Banking Association operates a mutual inter-bank clearing house with three of the bigger banks serving as clearing hunks. There is provision in the Bill for the setting up of a Clearing House by the Government and, if this Clearing House is set up, on the coming into force of the Ordinance, the inconvenience that arises out of any industrial dispute will be restricted in its effect. The Bill before the House is a fairly straightforward one and only a few words of explanation are necessary. Part I makes the necessary definitions. Banking business is defined very broadly and is not intended to limit any legitimate banking business. Part II is devoted to the licensing of banks. This Part provides that only banks holding licences from the Minister can carry on business in Singapore. Provision is made for conditions to be attached to licences and these conditions can be modified as and when necessary. The object of this section, is to ensure that banks which operate in the State have a sound financial structure and that their business integrity is not open to question. All new banks - whether local or foreign - have to obtain a licence. Existing banks which were incorporated before 1st January, 1962, will be given a licence. They will, however, have to satisfy certain capital requirements. In the case of new banks incorporated after 1st January, 1962, if its Head Office is in Singapore, its paid-up capital must be at least $2 million. If the Head Office is situated outside Singapore, its paid-up capital must be at least $5 million and it must hold at least $2 million in Singapore in respect of business in Singapore either in the form of immovable property or other approved assets. Existing banks incorporated before 1st January, 1962, will be given a period of grace of up to 10 years under Part VI to comply with the capital requirements. Part III sets out the main duties of licensed banks. Most of the duties set out in this Part will not in any way cause well established banks to depart from their existing practices and policies. There is provision for a licensed bank to inform the Minister of any alteration in the Bank's constitution or of any proposed change in ownership. Every licensed bank is also required to maintain a reserve fund to be built up out of its profits in the manner prescribed n the Bill. The reserve fund will of course greatly increase the soundness of the bank. Licensed banks are also not allowed to pay dividends until its capitalised expenditure has been written off; nor can it grant unsecured loans exceeding $5,000 to any of its directors or any firm in which the directors are interested. Certain other requirements are also set out to ensure the financial soundness of the bank. Certain statistics are also required to be furnished to the Inspector of Banks for the protection of depositors and to assist in the control of banks. A bank that considers that it is unable to meet financial obligations is required to inform the Minister. Licensed banks are also required to appoint auditors to be approved by the Minister. Part IV of the Bill deals with the powers of the Minister. In this Part the Bill differs from that of the Federation of Malaya Ordinance, where the Central Bank exercises the principal functions laid down in their Ordinance. Since we do not have a Central Bank, it is necessary to set up some other authority which can perform these functions. Provision is made for the Minister to establish a clearing house. An Inspector of Banks is to be appointed to be the authority to undertake investigations of banks both on a routine basis and when the Minister has reason to believe that a licensed bank is carrying on its business in an unsatisfactory way. The Inspector may also, on the advice of the Minister, assume control or exercise supervision over the business of a licensed bank in certain circumstances to protect the interests of depositors and creditors. But these are reserve powers which will be used only when the need arises. The powers of the Minister, which can be delegated to the Inspector of Banks, does not extend, however, to authorising enquiries specifically into the affairs of any individual customer of a licensed bank. Part V of the Bill makes general provisions such as barring certain individuals from taking part in the management of a licensed bank, for instance a bankrupt or persons convicted of an offence involving fraud. Other clauses state the penalty for offences and amendments to the Companies Ordinance. Part VI makes provisions for the transitional period. I have already referred to the provision that existing banks incorporated before 1st January, 1962, will he granted a licence. Clause 34 (2) allows a period of grace of up to 10 years for banks with less than $2 million paid-up capital or $2 million worth of assets in the State to adjust their assets to the amount required under this Bill. Banks with their Head Offices in Singapore will not he affected by this provision as none of them have a paid-up capital of less than $2 million. The position of branch banks with Head Offices abroad will have to he ascertained in due course. I should mention here, Mr Speaker, Sir, that clause 34 of the Bill, which is modelled on section 32 of the Federation Banking Ordinance, differs from the Federation Ordinance in an important respect. Under section 32 (2) (c) of the Federation Banking Ordinance, banks which are principally owned by foreign governments will not be granted a licence in the Federation of Malaya. This part of the Federation of Banking Ordinance is omitted from the Bill now before the House. These are the main provisions of the Bill. Hon. Members can see that there is nothing in the Bill that is meant to curtail legitimate banking business. To banks which have operated on sound banking principles, this Bill should not cause anxiety or trouble. As regards staffing arrangements to administer the provisions of this Bill, I intend to appoint the Deputy Controller of Foreign Exchange to be the Inspector of Banks under clause 17. He will he assisted by an adequate number of subordinate staff. Two officers of the Exchange Control have been sent in the second half of last year to undergo a special training course kindly arranged by the Central Bank of the Federation of Malaya. Arrangements to set up the Government Clearing House are well under way and the Clearing House should he in operation in a few days' time. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.09 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I always view with repugnance any effort to rush through this House measures of an important character and it cannot be doubted that this measure is of an important character. However, I accept the Minister's reason for the Certificate of Urgency as valid. It is a significant commentary on the irresponsibility of the Malayan Banks Association in seeking to inconvenience members of the public by curtailing inter-bank clearances cheques when one of their members has an industrial dispute that today we should have to deal on the basis of urgency with this Bill instead of the normal procedure whereby I, for one, would have wished to see that an adequate opportunity be given both to the banks and to the commercial community to make representations. There is one aspect of the Bill. Sir, which I do not quite follow. A radical distinction is made between those banks which are in existence now and those who seek fresh licences. Under the provisions of clause 3 (4), the Minister may grant licences with or without conditions, or refuse a licence. But under clause 34 (1), which over-rules the provisions of sub-clause 4, it says that the banks specified in the Third Schedule, which are the banks in existence now, shall be granted a licence subject to such conditions as are contained in any licence which is in existence. So that, Sir, we cannot impose more conditions than are in existence, nor can we impose any conditions in the licence if, in fact, there are no conditions in any existing licence or no conditions at all. I am sure there must he some valid reason for this distinction and particularly for the limitation of the Minister's powers to place conditions in respect of the issue of licenses to banks which are in existence and which are listed in the Schedule. I would appreciate an indication of the reasons which underlie the distinction between licences granted to new banks and licences granted to existing banks. I do not know, Sir, but I should imagine there are banks in existence today which have no conditions attached to any licence, and in so far as I read clause 34 (1), it precludes the Minister from imposing any conditions on the licence that he issues to those banks, tying his hands completely. I would ask whether, in fact, that is intentional or inadvertent, and if intentional the reason therefor. I would also appreciate an assurance that this Clearing House which the Government is setting up with such commendable speed will, in fact, be adequately organised for the purpose of meeting inter-bank cheque clearances to avoid the type of inconvenience which has been imposed upon the public by members of the Malayan Banks Association recently. 3.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a Bill of such a nature would, in my opinion, be a step in the right direction to protect the interests of depositors although I feel that it is not adequate enough. Sir, we have seen in this country too many mushroom bogus employment agencies, bogus insurance companies, and I feel that unless such a Bill is passed, we may also see in the near future, bogus banking companies. Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opinion the Bill is not adequate because, although the Minister is given sufficient powers to investigate into the affairs of the banks, yet the depositors and the public at large do not know the results of such investigations until the situation has worsened so badly that the Minister or the Inspector has to take action. I feel that the details given by the banks to the Minister as set out in the First Schedule should also be disclosed in the banking premises so that the depositors will know what happens to the banks. Sir, although the bank in theory belongs to the directors, and also, to a lesser extent, to the shareholders who do not play a large part in its direction, the depositors have as much a stake in the bank as, and sometimes even more than, the directors. Mr Speaker, Sir, another point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister is that he should be given powers so that he can direct the Inspector to go and test check the cash position and other details of the banks as set out in the First Schedule and not just rely on the balance sheets. Mr Speaker. Sir, the ideal situation, of course, is to set up a Central Bank, but it is a practical impossibility because we are still in the stage of a semi-colony, but we hope with this Banking Bill we will have more sound banking practices and systems than has been the case in the past.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose this Bill not because of the content of the Bill. The content of the Bill is praiseworthy. In fact, it was praiseworthy in June 1961 when the Government introduced it, and if there had been no intervening motives which have now induced the Government to introduce this Bill at this stage, the content would still be very praiseworthy. But what makes this Bill objectionable at the moment is the manner in which it is being presented to the House and the time at which it has been presented to this House - I repeat the phrase "the time" and I think the Minister for Finance understands very well what I mean by the phrase "the time at which he has presented this Bill". It is objectionable and unworthy of this Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a trading island which has commercial facilities and the banks play a very important part in the commercial prosperity of this island. Now, as banks are employers, therefore there must be employees. The business of the Government, as I see it, is to foster the economic conditions of this country, and in the fostering of these economic conditions, it becomes necessary to foster the banking facilities available to this commercial community. In the absence of State banks and State commercial banks, the Minister has himself said, in answer to a question by the Member for Anson, that the private banks are in fact adequately meeting the needs of the commercial community. As the Minister concerned in these bathing facilities, he is satisfied that these banks are, in fact, providing an adequate service and he knows of no instance where they have fallen down on their obligations or failed the commercial community. Why then, I ask, are we being presented with the Banking Bill today, and why does the Minister ask that it be taken through all the stages at one sitting? The Minister introduced the Bill in 1961. He said that because he had other urgent business he had allowed the Bill to lapse. I do not accept the explanation for one moment. Mr Speaker. He has other motives for introducing this Bill of which he has not told this House. On the aspects of the Government's motives in introducing this Bill, they should be ashamed. My colleague, the Member for Cairnhill, will be dealing more adequately with that aspect of the situation later on in this debate. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to touch upon those motives which have led the Minister to introduce this Bill at this particular juncture. The motives indicate that the Minister for Finance is taking sides in disputes which do not concern him as the Minister for Finance. The Member for Anson has said that in theory he disapproves of Bills being brought into this House and passed on Certificates of Urgency when the issues involved are vital to this country, and yet he has said that in this case he is going to excuse the Government. I wonder what has happened to the sense of justice of the Member for Anson in this particular instance? Has he got a phobia against the banks? Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister in his Second Reading said that the reasons for the Bill are the proper control and the proper supervision of banks. Now is he suggesting that any of the certified banks listed in the Third Schedule has contravened any of these reasons? Are the banks or any of the banks misbehaving so badly in their banking business - I mean. Mr Minister, not in their relationships over which the Minister has no Concern? Or should not -

Order. The Member for Farrer Park should address the Chair and not the Minister.

Sir, I was not addressing the Minister. I was addressing -

I think the Member for Farrer Park has forgotten that he used the words "Mr Minister" and looked at the Minister.

I apologise for that, Sir,It was inadvertent. I was not addressing Mr Minister. I was addressing you but I inadvertently happened to look in his direction.

The Member for Farrer Park, of course, cannot address the Speaker as Mr Minister.

I beg your pardon. I meant to say "Mr Speaker". Sir, I accept the position that this Bill is necessary. Of course, it is necessary. We all accept that position. It is necessary that there should he proper control over banks and that there should he proper supervision of banks. I agree with the Member for Hong Lim that these controls are necessary in order that in the future no bogus banks might come up. But the point I am trying to get across to Mr Minister is this. Mr Speaker. Sir, if he is moving this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency, then there is a suggestion that there are some banks which are misbehaving from a banking point of view. The Minister has made no such suggestion to the House. He has not given any reasons whatsoever as to why this Bill should he moved on a Certificate of Urgency through all three stages in this House. He has not mentioned one word about that. One reason he tried to give was this. He said the reason for the urgency was industrial strife in some local banks. Now if there is industrial strife - and there is industrial strife in the banks - surely the remedy is in the hands of the Minister for Labour, and not in rushing a Bill through all the three stages in this Assembly. He could refer all these disputes to the industrial Arbitration Court. This industrial strife will come to an end and the industrial disputes will be settled properly before the Industrial Arbitration Court. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have always wondered why in all these bank disputes the Government has never sent the matters to the Industrial Court immediately. Insofar as the Bank of America was concerned, the strike was allowed to last for 19 days before the Government sent the matter up to the Industrial Arbitration Court. Was there not an urgency at that time? Why did the Government then not send up that dispute to the Industrial Arbitration Court as soon as it broke out? Why was this Bill not introduced at that stage? The Government has not given any good reason. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are also informed by the Minister that when this Bill has been passed into law and when the clearing house has been established, what is now happening in Singapore will not happen. I venture to suggest to him that that will not be the position under this Bill. The mere establishment of a clearing house under this Bill - as it is set out in this Bill - is not going to prevent the Bankers Associations from getting together and doing exactly what they are now doing. All that the Bill does is that it sets up a clearing house. All this Bill dues is, instead of the three banks which are now acting as a clearing house, to set up one clearing house. That is the general effect of it. But if the banks get together after this Bill - and this I pose to the Minister in all seriousness - how does the Minister propose to control them? If they refuse to clear in the way that they are now clearing, is the clearing house going to help the situation? Not one bit.

Have a State bank.

Ah, have a State bank, but a State bank, of course, is a matter of Federal interest and not of Singapore interest.

What bank did you say?

That is what the Minister himself said. An hon. Member: A State bank or a central bank.

So, Mr Speaker, Sit, the Minister's statements for putting forward this Bill at this particular juncture and the reasons which he says have induced him to go to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for a Certificate of Urgency are not what he has told this House. There are things in his mind which he has not told this House about. I hope he will take this House into his confidence and tell us really what has induced him to move this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency.

On a point of order, Sir,Is it permitted to say that a Member of the House is not, in fact, giving the reasons which he says he is giving without saying what the other reasons might be?

That certainly is not a point of order for me. 3.28 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in July 1960, at the time of the opening of the Second Session of this Assembly, the Prime Minister on moving a motion of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his gracious speech had this to say, and I quote from Hansard, Volume 13, No. 2 dated 3rd August, 1960, column 54: `In the past year the momentum of the P.A.P. after its massive victory in the last elections was stupendous. There were exuberance and zeal which took a lot of tempering. Minor mistakes of haste, born out of impatience to put the world right, were committed. They were errors, not of the rashness or wisdom of the policy to be implemented, but of the intemperate haste which resulted in insufficient preparation and the carrying of the opinion of the people, which could have been done by prolonged consultation and public discussion.' Sir, this referred to the haste with which the P.A.P. during its first year of office rushed Bills through on Certificates of Urgency. So I thought, after having listened to the speech of the Prime Minister in 1960, that the P.A.P. had learnt its lesson and would proceed cautiously. Instead of which we now have very important legislation being rushed through all its stages on a Certificate of Urgency. The Minister for Finance in his speech on the Second Reading said that it is desirable that Singapore and the Federation should have parallel banking legislation if the banking system is common to both territories. But is this proposed legislation parallel? It is not. It contains three clauses which are new and which are not included in the banking legislation in the Federation of Malaya. Then the Minister refers to the reasons why this Bill has to be taken through all its stages. He says that because of the recurrence of industrial disputes between certain banks and its employees, these disputes have resulted in considerable inconvenience to the public and to the trading and business community. Sir, the truth of all this is that the Bank Employees' Union is in the hands of the P.A.P., and they are playing party politics. I make the solemn charge in this House that, because the Union is a P.A.P. union, the Minister for Finance has said that unless an apology is given by the bank concerned to the union in the terms demanded by the union, he will introduce this Bill today and rush it through. I will make that allegation at any time before any Commission of Inquiry. He did say this - that unless the bank concerned did give an apology to the union in the terms demanded by the union, he would introduce this Bill today and rush through all its Readings. The Government is fond of saying that anyone who makes an allegation in this House must face any Commission of Inquiry. I make this charge and I will face it. The whole trouble with the banks today. Sir, is because - and I will not touch at great length on it because I have a motion - this particular union, in the hands of the P.A.P., tries to show to the workers of Singapore that they are indeed brave men, that they are indeed fighting for the workers' rights, and that other unions led by other people, the Barisan Sosialis, are no good. And they place restrictions in the paths of unions that do not come under the control of the P.A.P. In this particular case where they have an Industrial Arbitration Court, the matter could be referred to the Court. It has been referred to the Court, and there is a strike. Now, it is a question of face. I will not touch on the merits or demerits because I must say that I do not know fully the merits or demerits, but in a matter of this kind, Sir, surely the Minister for Labour could have called in both parties and given them a stiff talking to and said, "Shut up, don't behave like that. The economy of the country is greater than any political Party and anybody else. Go back, do your work. Shake hands and forget about it." They could have done it. Instead of this, the Minister for Finance is here introducing a Bill and rushing it through all its stages with the threat that unless apology is given to the P.A.P. Bank Employees' Union, this Bill will be proceeded with. That is the true reason. Of course, the Minister can deny it. But I make this solemn charge and I say that what they are trying to do is not right. Sir, my colleague, the Member for Farrer Park, has said that we arc in support of the principles of the Bill. Why rush it through for the purpose? We are not here to help the P.A.P. run P.A.P. unions. It is because of that that we are against this move on the part of the Government to rush through this Bill. We will oppose the Second Reading now. But if the Minister will have it sent to a Select Committee, we will have no objection. In fact, we support the principle of the Bill, but we protest, and protest vigorously, against the reasons that impel the Minister to introduce it on a Certificate of Urgency. 3.35 p.m.

Sir, I had not intended to participate in this debate, but in view of the speeches which I have heard, one from the Member for Farrer Park and the other from the Member for Cairnhill, I think we should get our credentials right. First, the Member for Cairnhill says he does not know what this is all about. I find that difficult to believe, because the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation, which is a holding company of Eastern Realty, was his former employer. Thus we get credential No. 1 in place. I am not suggesting, on the other hand, that the Member for Farrer Park is being paid by the O.C.B.C. to speak on their behalf, but I do suggest that from, time to time, in fact, it is well known that his firm of solicitors often act for the O.C.B.C. And I find it difficult to believe that two persons, so closely connected with -

On a point of order. Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no brief here, but I do ask whether it is in order that insinuations of personal interest should be made in this manner.

If, in fact, there have been insinuations of that nature, the Prime Minister could be brought up before the Committee of Privileges on a question of privilege. As far as rules of order are concerned, all I can say is that possibly the Prime Minister is imputing improper motive and, therefore, under our Standing Orders he must not do it.

I am act suggesting improper motive, Sir. All I am suggesting is: two Members speaking are well informed. I am not suggesting for one moment that the Member for Farrer Park, because he is closely connected with the O.C.B.C., is, therefore, taking sides with the O.C.B.C. What I am suggesting is: I find it difficult to believe that two Members of the S.P.A., who are well connected with the bank socially from their past business association, do not know the circumstances under which this Bill has been brought about.

Is that what is bothering you?

No, it is not worrying me at all. In fact, if the Member for Farrer Park will notice, I was surprised why there should be any hesitation in saying point blank to the bank that the ultimate referee is the Government of the State of Singapore. If the banks are going to gang up on behalf of any single bank, be it the O.C.B.C. or any other bank, and stop clearing and stop the whole economic machine in the process of one industrial dispute with an individual bank, then I say, the State intervenes.

What is the Minister for Labour doing?

I say the State intervenes.

Hear, hear!

I make no apologies for that.

What? For the Minister for Labour?

Or for the Minister for Finance. I say to the O.C.B.C., and I know them well, too -

Are you sure?

Yes, the Managing Director. Let me tell the Member for Farrer Park the kind of gentlemen we deal with. The Managing Director happens to be distantly connected with me through marriage. He told me once, when I was leading a delegation of postmen in a dispute with the Government then, that he always got his way. He was then a Member of the Executive Council, and he told me - I was then a very much younger man - that I should listen to him and settle. He said, "You know, I always win. When I was a young chap, I kept fighting fish, and my fighting fish beat everybody's fighting fish. They asked, `How did you do that?' I said, `Simple.' " And I say this publicly too - I think he is not feeling very well at the moment and he will not be feeling very well after ha reads this. To his fighting fish every day he added a drop of brandy. So the fish got soaked up with it. After seven drops of brandy had gone in, any other fish that entered into its bowl was out. And if it went into the other bowl, he poured half the water from his bowl into the other. Of course, all this is stored away somewhere in the recesses of one's mind. When the Minister for Finance consulted me and said, "Look, the banks are ganging up. What shall we do?" I said, "What is all this about?" I had been away for some time, about a fortnight, and I did not understand the circumstances under which this had come about - the pig-headedness of this particular bank and the ganging up of the other banks to back this bank at the expense of the economy of Singapore. I say. "Well, if they do not want to do their duty, the Government steps in." We are not trying to help the Business Houses Employees' Union vis-a-vis the O.C.B.C. They can scrub it out. The O.C.B.C. is prepared to shut business. If they shut business, the bank employees will suffer too. They lose pay. The matter can be settled, but we will not let - 37 banks, is it?

Thirty-five.

Thirty-five banks gang up for the sake of the O.C.B.C.'s pig-headedness and jar the economy of Singapore. I find no difficulty in saying this: the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Farrer Park are well acquainted with the facts of the dispute. I am not interested in the merits of the dispute. But I say, if they gang up at the expense of the whole economy of Singapore, it is the duty of the Government to step in.

Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, Sir, recently whenever there has been an industrial dispute in one bank, the Malayan Exchange Banks Association has taken concerted action to stop inter-banking clearing arrangements in all other banks in Singapore, even though they are not in any way involved in the dispute. In this way the Malayan Exchange Banks Association has inflicted unwarranted hardship on the public -

Hear, hear!

- and has attempted to convert every isolated industrial dispute into a general dispute affecting all the banks. This sort of action has been repeated on a number of occasions recently. In this way the Association has held the public to ransom every time one of the associated banks is involved in an industrial dispute with its employees. There is as little justification for this sort of action as there will be for the Bank Employees' Union to call a general strike in all the associated banks of the Malayan Exchange Banks Association whenever disputes arise in one of the banks. Government could not be expected to condone such a state of affairs if action of this sort was taken by the union, which would have the effect of causing undue hardship to the public. Employers always complain to the Ministry of Labour about the failure of trade unions to bring trade disputes to the Ministry of Labour. They always complain to the Ministry of Labour whenever unions engaged in sympathy strikes sought to extend the dispute in this way to firms or organisations which arc not in any way involved in a particular dispute. If this sort of industrial action on the part of the unions is to be condemned because of the prejudicial effects it has on the economy of the State, the action that has recently been taken by the Malayan Exchange Banks Association in refusing clearing facilities in the associated banks which are not in any way involved in the trade dispute, must equally be condemned. It is for this reason that a clearing house has been set up under clause 16 of this Bill. Clause 16 of this Bill is designed to prevent the Malayan Exchange Banks Association from resorting to such improper practices in the future. When this Bill becomes law, all inter-bank clearing arrangements will be put on a statutory footing and operated from a central clearing house under Government control. It is only by such arrangements that Government can put an end to the hardship which the Malayan Exchange Banks Association has improperly sought to impose on general public whenever one of its members has been involved in an industrial dispute. I heard the Member for Farrer Park say to this House that if this clearing house is set up, what can we do about it? There is nothing to prevent the exchange banks from ganging up together. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would refer the Member for Farrer Park to clause 31 of this Bill which provides that: `The Minister may make such regulations as may be required from time to time for carrying into effect the provisions of this Ordinance.' Any such regulations made under those provisions would come under the provisions of clause 27. Any breach of any regulations made under clause 31 could be dealt with under the general penalty provisions of clause 27. May I read the general penalty provisions in clause 27 to the House, Mr Speaker, Sir? `Any licensed bank which is guilty of an offence against this Ordinance for which no penalty is expressly provided shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars.'

Make it fifty.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already seen a copy of these draft regulations. They will be known as the Banking Clearing House Regulations, 1962. They require each bank carrying on business in Singapore to open immediately with the Accountant-General a clearing account in the name of the Clearing House, and they require representatives of the bank to appear daily for the purpose of these clearances. These regulations will be promulgated when this Ordinance comes into force. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park said just now that we were unduly interfering with the affairs of the banking community in Singapore by introducing this Bill in the Legislative Assembly. He asked, why should we not leave things alone?

On a point of elucidation. Mr Byrne resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, I did not say that we should leave things alone. All I said was that the Minister for Labour had the solution in his hand which he did not use. He still has it today.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I did hear the remark, "Why not leave things well alone?"

No, no, I do not believe in it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Federation there are two Ordinances: Ordinance 61 of 1958 dealing with the Central Bank of Malaya, and Ordinance No. 62 of 1958 dealing with banking generally. Except for sections 16, 17 and 19, which are adapted from the Central Bank of Malaya Ordinance, all the other sections of this Banking Bill are taken from Ordinance No. 62 of 1958 of the Federation dealing with banking generally; with the exception of the powers given to the Minister under clause 16 to set up a clearing house, and under clause 17 to appoint an Inspector of Banks to inspect and investigate under conditions of secrecy the books, accounts and transactions of each licensed bank where he has reason to believe that the licensed bank is carrying on business in a manner detrimental to its depositors and other creditors, or has insufficient assets to cover its liabilities to the pub' lie, or has contravened the provisions of the Ordinance, or where his investigation is requested at the instance of shareholders or depositors. The rest of the other provisions of the Central Bank Ordinance of the Federation are omitted from this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Federation, in addition to these powers, the Central Bank of Malaya Ordinance also gives the Minister the following powers: (1) To prescribe liquid assets which each licensed bank should hold. (2) To make recommendations to licensed banks on the following matters: (i) The policy to be followed by the banks when granting advances and extension of credit facilities; (ii) Rates of interest payable to or by licensed banks; (iii) The reserves to be held by each licensed bank; (iv) The maximum amount or amounts of assets expressed as a percentage which the assets must bear to sight and time liabilities of the licensed bank. (3) To direct or make recommendations to persons or classes of persons even if they are not licensed banks if they carry on the business of receiving money on deposit. In addition to these powers, the Minister in the Federation also has the power, once he has made the recommendation, to issue directives in writing to each licensed bank, or class or classes of persons, to give effect to the recommendation within a reasonable time, subject to penalties for a breach of these directions. These powers have not been included in this Banking Bill. The only powers incorporated are the powers of setting up a clearing house, and to provide for the inspection of banks under conditions of secrecy. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is quite clear that no powers have been included in this Bill to enable the Government to determine the credit policy of the banks as these are powers which are normally exercised by the Board of Directors of the Central Bank. Mr Speaker, it has been suggested that this Bill has been introduced from a spirit of vindictiveness on the part of the Minister for Finance. Mr Speaker, Sir, for the information of Members of the House, this Bill has nothing to do with the dispute that is current now between the O.C.B.C. and the Bank Employees' Union.

Not the Bill. The timing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us go briefly into the facts of this dispute. An award was made in the dispute between the Singapore Bank Employees' Union and the Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation on the 22nd July, 1961, and covered two categories of employees, the clerks and the clerical assistants. The award covered salary scales, bonus, annual leave, casual leave, T.B. leave, maternity leave, period of probation, overtime, medical facilities. These are what are known as fringe benefits. A dispute arose between the Bank and the Union on the interpretation of certain provisions of the award referring to: (1) The redesignation of all messengers as clerical assistants and (2) On the method of conversion of clerks from their old salary to the scale awarded by the Court. The Union was satisfied with the salary awarded and the method of conversion for clerical assistants. But the Union claimed that all existing messengers as in other Chinese banks should be regarded as belonging to a single transferable category. The Bank would not accept this contention and disputed the contention that all the messengers employed in the Bank belonged to a single transferable category. In other words, the Bank maintained that certain existing messengers were to he left out and were not to be converted to the scale of clerical assistants. Both these matters were put to the referee. The referee appointed by the Court was the President of the Court himself. The referee ruled that in regard to the messengers they belonged to a single transferable category, and in regard to the method of conversion of the clerks from their old scale to the new scale, he made certain rulings. The Bank read the referee's rulings on clerical conversion in one way and the Union in another. On the Union's reading of the referee's ruling, the clerks stood to gain, and on the Bank's interpretation the clerks stood to lose. The Bank then took the point that the referee had exceeded his jurisdiction as referee when he interpreted the award. This was ultra vires as the full Court alone had the jurisdiction to interpret any award. On the strength of this argument the Bank moved to the High Court in certiorari proceedings for an order to quash the referee's award on the grounds that the referee had no powers to interpret the award, and that it would be against natural justice for the President, who had acted as referee to be called upon later as President of the Court to interpret the award. Although the Bank disagreed with the referee's rulings on the redesignation of messengers as clerical assistants the Bank did offer payment to all messengers as clerical assistants in accordance with the award. As there was no dispute in regard to the conversion of messengers to the new scale awarded by the Court for clerical assistants, the Union instructed its members to accept this payment. The payment was made in accordance with the ruling of the referee that all messengers employed by this Bank belonged to a single transferable category and should all be converted to the new scale for clerical assistants. In relation to the clerks, the Bank did make an offer to the Union to make payment in accordance with their reading of the award and their reading of the referee's ruling of the award. The Union refused to accept any payment for the clerks pending a complete clarification of all the conversion items in dispute. There were still differences between the Union and the Bank as to how the clerks should be converted from their old scale to the new scale. The clerks going on to the new scale had different conversion points on the new scale varying with their length of service. This offer by the Bank to the Union to make payments to the clerks and the refusal by the Union of the offer took place in September last year. Subsequently, without the knowledge of the Union, and against the Union's stated stand in the matter, the Bank made payment to a few individual members of the Union. The Union also alleged that officers of the Bank had attempted improperly to induce other members of the Union to accept payment against the Union's wishes. This was discovered by the Union recently. The Union asked the Bank for an apology on the grounds that unilateral arrangements between an employer and individual members of the Union had been made secretly, completely bypassing the Union, and this was clearly an attempt by the Bank to subvert good industrial relations with the Union. The Union gave the Bank 48 hours' grace in which to make a suitable expression of regret and to give an undertaking that in future there would be direct official dealings only between the Bank and the recognised representative of the Union, and that they would avoid entering into similar secret unilateral arrangements with individuals in the future. Even before the 48 hours were due to elapse, the Union received a letter from the Bank containing a series of threats to prosecute the Union for non-compliance with the award. Incidentally that was signed by L. C. Goh. The present strike has nothing whatever to do with the question of the certiorari proceedings for quashing the referee's order, which was instituted by the Bank in the High Court recently. The Union, the Bank and the State Advocate-General all consented to this Order. It was right of the Bank to offer payments to the clerks in accordance with their reading of the award. But once the Union had indicated that it disagreed with the management's interpretation and would not accept payment until these disagreements had been clan-fled, it was improper of the Bank to have made payments to individual members of the Union behind the back of the Union. This was the issue which has led to the present strike. The application -

Order. I allowed the Minister to commence because he said it was going to be a very brief statement of the dispute. I take it that he is justifying the reason why this Bill has been introduced on a Certificate of Urgency. That is the only relevance, I think, of this statement, because I cannot see how the dispute between the Bank and the Union has anything to do with the principle of this Bill and that is what we are debating.

Mr Speaker, I think the reason why -

Order. The Minister for Health and Law will have to explain.

Mr Speaker, I heard the Member for Cairnhill say just now that it was because of the dispute between the O.C.B.C. and the Bank Employees' Union that this Bill has been introduced. He also said just now that we were supporting a P.A.P. union.

Order. The point is that the Minister has gone into details which are completely irrelevant to the principle of the Bill. I do not think the Member for Cairnhill went into details. He just said in passing that that was his opinion and that it could be denied from the Ministerial Benches. But these details, which seem to be justifying a Union's action, have nothing to do with the principle of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to trace the history of this dispute in some detail to show that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the circumstances which led to the introduction of this Bill. It is because of the ganging up of the banks and the denial of clearing facilities and of the imposition that the banks have placed on members of the public that this Bill has been introduced. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may refer to the point raised by the Member for Anson. He wanted to know why, under clause 34 of the Bill, the licences that were issued to banks under the Companies Ordinance were deemed to be issued under the provisions of this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, all banks are required to be registered under the Companies Ordinance. All that this Bill does is to give a licence under the new Banking Ordinance to banks which are registered under the Companies Ordinance in order that they may carry on the business of banking. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Anson will look at clause 32 of the Bill, he will find that it seeks to amend section 309 of the Companies Ordinance. Section 309 of the Companies Ordinance refers to the licensing of banks which have headquarters elsewhere which carry on business in Singapore. Under this section of the Companies Ordinance, such banks have to take out licences. No such licences are required under this section of the Companies Ordinance for banks which are locally incorporated and which carry on business in the State of Singapore. The provisions of clauses 32 and 34 of the Bill require all existing banks which are already registered under the Companies Ordinance to take out licences. They shall take out licences under the provisions of clause 34.

Any hon. Member wishes to speak? Dr Goh then in reply. 4.02 p.m.

I really have very little to add in reply to the points raised by the Opposition. I am glad to note that there is general assent to the contents of the Bill and the purpose which this Bill sets out to achieve. Certain Members of the Opposition regret the timing. The Member for Cairnhill, in particular, thinks the whole purpose of this operation is to favour the Bank Employees' Union. But he has not explained exactly in what manner the immediate passage of this Bill will assist the Bank Employees' Union. Sir, from our point of view, the issue is quite simple. There has been a strike by the Union at the O.C.B.C. Whenever strikes occur at other banks, members of the Malayan Exchange Banks Association, who control and operate their own clearing house, decide on one pretext or other to slow down the clearing operation. On one occasion at least, matters reached such a stage that nearly the whole economy of Singapore almost came to a grinding halt. When this particular strike at the O.C.B.C. broke out, it was obvious that the same practice of restricting inter-bank clearances would he carried out by the Exchange Banks. It is in the interests of the Government to see that the general public is not inconvenienced. The most obvious and easiest solution is to see that the strike ends as early as possible. If the strike continues for any length of time with inter-bank clearances curtailed, it is quite evident that the Government must move in and provide the inter-bank clearances which the banks themselves are unable or unwilling to provide. For these reasons, therefore, when certain members of the Exchange Banks saw me, I decided to assist in any way possible to bring the two parties together to an early settlement. It became very clear to me that in this instance, the union was clearly in the right and the banks were in the wrong. There were absolutely no two ways about it.

Hear, hear!

Not only was the Bank in the wrong, but it acted in the most extraordinary way. The Union members, in the first instance, decided to give the Bank two days to make up their minds before they called a strike On Wednesday. The banks held a meeting with representatives of the Union. Far from achieving any settlement, it brought about the opposite effect. Instead of waiting till Wednesday to strike, they went on strike on Tuesday, the following day. I tried to convince the banks in general and this particular Bank in particular that it was not in their interests to continue in this strike and that, in my opinion, the terms offered by the Union were moderate and reasonable and should be accepted by the banks. If there was no early settlement of the strike, I informed them that I intended to bring this Bill before the House and pass it on a Certificate of Urgency, set up this clearing house so that the inconvenience caused by the strike can be restricted to the minimum. The Member for Farrer Park thought I was trying to hide something and that I did not give the full picture. It was surely not necessary for me, Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving the Second Reading to go into all these details. I would not know, for instance, that the two hon. Members had such an intimate interest in the subject. But there is nothing that the Government has done that it has to apologise for and be in any way ashamed. This particular bank and the banks in general have only themselves to blame for bringing this state of affairs about. But in moving the Second Reading, I did say that the reasons for proceeding with this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency were the recurrence of industrial disputes in local banks and the need to provide a Government clearing house so that the inconvenience arising from such disputes will be restricted in their effect. That is the general explanation. There is nothing for me, as Finance Minister of the Government, to conceal from the public. If the Member for Cairnhill wants to give his evidence on oath, nobody is going to stop him from so doing. He can go to the Supreme Court and sign a statutory declaration for all I care. I think I have dealt with the most important point raised by the Opposition. The Member for Anson asked whether there would be adequate arrangements for the clearing house. My reply is that the administrative arrangement for the clearing house was made several months ago when we foresaw that the time might come when the Government would have to intervene in this matter. As early as last November all the draft regulations were completed, the administrative schemes drawn up, and consultations and instructions carried out with the Central Bank in Malaya to see what their procedures are. As I have said, arrangements are well in hand. There is some difficulty about getting furniture. That is the last report. We had to bring 42 tables, one table for each hank and so on and so forth. The P.W.D. have not been as expeditious as they could. I do not know what the reasons are, but generally we are pressing ahead as fast as possible. I have been assured by the Deputy Controller of Foreign Exchange that he could get the clearing house in operation by Friday, but he thought it would be a bit of a sweat. He assured me, however, that it would be in full blast the following week.

Hear, hear!

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

4.12 p.m. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

I propose to take each Part unless Members wish to speak on any particular clause. Any clauses on which hon. Members wish to speak in Part II, clauses 3 to 6 inclusive? Hon. Members indicated dissent. Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Part III, clauses 7 to

15. Is there any particular clause on which any Member wishes to speak?

There are a number of clauses.

I will take the Part clause by clause. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 - Question proposed, "That clause 8 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, there are two points on this particular clause. In clause 8 (1) (b) (i), it says "a sum equal to not less than fifty per centum of such net profits;". These are payments which are to be made into the reserve fund - 50 per cent. The quantum is set out, of course. There is no difficulty about it. It is related to the net profits. 4.15 p.m. In my own experience and in the experience of the Court, they have always found great difficulty in arriving at what net profits are. There is always an argument on what net profits are. Could the Minister inform the House what exactly he thinks net profits are, and whether it would not do some good to this particular clause if the phrase "net profits" is defined? That is the first point. Then in sub-clause (2): `If the Minister is satisfied that the aggregate reserve fund of a licensed bank whose head office is situated outside Singapore is adequate for its business he may by order in writing exempt such bank from the provisions of subsection (1) of this section.' It appears to me that under this sub-clause the banks which have their head offices outside Singapore seem, on the face of it, to he on a more favourable footing. The yardstick for foreign banks is adequacy for its business, but, insofar as local banks are concerned, it is another yardstick. Could the Minister explain to the House what exactly is meant by the "aggregate reserve fund of a licensed bank whose head office is situated outside Singapore"?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is rather difficult for me at this stage, before we have any experience of administering the Ordinance itself, just to say whether or not any tight definition of "net profits" is necessary. My guess is that it is not necessary because it is not a matter of the banks having to pay out or lose any sum of money which is based on net profits. For instance, in the case of the Income Tax Ordinance, the definition of "net profits" must be a very close one indeed, because it is subject to taxation. But here it is not. I would say that that would be sufficient provided the accounts are set out by a reputable firm of auditors and there is no fiddling about with the expense accounts and so forth. In practice, of course, what I suspect will happen is that most of the banks will have reserve funds in excess of these statutory requirements. In clause 8 (2), there is no question of treating overseas banks more favourably than locally incorporated banks. So the difficulty is this, that in the case of a locally incorporated bank, you have an easy criterion, that is, the paid-up capital, and so you can relate everything to that. In the case of branch banks with headquarters outside Singapore, this is not always the case. You have to get another entity. In clause 34 (2) (b), for instance, the element which is taken will be the equivalent of the paid-up capital or assets held in Singapore in the form of immovable property or other kind of approved assets. I rather suspect that, in the first instance at any rate, that could be the yardstick whereby clause 8 (2) would be administered.

Clause 15 (7)?

Clause 15 (7), yes.

Sir, on clause 8 (1) (b), I appreciate the Minister's difficulties in this matter and I appreciate that until these things are worked, it is very difficult. But I wonder if the Minister realises that non-compliance with clause 8 (1) (b) is an offence punishable under clause 27 which reads: `Any licensed bank which is guilty of an offence against this Ordinance for which no penalty is expressly provided shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars.'. So that on a difference of opinion between the Inspector and the bank on the question of what net profits could be, the bank might find itself in the District Court facing a criminal charge, which I think is not a very desirable thing. But, on the other hand, I appreciate that there is a saving clause that no prosecutions will be instituted without the consent of the State Advocate-General and probably in such a case the the State Advocate-General will not sanction a prosecution. I am looking hopefully at the Minister for Law.

He does not command the State Advocate-General.

No, no. Sir, the other point which I have raised and to which the Minister has not replied - he has tried to answer what is adequate for its business - he has not told us what the aggregate reserve fund of a licensed bank is. I understand what a reserve fund of a particular bank in, Singapore is, but I fail to understand what the aggregate reserve fund of a licensed bank is. I take it that "aggregate" in its normal connotation means the adding of various sums or multiplying by that number. But what does the aggregate refer to - all its branches throughout the world, or all its branches throughout the country, or what?

I should say the aggregate reserve fund refers to the reserve fund of a branch bank in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is provided for in clause 15 (7), where the head office is situated outside Singapore and properly audited reports have to be sent in of the annual balance sheet and accounts of such bank. On compliance there is an exemption from the provisions of the appointment of auditors required under clause 15. Mr Speaker, Sir, these clauses have been looked at very closely by the State Advocate-General. He has been in correspondence with his opposite number in the Federation. He has been assured that these identical clauses have been in operation in the Federation since 1958 and that there have been no difficulties whatsoever. Everybody understands what net profits are.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not on the net profits now. I have let the net profits go by on the basis of the Minister's statement. I want to know what an aggregate reserve fund is. I am suggesting to the Minister that it is no answer to tell this House that the State Advocate-General advises him that that is so. If the Minister does not know the answer, let him tell the House that he does not know the answer.

Well, he has made his point, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is a piece of comparable legislation. A similar Ordinance has been applied in the Federation from 1958. Have there been any difficulties? The State Advocate-General has made enquiries and he says that no such difficulties have arisen.

I do not know why the Member for Farrer Park is pursuing this point. If he thinks that there is something technical about it and that certain implications or meanings should be drawn out, he should tell the House. So far as I can see, this is a perfectly simple term. The aggregate reserve fund would refer to all the reserve funds held by the branch in Singapore. It does not refer to the reserve funds held outside, whether in the head office or elsewhere.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I knew the answer, I would not be asking that question. I really do not know what the aggregate reserved fund of a licensed bank, whose head office is situated outside Singapore, is. Unless the Minister is able to tell the House, or somebody - I suppose the Inspector of Banks - must be able to advise these foreign banks what exactly is the aggregate reserve fund which is necessary under clause 8 (1) (b) (ii), because non-compliance with clause 8 (1) (b) (ii), as I have already indicated to the Minister, is punishable under clause 27. Therefore, it is important that this House is told how the aggregate reserve fund under clause 8 (2) is ascertained. I think I am not being unfair. The Minister must I assume have done his homework.

All that this sub-clause (2) says is that if there is an aggregate reserve fund, then this particular bank will be exempted from the operation of sub-clause (1). If there is no reserve fund held by the branch in Singapore, then the operation of sub-clause (1) would be required by the bank.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

I might explain the procedure. This is an urgent Bill and therefore when I call "clause 9", that is the time when any Member wishing to make an amendment to this clause must move the amendment. There is no notice required for any amendment in regard to urgent Bills. The time to move an amendment to clause 9 is when I say, "Clause 9." When I pose the Question, "The Question is that clause 9 (or any clause) stand part of the Bill," it will he too late to do so. Clause 9 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 5, lines 31 and 32, to leave out "local daily English, Chinese and Malay newspapers", and insert "at least one daily English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil newspaper". I have looked at the Federation Ordinance, and in the Federation the languages in which this requirement concerns itself with are English and Malay newspapers. Here the Government has altered the Bill to read "English, Chinese and Malay newspapers" and I take it it has quite inadvertently left out "Tamil". Mr Speaker. Sir, I have very often heard it said that the Government is not really interested in the Tamil language and that the Tamil language is just a step-sister. I refused to believe it, but after this Bill. I have some grounds for believing it. We have four official languages in this Assembly, and if the Government saw fit to take in Chinese, I do not see why they should not take in Tamil, which s also an official language.

Then put in Tamil.

All right, agreed.

Can I get this amendment correct? Is this the amendment: To leave out lines 31 and 32, and insert "at least one English, Chinese, Tamil and Malay newspaper".

The words to' be inserted are: "at least one daily English. Chinese. Malay and Tamil newspaper".

At least one?

Oh, yes, there is. There you are: Mr Minister does not even know that.

To insert "at least one daily English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil newspaper".

Yes. [Interruption]

Order. To leave out lines 31 and 32.

And I think it will also obviate the necessity, as the Bill is drafted. Mr Speaker, Sir. It would appear that the publications will have to be in all daily local newspapers. I wonder if the Minister for Law will agree with that. If there were two English newspapers daily, under this Bill as it stands, it will have to be two. Sir, I am really saving the Government this embarrassment of bad drafting, and I have drafted it for them.

It has been proposed as an amendment, In page 5, lines 31 and 32, to leave out "local daily English, Chinese and Malay newspapers", and insert "at least one daily English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil newspaper", 4.30 p.m.

Sir, I have a draft of the amendment here. Perhaps it would quicken matters if I handed it in. Amendment handed in.

It has been proposed as an amendment, In page 5, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words therein, and there to insert "at least one daily English, Chinese, Malay, and Tamil newspaper". Mr David Marshall rose -

Can I just solve this first? Will the Member for Anson take his seat? "at least one daily English, Chinese, Malay, and Tamil newspaper".

"local".

"one local news-paper".

I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, Sir. The amendment should read "at least one local daily English, Chinese, Malay, and Tamil newspaper".

I cannot understand it. Does the Member for Farrer Park wish to insert "at least one local daily English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil newspaper"?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand it, the intention of the Government here is -

No, it is a point of grammar.

On a point of grammar, yes. I understand that. I was coming to that. In the Federation Bill, Sir, -

Could the Member for Farrer Park indicate whether he wishes the insertion to be in one English newspaper, one Chinese newspaper, one Malay newspaper, and one Tamil newspaper?

That is so; four newspapers. That is the intention of the Government, I take it. I am merely preserving that intention, but adding "Tamil" to it and that is the intention of my drafting. Whether I have carried this out, I do not know; but I think I have. Because. Mr Speaker, Sir, if it was to be in one English, Chinese newspaper, then it should have been "or" - "or Tamil newspaper". But as the word "and" appears and "newspaper" appears, I think it makes it clear that it should be at least in one English, one Chinese, one Malay, and one Tamil newspaper.

I do not know whether the Member is satisfied that his intention would be carried out by that.

Sir, I accepted the proposal at that time that it should be incorporated. But I think my colleague, the Minister for Law, is a little bit unhappy at the elegance of the phraseology. Perhaps one could get out of the problem of whether there should be an "s" or whether there should not be an "s" with the "newspaper" by putting the "s" in and putting the adjectives "English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil" after the "newspapers". `publish a copy of its last audited balance-sheet in local daily newspapers, one, in local daily newspapers, one in English. Chinese, Malay and Tamil' or whatever there is. But if the adjectives follow the "newspapers", there will be less inelegance.

It is not a question of inelegance. In the Federation, Mr Speaker, how they got over the difficulty is this: "publish a copy of its last audited balance-sheet in at least one local daily-Malay newspaper and at least one local daily English newspaper". So if we follow the Federation pattern and say "in at least one local daily Malay newspaper and at least one local daily Tamil newspaper", that will cover it. There will be no misunderstanding. Then there is no room for doubt and no suggestion of inelegance, but merely lengthening the phrase.

It makes it very clear!

May I offer a suggestion, Mr Speaker, Sir? I would suggest "in at least one local daily newspaper in the English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil languages".

Shall we take the suggestion then: follow the Federation pattern? Does that satisfy the Member?

Yes, that will satisfy me.

An amendment then has been moved, In page 5, to leave out lines 31 and 32, and there to insert "at least one local daily English newspaper, at least one local daily Chinese newspaper, at least one local daily Malay newspaper and at least one local daily Tamil newspaper".

May I, Sir, say that if this is ever to be dubbed as -

Is it on verbiage?

Purely on verbiage. I do not ever want this to be dubbed as the Assembly's folly. I would suggest we could easily phrase it in this form: "publish a copy of its last audited balance-sheet in one local daily newspaper each in Malay, Chinese, Tamil and English". Then there is no doubt that what we mean is "one local daily each".

One local daily newspaper.

One local daily newspaper each. Dr Goh Keng Swee rose ---

Dr Goh, another solution?

I am not a jurist, but having some experience in statistics, why not quote the actual figure: "shall be published in four local daily newspapers, one each in so and so languages".

Is the Member for Farrer Park satisfied now?

Yes, Sir, I am satisfied.

The amendment now reads: In page 5, to leave out lines 31 and 32, and there to insert "at least four local daily newspapers, one each in the English -" No; "at least" is not necessary. "four local daily newspapers, one each in the English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil languages". It seems to be all right.

Supposing there is no newspaper in one of the languages?

Yes, supposing the Tamil newspaper closes down!

I am not very happy with the Minister's suggestion, Sir, because we could still get the same position that we got to before - that you could have these advertisements, so to speak, in four different newspapers in the different languages, not necessarily in a Tamil newspaper or a Malay newspaper. I would suggest, with respect to the Prime Minister, let us get back to the Federation Ordinance. It is a bit cumbersome. I know. It is not very elegant, hut I think it is certain and sure.

Shall we then go ahead with that? In page 5, to leave out lines 31 and 32, and there to insert "at least one local daily English newspaper, at least one local daily Chinese newspaper, at least one local daily Malay newspaper and at least one local daily Tamil newspaper". The question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." Is there any Member who wishes to speak on the amendment?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is very cumbersome, I am afraid.

The Question has now been posed. The Member can always move an amendment when I come to the second Question. The first Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out".

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

The Questing now is, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted." The words proposed to be inserted are: "at least one local daily English newspaper, at least one local daily Chinese newspaper, at least one local daily Malay newspaper and at least one local daily Tamil newspaper".

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I offer a suggestion? Have "in at least one local English newspaper", and leave out the other "at least" phrase. So that it will read, "in at least one local daily English newspaper, one Malay newspaper, one Tamil newspaper [and so on]"; instead of repeating the phrase "at least" four times. It stands for all four papers.

That is the suggestion of a school teacher? Is the Member seriously moving an amendment to leave out the words "at least"?

Yes.

An amendment to the amendment has been moved, To leave out the words "at least" where they secondly, thirdly and fourthly occur in the amendment.

May I move an amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Can I have an indication as to what the amendment will be?

Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir. "at least four local daily newspapers, one each published in the English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil languages". [Interruption] Exactly. It seems to me the simplest, clearest -

What happens if one newspaper closes down?

The problem arises after passing it, you know.

Then you cannot -

I trust the Member for Anson is not critical of the Federation Ordinance.

The Federation has only three.

Let us come to some agreement. What does the mover of the amendment think?

Sir, the mover of the amendment thinks of something which is certain. I am not quite sure what the implications of the amendment of the Member for Anson are. If I were sure of that, I would accept it. Although I think this is not very elegant, at least it is sure, and I think it is necessary in a legal enactment to be sure rather than to be elegant.

Is the Member for Anson insisting?

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not merely a question of elegance. We have reached a point of absurdity when we repeat that phrase four times. It is a question of good sense. Would the Member for Farrer Park, who is a lawyer, tell us where it errs - "in at least four local daily newspapers, one each published in the English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil languages"? Where is the ambiguity?

We have wasted quite a number of minutes already on a seemingly simple amendment. Will the Member for Farrer Park now accept that?

If the Government carries out the intention. All I am concerned is to get this Tamil newspaper in.

Amicably!

By leave then, the original amendment is withdrawn. The amendment proposed now by the Member for Anson is, In page 5, lines 31 and 32, to leave out "local daily English, Chinese and Malay newspapers" and insert "at least four local daily newspapers, one each published in the English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil languages". Amendment agreed to. Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 4.45 p.m. Clauses 10 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 16 -

Part IV. Are there any clauses on which Members wish to speak or to which they wish to move an amendment?

Clause 16.

The Member wishes to move an amendment to clause 16?

Yes. There are a number of amendments, Mr Speaker, which I wish to move to clause 16. I will hand these amendments to hon. Members. Amendments handed in.

The second amendment is on page 9, line 35. That seems to be wrong.

Sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir. It should he line 7.

Page 9, line 7. Perhaps the Member for Farrer Park should first deal with the first two amendments. They seem to be connected.

Yes. It would be convenient if I could deal with the first two amendments. I move, In page 9, line 5, to leave out, "shall" and insert "may", and in page 9, line 7, at end, to add, "The Clearing House so established shall come into operation on such date as the Minister may by notification in the Gazette appoint." Mr Speaker, Sir, I have moved the first amendment merely to invite discussion on this particular clause so that we can know exactly what is meant by a clearing house, where it is to be established, who is to run it, and in which premises. The second amendment is an amendment of substance. "The Clearing House so established shall come into operation on such date as the Minister may by notification in the Gazette appoint." It seems to me that although the Minister might create a clearing house, I think it is recognised that the Minister having exercised his power, the exercise of that power should be notified in the Gazette, and that it is only after notification that the power should become effective. So it is with that intention in view that I have moved the second amendment.

I will take one amendment at a time. It has been moved in page 9, line 5, to leave out "shall" and there to insert "may". The Question is, That the word proposed to be left out, he left out." As indicated, the debate may range over the second amendment, in page 9, line 7, at end, to add "The Clearing House so established shall come into operation on such date as the Minister may by notification in the Gazette appoint."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I might add that in the Federation, it is the Central Bank that does it, so that the Central Bank is already established under another Ordinance. There it has a legal entity. There is a Clearing House, something which the Minister is going to create by virtue of this Bill. As the clause now stands, it appears that as soon as he puts his signature to a piece of paper, the Clearing House is created. But I think that state of affairs is undesirable and the coming into operation of the Clearing House should be `by virtue of a notification in the Gazette under the Minister's hand.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the light of the disclosures made to us this afternoon by the Minister for Finance, which of course, were met with both amazement and consternation, I think there can be no question but that this House make this power compulsory - "he shall". No question of "may" as of now. It is the duty of the Government to protect our economy from the irresponsible conduct and contumacious conduct of these banks. I would certainly not agree to the first amendment. For myself I want to make it quite clear that I am indeed grateful to the Minister for having taken steps already to make possible the establishment of a Clearing House next week. As to the second amendment, Mr Speaker, it does not seem to me to have any real importance. There are 35 banks involved which will naturally be communicated with. The Clearing House affects the banks directly and not the individual depositors or the payees. They are the persons who have to know when the Clearing House comes into operation, and it seems to me, Sir, that it really does not go any further. In fact, Sir, I trust I will be given an opportunity - I do not know whether this would be an appropriate time - to ask for the deletion of the words, "at an appropriate time and in conjunction with banks operating in Singapore". Could we discuss that amendment? Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your leave?

We are now on the amendment to leave out the word "shall". I think we will dispose of that first.

If it please you, Mr Speaker.

Any other Member wishing to speak on this amendment, in page 9, line 5, to leave out the word "shall"?

I do not want to say more on this. The art of draftsmanship is not a simple one. I think both the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Anson will understand that it is an esoteric one which is not for general lawyers. I mean that non-specialists in that particular field of the law should leave it well alone. There may be a whole series of interpretation arising out of an alteration in the phrase. To my mind, the reading of the phrase as it stands, "shall at an appropriate time", really means what the Member for Farrer Park wants to do, namely, to make it a discretion at the appropriate time. What is the appropriate time is a matter which no doubt would be decided by officials and other expert parties, and to change it to "may" does not carry it any further. To leave out "at an appropriate time" means we go into the banking business willy-nilly. Not having gone into this matter, I would say, on first principle, leave it well alone. This is not an amendment of substance. This is an amendment of form. As to form, I say doubtless the State Advocate-General, who has spent some time over it - poring over the principal Ordinance of the Federation from which he has adopted and incorporated several provisos - must have considered all these points. I would rather leave it well alone. I would say, as to the first amendment, we leave both "shall" as it is and a Gazette notification does not carry the point any further. I should imagine long before the Minister puts his pen to paper, they would all be running around to the Clearing House.

Sir, I do not know whether it will help the Member for Farrer Park rather to say this. Does it really matter whether "I shall do it" or "I may do it"? The point is, "I will do it." As for gazetting this thing, the Member for Anson has said that there are only 35 banks involved. In fact, my Ministry official have already got in touch with them to work out the details of the operation of the Clearing House. I do not think we are arguing a very major point of substance.

I think the Minister for Finance has misunderstood me and so has the Prime Minister. I merely move the amendment "shall" to "may" because it is very difficult, under the Standing Orders, to have a complete discussion on the sub-clause going without this particular amendment. The point of the amendment was to invite debate on the question of what this Clearing House is, what it is intended to do, and how it will perform its functions more efficiently than it has done at the present moment. It is only with that intent, and when that part of it has been satisfied, I intend to withdraw that amendment. That is why, when I moved the amendment, I said it is merely one of form, to invite a debate and an explanation of the term "Clearing House", and what it is intended to mean. The subsequent amendment following the word "House" is one of substance. It is one of substance in the sense that although it is a question of 35 banks, I think the Member for Anson and the Hon, the Prime Minister will understand that this is not a private business where the Minister writes to the banks and says a Clearing House is established. It is an Ordinance, it is the law of the country, and it is vital that it should be done by means of a Gazette notification. That is the proper thing to do. We are looking at it as a domestic issue. It is not. It is on the Statute books and in the years to come we want to know when this Clearing House is established and on what particular date.

Can I take it that the Member for Farrer Park wishes to withdraw his first amendment but is pursuing his second amendment?

That is so, Sir.

Perhaps the Member wishes for leave to withdraw the first amendment?

Mr Speaker, all I wanted was an explanation from the Minister for Finance as to what this Clearing House is, how it is to be established, and what it is going to do that the present clearing system does not do. I have not had a reply yet to all these questions.

It does not arise on the amendment, does it? The amendment merely asks to leave out "shall" and insert "may".

How then can I get this explanation?

When the Question on the clause is proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

At a later stage?

Yes.

I am satisfied with that. Therefore, may I beg leave to withdraw my first amendment? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

We are now on the second amendment. Will the Member now move formally?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move. In page 9, line 7, at end, to add "The Clearing House so established shall come into operation on such date as the Minister may by notification in the Gazette appoint." I do not wish to repeat what I have said. The reason for this is to see that an effective date is set to it, and the effective date will be set in such a way that it could be proved by the production of the Gazette. 5.00 p.m.

Any Member wishing to speak on that?

I am afraid I cannot agree with this amendment. It seems only 35 banks are involved. I see no reason why it is necessary to resort to a Gazette notification.

It involves expense. Amendment negatived.

We might take some time over this Bill. Perhaps we had better suspend. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

I suspend this Assembly and take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.01 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee resumed.

Clause 16 -

Does the hon. Member for Farrer Park wish to move his third amendment?

Yes.

I have had an opportunity of looking at this proposed amendment, i.e., in page 9, after line 16, to add a new sub-clause: "On and after the establishment of the Clearing House no industrial action in any form whatsoever shall he taken by any bank with its employees in respect of industrial matters and all trade disputes between any hank and an association of its employees shall be referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court or such other tribunal or body as the Minister may appoint for hearing and adjudication." It seems to me there are two objections to this amendment. One is under Standing Order No. 69, paragraph (2), which reads: `Any such Committee [i.e. the Committee on the Bill] shall have power to make such amendments to the Bill as they shall think fit; provided that the amendments (including new clauses and new schedules) are relevant to the subject matter of the Bill;'. The subject matter of the Bill is the subject matter as indicated in the title of the Bill, which is "An Ordinance to provide for the licensing and regulation of the business of banking, and to amend certain provisions of the Companies Ordinance." So it does appear to me that this amendment is not really relevant to the subject matter of the Bill and there is, of course, authority to say that an amendment is irrelevant if it goes beyond the scope of the Bill. That is the first objection. The second objection, part of the amendment anyway, seeks, in fact, to make an amendment to the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Section 28 of the Ordinance indicates when a trade dispute should be referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court. The correct legislative procedure for the Member, if he proposes to pursue his subject on that particular aspect of his amendment, is to take steps to amend that section. I must rule it cannot be done by way of an amendment to this particular clause. Therefore, my ruling is that the amendment is out of order and cannot be moved.

May I speak on the clause?

The Prime Minister wishes to speak on the amendment?

No, not on the amendment. You have already ruled on the amendment.

Can I first propose the question?

Sorry. Question proposed, "That clause 16 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, apart from the two procedural points you have raised against the amendment, which you have ruled is out of order, I might mention that I did discuss the matter with the Member for Farrer Park and I pointed out to him that the substantive effect of this amendment, if it was carried, would mean in effect that a a radical change would be created in industrial relations in all banks.

Is the Prime Minister speaking on the amendment I have over-ruled?

On the amendment you have over-ruled, but in passing, Mr Speaker, Sir. What I wish to say is this - that it then transpired, I think I must say this in fairness to him, that he had moved this really for the purposes of debate and he was anxious that the Government should make it quite clear that it is not the intention of the Government, by setting up this clearing house to allow the union to sort of pick the banks as victims in turn, one at a time, so that in that way one bank after the other could be penalised. First he had explained that obviously the bank which was recalcitrant might lose custom. I pointed out to him that that was a possible method of operation if we wanted to kill private banking. The Minister has already stated quite categorically that our entrepot trade, for various reasons, is best served by leaving the commercial banks as they are for a very long time, and it is not the intention of the Government to penalise or to milk each bank in turn. But I have said just now and I repeat this: if the banks, for various reasons of their own, decide to gang up against the union on behalf of one of its members and thereby bring the whole of the banking system to a grinding halt, then it is the duty of the Government to ensure that they are frustrated in that attempt. For the duty of the Government is to maintain a fair balance. The system must be kept going. As has been aptly described, if you shoot the pianist, the dancing stops. And it is not the business of the Government to shoot the pianist. But if the pianist refuses to play, then I say it is the business of the Government to ensure that somebody is there in order that the music can go on and the economy can tick. I think I made fairly clear the position of the Government. We are openly in favour of the workers, but we cannot afford to allow either in the banking industry or in any industry a situation to arise where the enterprise upon which the economy of Singapore is founded is run down to earth because it is no longer profitable. The basic principle of private enterprise is the profit motive and we accept that, and that is the contradiction we face. We have inherited a free trade economy. We are pledged to certain policies on behalf of the workers to level down or level up benefits, and I say, in the interest of both the workers and the economy as a whole, a certain measure of free play and balance must be maintained. But if one employer - in this particular case the O.C.B.C. and its managing directors - is recalcitrant, then I say it can fight it out with the union. We are not helping the union by this. But we are preventing the bank from bringing the economy of Singapore to a grinding halt by ganging up with the other banks.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed obliged to the Hon, the Prime Minister for that statement. The purpose of these amendments to clause 16, Mr Speaker, Sir, was to seek some sort of assurance from the Government that, as a result of this Bill, a situation such as I have envisaged could happen would not happen. As the Prime Minister has now assured us that in these matters it is the intention of the Government to hold the balance evenly between employer and employee and that it is not the intention of the Government to let the economy and trade of this country run to ruin and run to seed, I am quite happy. On the principle of the Bill, I accept that the Bill should go through, but I was a bit worried that the timing of the Bill was such that it might create suspicions in the minds of certain trade unionists in the country.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 17 to 26 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 27 - Mr David Marshall rose -

Is it an amendment?

An amendment, Sir, I move, In page 12, line 37, to leave out "five" and insert "fifty". Mr Speaker, Sir, we have had in this House a Bill introduced with reference to privileges and immunities whereby the Government sought strenuously to have a maximum fine of $5,000 -

Order. The Member for Anson must not go into such details of a Bill which is now before a Select Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with respect, I am referring to the Bill as published and in respect of the Second Reading.

Order. I do not think the Member is justified in saying the Government has strenuously sought to impose a penalty of that sort. The strenuous effort has not even arrived.

The Government has sought to impose the maximum penalty of $5,000 in respect of a breach of privilege in connection with individual Members in this House. Compared to a bank whose minimum capital is $2 million with an equal reserve fund, where do the financial resources of the individual Members come in? Particularly in the light of the statement made by the Minister for Finance and the contemptuous conduct indicated of banks towards the request of the Minister for responsible action, do we not recognise the need for really punitive measures in the event that the banks seek to disregard the requirements of the law? To a man like Mr Tan Chin Tuan, $5,000 is almost invisible; he would need a magnifying glass. It is absurd to suggest that we should penalise by only $5,000 a bank that does not provide a reserve fund, a bank that does not comply with the requirements of the Ordinance. There is not even an alternative of imprisonment for the officers concerned. This kind and tender approach on the part of the Government towards the banks, particularly in the light of their recent conduct, is more than surprising, and I ask that we redress the balance a little by making the penalty realistic. 5.45 p.m.

I am quite happy with the amendment. Of course, I must say that the power to restrict this penalty does not rest with the Government but with the law courts. The fact that you have to provide for a higher penalty does not mean that, in fact, it will be enforced if the offence with which the bank is charged and found guilty does not merit such a punishment. But on principle, there is nothing the Government has against the amendment.

I would like to mention this business of upping the kitty. The last time it was done in the City Council, I believe the P.A.P. Councillors moved for a 20 cent increase in the salary of the daily rated. The Opposition, which had been in charge of the City Council for a long time before that and had done nothing about it, upped it by another 20 cents since the money did not belong to them. And if we keep on upping the fine to $50,000 and somebody takes it into his mind to add another zero, so it can go on. I think we will let the Member for Anson have the credit for adding the first zero and leave it at that. Amendment agreed to.

It seems to me that the eagle eye of the Member for Anson has not noticed that in other clauses the penalty is only $5,000.

They are not serious offences, Sir. Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 28 to 33 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 34 -

I move, In page 14, to leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert "with or without conditions". Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Law has sought to answer the objection I made during the Second Reading, but I fear that there is a misunderstanding. I know that he will correct me if I am wrong, but as I read this clause, Sir, the Minister has no power at all to impose any conditions on a licence to an existing bank other than the conditions which are existing already in 1961. We know from him now that some banks have no licence at all; so there are no conditions. And other banks probably just have licences without conditions. So that it really means, in effect, that the Minister has no power to lay down conditions in granting the licences to these existing banks although he has the power under clause 3(4) to impose conditions in respect of grants of licences to new banks. I seek to equalise the position in respect of existing banks and new banks to give the Minister unfettered power in his discretion to make such conditions as he may consider necessary on the licences in respect of banks already established as he can in respect of new banks. That is the purpose of the amendment. If you will notice, it will now read: "shall ... be granted a licence with or without conditions". And the wording in clause 3(4) "grant a licence, with or without conditions".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not at all happy about the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson.

To give you added power.

The Member for Farrer Park says that it gives me added power. My present unhappy state of mind should surely convince him of my fully democratic persuasions. There are good reasons for the clause as it stands. May I say that this is not a new Ordinance or an untried Ordinance? It has been tried in the Federation for more than two years and has been found satisfactory. The purpose of this whole Bill is not to point a gun at the head of banks. I think it will be wrong in principle to centralise so much power in the hands of one man. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

But he will be able to dictate terms in detail to important institutions of the economy. Of course, it may be that the Member for Anson has great trust in my discretion. If that is the case -

You will not be there long.

- I am most delighted. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, on principle, I think it is wrong to give such powers to the Government where the need for such powers has not been clearly established. If the Member for Anson will just say what he has in mind quite apart from carrying on - he must be carrying on a war with somebody - whether in fact he could say, "These are the conditions I think which should be applied to banks of this type." If he can satisfy the Government that there is a great need for that, then I think we might reconsider, but so far, quite apart from venting wrath on the banks, I do not think he has established a case.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an agonizingly frustrating experience to try and talk logic to the Minister for Finance. If no conditions are necessary, why do we have clause 3(4)? If no conditions are at all necessary for the control of banks, why do we have the Bill? We have the Bill - I will refresh my memory, Sir - to provide for the licensing and regulation of the business of banking. Under clause 3(4), I trusted him when he said he required the powers of conditions on licences. If, in fact, those powers are necessary for new banks, why are they not necessary for banks already established? The Minister himself may not require those powers, but, as I have pointed out, every government is ephemeral and one does not legislate for the government in office. One legislates from the permanent point of view. Other governments may consider it necessary to have those powers. It is for the Minister to convince us why there is the necessity for the distinction of treatment between these two sets of banks and why he thinks that the banks which have no conditions on their licences today will never require controlling.

Surely there is a distinction between existing banks and new banks. The fact that a bank is in operation shows - and in most instances, it has been carrying on business for years - that it has adjusted itself to the economy by fulfilling a certain need in that particular section of the economy. For the Government to say that a well-established bank should conduct business along a certain pattern or should have certain changes in its system of organisation, I say that it is completely unnecessary. No such need has been proved, more especially so when in due course the control in detail over banks would be exercised by the Central Bank of the Federation when it establishes a branch here.

When?

In August 1963.

At the latest.

June.

Sir, the purpose of this Bill is surely to regulate the banks, but the regulation must `be done according to certain principles clearly set out in the legislation. I would have thought that this point would have been self-evident to a lawyer of such eminence as the Member for Farrer Park - no, the Member for Anson.

This is not to say that the Member for Farrer Park has no eminence.

Accepted.

I have listened to what the Member for Anson has said anti I am quite unconvinced that the amendment is necessary.

We have reached a Gilbertian situation in the discussion on this Bill and the Member for Anson, who is always averse to giving any sort of power to the Minister, is advocating that he should take unto himself all the powers that the Member for Anson wishes to give him. And here is the Minister saying, "No, no, thank you very much!" So who is the democrat - the Member for Anson or the Minister for Finance? Surely, Sir, the answer is contained in clause 6.

There is an appeal to the High Court.

But still there is control over the banks.

No other Member wishing to speak? Does the Member for Anson wish for a vote?

Yes, Sir.

Sir, before a division is called on this, may I, on a point of elucidation -

Is the Prime Minister asking for elucidation?

No. I understand the Member for Anson is pressing his amendment to a vote.

No, not yet.

I am not withdrawing it.

That is all. He is not withdrawing it.

I do want to seek some clarification. What is the point now being urged upon us, because we have had a free go at the draftsmanship of people who have probably spent more time in considering this than we have?

I think the Prime Minister has heard the debate on this proposed amendment. Now the Speaker has to put the amendment to the House. The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." As many as are of that opinion say `Aye'?

Aye.

To the contrary say `No'? Some hon. Members: No.

I think the Noes have it? The Noes have it.

He is waiting for a Division.

If you want to call for a division, call one.

The Prime Minister is anticipating. Amendment accordingly negatived. Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill. First, Second and Third Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

6.00 p.m. Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [15th January, l962] to Question [15th January, 1962], "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 David Marshall). Which amendment was, `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."'. -(Deputy Prime Minister). Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

As has been agreed to, the debate continues not only on the amendment but also on the main motion, and all questions, if necessary, will be put at the end of the debate. Mr Prime Minister was speaking. 6.02 p.m.

Sir, I would only wish to draw the attention of Members to the terms of the amendment and to point out that what we agreed to in principle, without even hearing the Member for Anson and the Member for Upper Serangoon, was that there should be a Commission to investigate any allegation of nepotism or improper political interference with the civil service and employees of statutory boards. We never agreed, Mr Speaker, to a roving Commission to find out what the gossip is in town and in the coffeeshops and if anybody has any gossip. The amendment makes it quite clear, to investigate all specific allegations. I give an undertaking here that if the Member for Anson has any other specific allegations which he forgot to list in his speech yesterday, all he need do is to put them down in writing, evidence can be let on them, and the matter will be investigated. But I would like to point out this: that it falls upon the Government, the Minister for Law and myself, to invite a member of the judiciary to head such a Commission. I think the Member for An son, not only from his experience at the Bar but also from his experience as a former Chief Minister, will know that Judges do not like to be asked to serve on Commissions with no specific purpose or task in mind. A considerable amount of time is involved in hearing and sifting evidence, and they must be convinced that there is something worthwhile investigating upon which they are required to adjudicate. I think no Judge would like to be put in a position of a collater and collector of gossip. On that understanding, I would like to say that any specific allegation made either in the course of this debate or subsequently by a Member of this Assembly in writing or of improper political interference will receive the attention of the Commission of Inquiry.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister yesterday raised something that concerned me. He said that I had written some notes to a certain camp leader, that these notes would be taken as evidence, and that they had something to do with political nepotism. I will not talk too much on the conduct of our former Parliamentary Secretary, as my colleagues all know what kind of conduct his is. He was not a party member before the general elections. It was only when the general elections were held in 1959 that he became a member. Here, I would like to read some very brief notes. I do hope that these notes, though they were written by some Members sitting opposite, will not be used as evidence to show something relating to political nepotism. These notes were written by the Barisan Sosialis Members recommending certain people to work in the Work Brigade. I think that in the course of a socialist movement, if one is a socialist and wants to help his country to become a socialist country, he will need to have more cadres in order to carry out the work of socialism. In producing these notes, I do not mean to attack Members in the Barisan Sosialis. My intention is to show that the notes written by them had nothing to do with political nepotism. Here is a note written by Chan Cheng Ying to me. At that time I was responsible for the Work Brigade. The note says that Han Ching like to be trained us a Work Brigade leader. Chan Cheng Ying recommended this. This note is very brief. We understand it is meant to recommend certain comrades or friends to join the Work Brigade and to work there. Another note here - a very brief one - was written by the so-called Chairman of the Action Committee of the Work Brigade which has been disbanded. He was then very active. His name is Wu En Pao. He wrote this to the camp leader at Paya Lebar, "One Yang Chen Pao in the camp wants to talk with Wang Chin San. He seeks permission to go home everyday in order to carry out his work." I have no intention to spend any more time on these notes. If I want to read out, I have many more notes to read out here. Anyway, the purpose of my mentioning this is only to prove that the words uttered by the Member for Upper Serangoon yesterday were irrelevant and were taken out of context. At this time when we want to realise Malaysia, they are seeking out trifles in order to attack us in our work. Therefore, I now want to tell Members here that the Barisan Sosialis' attitude and tactics in all this should be understood by the people gradually.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I did not intend to make a speech, but just now after we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs say something which seemed to me to be unprincipled, I therefore want to give a reason. I want him to know. I believe that what he has mentioned just now, when he referred to the notes mentioned by a colleague of ours, he did not mention the dates. He said the notes did not give the dates and times, and therefore could not be taken as evidence. On the second point, he should know that at that time, before we parted from the P.A.P., all our actions were done under the directions of the leaders of the P.A.P. Therefore, when I was appointed to the Work Brigade by the Minister for National Development, I received many notes, including notes from the Prime Minister, recommending P.A.P. members to work in various departments. Just a few days before the Anson by-elections, I handed over some secret documents from the P.A.P. to certain officers of the Work Brigade to be brought to the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P. These documents were marked "Confidential", and their contents related to recommendations by certain P.A.P. members recommending some other members. My actions then were done under the directions of the P.A.P. At the time when the P.A.P. was formed, we felt that if there was no democracy, we had to argue, and later on that led to our forming the Barisan Sosialis. The Member for Upper Serangoon clearly told the House that we of the Barisan Sosialis raised all these issues. Everything is based on reason. The purpose of this motion is not to hit out at any members or Ministers of the P.A.P. We of the Barisan Sosialis have no such intention. I only quote this to show that whatever actions we did were all based on principle.

On a point of clarification.

The Member has sat down.

The Member may have sat down, but a serious point has been made against me, and I think I should surely be given the opportunity to clarify, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Order. The only way the Prime Minister can speak now is if he can satisfy the Chair that he has been misrepresented on an important aspect of his speech. I do not know whether he can bring his point of clarification within that.

Well, he cannot be all that balanced. The point I want to make is this. To my recollection, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member mentioned Anson and my recommending some people to the Work Brigade. That I did, and I have, I think, about four or five of them still noted down in my diary. They were not members of the P.A.P. and I see no reason why I should have put them in a secret document to him. If that is what he is alleging - that that was nepotism - then he can put it down in writing and doubtless will be part of the specific allegations which the Commission will investigate.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I say frankly that I oppose the amendment moved by the Government on the grounds that the spirit of the amendment seeks to frighten Members of this Assembly from expressing their views which will consequently result in such Members having to face the consequences. There has been intimidation of a reasonable extent of freedom of speech. Secondly, in the original motion, I see there is some merit which it is proper the Government should consider, because, as has been mentioned by the Member for Farrer Park, it is true that since the Government assumed office until today, there has been talk among the people of this nepotism. They say that only P.A.P. members will find employment, or at least P.A.P. sympathisers will find employment in Singapore today. Therefore, if the Government really feel responsible to the State of Singapore, there is no reason why this matter should be considered a loss to them. On the contrary, it should be an added prestige to the Government, because from the events which have taken place since the Government assumed office, we know there have been many splits even among their own members. It has become a public topic. If there is no wind, the tree will not shake, so the Malay saying goes. So there must be something about ex-P.A.P. members who have defected and who were responsible for this matter. We ourselves have heard this expressed in the Assembly. P.A.P. members have spoken loudly about the overwhelming majority they had then. We would like to know who really are sincere in looking after the interest of Singapore, which we all wish for. The Hon, the Prime Minister may say this motion is childish or puerile, or it is political tactics between political parties. But we in the Alliance, who are not involved in this dispute, are yet responsible to the people of Singapore, and we wish to know who are really responsible for these irresponsible acts. We do not wish these matters to be on the lips of the people of Singapore, because, Mr Speaker, that will lead to the disunity of the people, and that would be a very grave matter.

Mr Speaker. Sir, when the Member for Anson and the Member for Upper Serangoon jointly put down a motion implying political nepotism and jiggery-pokery in the civil service, everyone expected them to come out with awful disclosures of irregularities. After all, Sir, the Member for Upper Serangoon had been closely associated with the Government for two years as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. As such, he was in a position to know if anything irregular had been going on in the Government. Moreover, his twelve colleagues, some of whom were Parliamentary Secretaries, have had access to many files. As regards the activities of the Government, where there had been consultations with them, they, jointly pooling all their knowledge, could have made some awful disclosures, if there had been any. They could have spilt the beans, as it were, and shaken the Government with factual disclosures about political nepotism and other irregularities on the part of the Government.

They will tell the Commission.

We will be coming to the Member for Anson later on. But, Sir, not a single bean was spilt alleging anything reprehensible. The Member for Upper Serangoon, far from wading into the Government with startling disclosures of political nepotism, gave the impression - in fact he made an apology - that he was seconding the motion with vague reluctance. He said he had no intention of hitting out at the P.A.P. This cannot be because his Barisan Sosialis friends have developed a soft spot for the Government, since they treacherously deserted it. The truth is that the Member for Upper Serangoon has nothing to hit with at the Government. If he had anything to hit with, I am quite sure he and his Barisan Sosialis friends would not have hesitated to go for the Government. But once he knew that any allegation made would have to be substantiated, he dried up for words and allegations. Sir, it is one thing making broad allegations in places where they know they cannot be challenged, and quite another having to make allegations which they know they would be called upon to substantiate. Sir, it is characteristic of the Barisan Sosialis that they have developed a strong aversion for the open confrontation. As you know, Sir, they like monologues but shun things like forums like the plague, because any statement made at a forum, where there is no prepared script, can be immediately challenged and refuted. So the Member for Upper Serangoon was wise in not making allegations which he knows he cannot substantiate and which he knows are not true. So all that happened was that allegations of nepotism and irregularities have now turned out to be something vague and' nebulous. Sir, the Member for Anson obviously had hoped for support from the Barisan Sosialis. But I am quite sure, Sir, that he is as disappointed as the newspapers are at what was disclosed yesterday. There was nothing for them. The Member for Anson spent some time enumerating the number of P.A.P. members and Assemblymen who had been appointed to statutory boards and other Government committee. He was able to do that through the courtesy of the Government which provided him with a list. All he said was, "There are two P.A.P. members on this committee. There are three P.A.P. members or Assemblymen on that committee," and so on. Sir, nobody has ever denied these facts. They have never been concealed from anyone.

You never told us.

Many of these committee appointments were gazetted.

You never told us anyway.

Order.

They were published. They were openly made and were public knowledge. In no single instance did the Member for Anson suggest that these appointments were improperly made. What then is the allegation? Where is the evidence of political nepotism and other irregularities? It is true that the Government has appointed P.A.P. Assemblymen or P.A.P. members to boards and committees. Sir, there is nothing irregular about a government appointing people whom they know personally and trust as members of a committee or a board to carry out the work of the committee or the board. Is it suggested by the Member for Anson that we should pick names at random from a telephone hook and appoint them to boards and committees?

Why do you not listen -

Order. The Member will have a chance to reply.

I have to endure listening to him occasionally, Sir. P.A.P. Assemblymen and members, even from the list, i.e. the enumeration provided by the Member for Anson, constitute a minority in most of these committees. It is natural, Sir, for a government to have a few nominees whom it knows intimately, in order to know what goes on in the committees for which it is responsible. After all, Sir, if anything goes wrong in a committee or a board, it is the Government which must take the responsibility. Therefore, it is its duty to see that people whom it knows and trusts are in the committee. As I have said, they always constitute a minority of the members of any committee. Sir, when the P.A.P. Government took office, it made it a point to see that P.A.P. Assemblymen, instead of being passive Back-benchers, were given a share of responsibility in government work. Every Assemblyman therefore was attached to one Ministry or other. That is public knowledge. We have stated so earlier on when the Government took office. Therefore, participation in committees and boards is one way of delegating responsibility to Assemblymen. Why then is the Member for Anson surprised to find P.A.P. Assemblymen openly and constitutionally appointed to boards and committees? What is the point of making a recitation that so many P.A.P. Assemblymen are in this or that committee? Is it suggested that it is irregular? Or is he stating a fact? Probably having no evidence, he just wants to leave an impression behind that somehow the whole thing was irregular and therefore there was political nepotism. Sir, he contends that what disconcerts him is that there are too many P.A.P. members and Assemblymen in these committees and boards. How much exactly is too many of the 527 appointments which were made to these boards and committees? The P.A.P. Assemblymen and members constitute an insignificant minority. The Member for Anson knows it is not always easy to get suitable people to serve on boards and committees regularly, and for the most part voluntarily. It is natural and inevitable that some of the nominees should be drawn from party colleagues and workers whose worth and ability we have to acknowledge. Sir, where then is the nepotism? Were the P.A.P. members appointed to these boards and committees unsuitable or corrupt or inefficient? Or were these committees and boards used to line the pockets of P.A.P. members and Assemblymen? If that was true, then the charge of nepotism would be valid. But no such charge or allegation was made. So far the allegation was that so many P.A.P. members and so many P.A.P. Assemblymen were appointed to committees and boards. Equally, it was open to the Member for Anson to say that so many non-P.A.P. members were appointed to committees and boards. Both have no point to that. What is the significance to say that so many P.A.P. Assemblymen or members and so many non-P.A.P. members were appointed to this board or that board? In fact, Sir, from what the Member for Anson said yesterday, it is not clear what the allegations are or, what is more important, what precisely the commission of inquiry is supposed to look into. The Member for Anson then went on to allege that P.A.P. members have been given government jobs in community centres, the Work Brigade, the Ministries and the like, and that the Party imposes a levy on such members. Sir, this again contains no specific allegation but vague charges. Of course, a number of P.A.P. members are in the employ of Government, just as before the P.A.P. Government came into power there were a number of P.A.P. members working in many Government Ministries and other Government bodies. Is the Member for Anson, therefore, suggesting that a man should not be employed in Government service or in the Work Brigade or in the People's Association just because he is a P.A.P. member? The point surely, Sir, is not whether he is or is not a P.A.P. member, hut whether he is qualified to do the job to which he is appointed, and whether the appointment is properly made. Merely to say that there are four P.A.P. members in the Ministry of Culture, as the Member for Anson said yesterday, or that there are so many P.A.P. members in this or that Ministry is not even prima facie proof of nepotism. Sir, again a great deal has been made by the Member for Anson about the fact that some P.A.P. members who are in Government service are asked to contribute to the Party. As I have said, even before the P.A.P. became the Government, P.A.P. members, whether they are in Government service or elsewhere, have contributed as they like to the Party. Here again, Sir, the Member for Anson has tried to extract some sinister meaning out of all these. There is nothing sinister or unusual about Party sympathisers, whether they are in or out of Government service, making contributions to the Party. For example, Sir, it is a well-known fact that all Ministers and Assemblymen, on this side of the House at least, pay a part of their salaries and allowances to the Party as contributions. Similarly, if we ask members who may be employed in or out of Government to make contributions to the Party, why should the Member for Anson even suggest that this is nepotism? Sir, even from the figures reeled off by the Member for Anson, as I remarked earlier, they constitute only a small fraction of the total number of employees in Government service. Therefore, the charge of nepotism by saying that a few people in the employ of Government are P.A.P. members is not proof or even prima fade proof. What needs to be proved to make the charge feasible or even reasonable is to show that the appointment was improperly made and that the person is holding a job which he is incapable of performing. The Member for Anson and the Member for Upper Serangoon did none of these things. They brought no specific allegations for investigation and pronouncement by an inquiry commission. All that the Member for Anson could rely on was a general feeling. In fact, throughout the speeches, the terms were "They say; it is said; and there is a general impression" that these things are going on. Similarly, the Member for Anson used words like "People are saying, and there is an impression that there is political nepotism in the Government." In fact, Sir, to be quite frank, most of this business about "They say and it is said," originates in this Chamber. Allegations are made here that people are saying this and that in the coffee-shops. They are passed on to the newspapers and the next day they come back and say, yes they have heard somebody say that there is talk of political nepotism and that the Government is doing this and that. Very often, they listen to their own echoes and say that this is what the public say. There is no evidence produced that there is definitely such and such a person who is prepared to come forward and say the Government has done this, that or the other thing. All that we have is a vague reference to a possible existence of nepotism in the Government. Now, Sir, having made these charges from time to time, Members of the Opposition have been given an opportunity to come out with specific facts and make specific allegations, but none of them are prepared to take the opportunity. Again there is vague talk about feelings and impressions. Sir, the Member for Anson wants the inquiry commission to investigate not specific cases and instances of nepotism. This is because neither he nor the Member for Upper Serangoon and the other speakers who have talked since then have been able to pinpoint or crystallise their charges. It is like bringing a man to court on a charge of murder. When the defendant asks, "Yes, but what murder? Who am I supposed to have killed and when and with what?" He is told, "Well, how do we know whom you have killed and when and with what? That is for the Judge to find out. All we are doing is to charge you with murder in general, simply because we hope that the investigation may bring a murder to light." It is up to the defendant to defend himself, if he can, against a general charge. As far as the Opposition are concerned, they are not going to say whether a "murder" has or has not been committed except in a general and vague sense. They have a feeling and impression that something wrong has been done. This reminds me of - in fact, I will recommend the Member for Anson and many of the Opposition Members to read - a well-known novel by the Czech writer, Franz Kafka, called "The Trial."

Have you ever read it?

In "The Trial" a man called Joseph Kay came to town and was apprehended. A summons was issued against him that he was supposed to come to court for trial. The novel deals with the whole procedure of the trial that was gone through. The prosecution asked questions. Evidence was produced. But neither the Judge nor the defendant nor the prosecutor knew what the charge was. Yet the whole rigmarole ritual of a trial was gone through. This novel ended with the man suddenly being declared guilty. He was dragged Out. Two warriors came round, stuck a knife in the side of his belly and finished him off. Nobody knew what the charge was - not even the victim himself. The implication is that it was very easy, by just going through the procedure of a trial - the procedure of making allegations which are not specific - to find a man guilty. That is precisely the technique which the Member for Anson and others have adopted. No charges are made. But they say, "Yes, two P.A.P. members here, three P.A.P. members there. Therefore, there might be a charge of nepotism." Sir, the Member for Anson made another allegation - it was not even an allegation but just a hint of improper political interference with the civil service. Sir, let me say this, that what he, in fact, has been trying to persuade me to do is to interfere with the civil service. He has been writing me letters complaining against the News Section of Radio Singapore and saying that he has been wrongly reported. For the information of the Member for Anson, I am told that yesterday he rang up the Head of the News Section of Radio Singapore saying, "If Radio Singapore in its 10.30 p.m. news reports that the House agreed that the Referendum Bill is to be postponed, I am going to bring up this question in the Assembly."

Order. In fact, I have received from the Member for Anson a complaint precisely in those terms which I am investigating, that Radio Singapore was alleged to have said that the Assembly agreed that the National Referendum Bill should be postponed, which, of course, was not the case. The Assembly did not agree. It was a postponement under the Standing Orders. I might as well inform the Assembly that the allegation is that the Member for Anson pointed out that that was a mistake - a false report. But in spite of his pointing out that it was a false report, the News Editor put it on again at 10.30 p.m. So I am investigating that complaint.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not interested in whether that allegation is true or not. What I am pointing out is that the Member for Anson rings up a civil servant and tells him how he should carry out his work.

On a point of elucidation, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Would the Minister not consider it only fair to this civil servant that a Member of this Assembly should point out that he is wrong in order to give him an opportunity, knowing that it is coming on again at 10.30 p.m., to correct it? Is that not what he would, in fairness, do himself?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is quite a different proposition. If this charge is specifically made in the inquiry -

It has been made.

- then I have letters here - a long correspondence going on between the Member for Anson and myself. I would like to think that my letters, which are signed in black ink, are written in temperate language; whereas the letters of the Member for Anson are written in black ink and signed in green ink. But it gets more acrimonious. An hon. Member: He is yellow!

But the essence of it is this. He has been inviting me to get Radio Singapore to do things his way. He considers that it is not honest and fair reporting. And he rings up -

On a point of elucidation, Sir. Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

I am obliged to the Minister. Would he agree that he himself and the members of Radio Singapore have told me that they have no power to deal with any complaint - they hake no powers even to give me sight of a copy of their script - and that I must refer all matters to the Minister? Is this not true?

It is not only true, but since then I have given instructions to the Head of the News Section that any interference by any Assemblyman who is not authorised to do so should he rejected outright. Just because the Member for Anson was a former Chief Minister, he cannot run Radio Singapore as though it was his preserve. If he wants to make any complaint, it should he properly directed to the Minister, the responsible authority. But nobody has a right to ring up and demand scripts as the Member for Anson has done. The News Section quite rightly says, "You are not entitled to have a look at the scripts. If you want to do so, get to the Minister." Since then I have re-emphasised that any attempt by anybody to intimidate any of the staff of the News Section of Radio Singapore should be ignored.

Including the Minister?

We have always said so before that we run the News Section as we like. When the Member for Anson was the Chief Minister, he prevailed upon Radio Singapore to even report him opening small Labour Front branches, which at least, Sir, we have not dared to do. But that is a different proposition altogether, Sir. What I would like to say is this. We have never concealed the fact that Radio Singapore is a Government department. The Minister has a right to lay down policies and to give directives. We have never denied it.

Including distortions.

I understand that the charge of distortions is to come up before the Committee of Privileges and I shall have the privilege of quoting the Member's letters and my letters about distortions and other allegations. As a newspaperman, I can tell you that the charge he has made about distortion and unfair reporting has not two legs or even one leg to stand on. Sir, on the charge by the Member for Anson about improper political interference, the only instance he brought up was Radio Singapore, in addition to intimidating some of the members of the News Section by saying, "If you do not do this, I am going to bring this up before the proper authorities." Apart from doing and saying that, he has not brought up a single instance of improper political interference. Therefore, as far as I can see, none of the Opposition Members who have spoken on this motion on political nepotism have a single bit of evidence. What they hope for is to let loose a Commission of Inquiry with no particular directives. They do not know what to look for but they hope that they might eventually tumble on to something. If they stumble on one case of nepotism or of political irregularity, they are lucky. But if they do not, it is too bad. One High Court Judge has spent a couple of years hoping to unearth a piece of evidence about political nepotism or improper political interference. I am not a lawyer, Sir, but I have enough respect for the Judge sitting on a Commission of Inquiry to tell him, "Well, all we can tell you is that there is coffee-shop talk of nepotism. We cannot even tell you which coffee-shop it is. Would you please investigate? If you manage to get to the right coffee-shop, good luck to you; but if you do not, it is just too bad." Sir, if that is the kind of Commission of Inquiry the Members of the Opposition are proposing, then I say that they are neither showing great respect for the Commission of Inquiry nor for the unfortunate gentleman who has to go around groping in the dark in the hope of unearthing something which might provide the Opposition with ammunition against the Government. But at the moment, there is nothing concrete. In fact, Sir, if you look up the newspaper reports on this - I am told the newspapers were looking forward with great glee to awful disclosures along the lines of Maria Monk to enable them to sell at least another five or ten thousand copies but they were very disappointed - the whole debate was limited to half a page. In fact, I can assure the Member for Anson - just before he starts blurting out that I had a conference yesterday, and I told the newspapers to keep it to half a page - that there is nothing worth reporting. As far as scandalous news is concerned, the newspapers are ready to print all the news that is fit to print. But as far as this motion on political nepotism is concerned, the tough cynical and hard-faced newsmen have been disappointed. They had been looking forward to the Member for Anson and his colleague, the Member for Upper Serangoon, to provide them with enough disclosures to titillate their breakfast readers. I hope the Member for Anson, who is obviously bursting to say it out "in green ink", will at least, before he winds up, produce some concrete evidence of nepotism or irregularity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, today there are more grave and more pressing problems facing us. Two of them are firstly the question of automatic citizenship in the Government's merger proposals, and secondly the grave economic crisis into which this country has been plunged, including the aggravated unemployment situation. Sir, we feel the Government should pay more attention to these problems and that we, in the Opposition, should press the Government for a proper solution. Sir, we have experienced and we have seen in the past that reports of Commissions do not make an impact on the public. Neither do they have much value. They are not much noticed by the public. Neither do they help to sway the course of political events in Singapore. Sir, in addition to that, the cost, time and labour taken, and the efforts which the Government, Members of the Assembly and the civil service have to spend on Commissions of Inquiry do not warrant this Commission of Inquiry at this juncture in Singapore's political history. Therefore, we are not supporting the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. Sir, if this Commission of Inquiry sits, it will only help the Government to divert the attention of the public from the real and pressing issues which are facing us - namely, the question of automatic citizenship in the merger proposals and the present economic position. Sir, we are therefore abstaining from both the amendment and the motion itself.

No other Member wishes to speak? Mr Marshall, in reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with deep regret that I heard the Member for Hong Lim from the Opposition Bench. I have learnt to expect neither understanding nor justice. We knock our heads and keep knocking our heads because it is our duty to try. Now and then we suceed in inflicting punishment which makes them tremble, even in minor matters which happened yesterday, but I have no real hope of converting people, like the Minister for Culture, who have displayed quite clearly that they speak the English language but they either do not understand it or they have no ear for truth that is unpleasant, to consciences that have gone dead. But the Member for Hong Lim, in talking about an economic crisis at a period of dynamic economic expansion, and that this House should not concern itself with matters affecting the very fundamental of the administration of a country, its civil service -

Point of explanation, Sir.

If the Member will give way. Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

In my speech I did not say this House should not concern itself with the running of the government. I said a Commission of Inquiry, appointed to go into matters which can be solved either at Question Time or by a motion in this House, will not only take days and weeks, but much money and effort will have to be spent.

It takes centuries to build a civil service of integrity and efficiency. And no amount of effort and no amount of money at any time is too much to guarantee an honest civil service without which no politician, however able he may think he is, could possibly govern. It was and it is the intention of this motion not so much to seek to punish. You have seen, Sir, that we have sought to discuss it with restraint and this has been made the subject of jibes. It was not my intention to provide bits for breakfast tables. It is not even my intention to administer vengefully the odium of public opinion upon those on the opposite Benches. For let them know that there are few people in Singapore who would not want to wear a gas mask when they see a P.A.P. Minister walking by. Sir, it was my intention and it is my hope that the gravity of the charges should be adequately recognised. The question is to protect the civil service from the continuance and the perpetuation of an evil tradition which undermines the entire basis of government. To give you an example of the incapacity of this Government to hear, and a pathological urge to vary, I would ask you to remember what you heard in this very debate. Last night I heard what I believe to be a false report by Radio Singapore. I immediately pointed this out to the News Editor and said, "This is wrong. If you don't correct it, I will have to report it." That is transformed, Sir, into intimidation by a former Chief Minister throwing his weight, not an effort by a citizen and an Assemblyman to give an opportunity to Radio Singapore to correct a grievous error, because it was going on the air again at 10.30 p.m., and to avoid the need for referring the matter to Select Committee. That is the way their mentality works, Mr Speaker. Again it was said, "Do you want us to go to the telephone directory? Are we not allowed to appoint P.A.P. members?" Mr Speaker, be indulgent for a few moments whilst I repeat myself to show you to what extent they are incapable of hearing. I want to make it quite clear - this was my speech, Sir, in moving it - it is not my suggestion that the Government should not appoint a member of its Party to public office because he is a member of the Party. Quite naturally, it can and does happen that a member of a political Party in office is, by virtue of his own merit, worthy of appointment to 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 conduct. But what I do say, Sir, is that the numbers involved are of a character which legitimately raise a query as to whether, in fact, some appointments were made not merely on merit but took into consideration 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. Sir, the extraordinarily revealing thing in the debate is that the Deputy Prime Minister himself admitted the charge. He has said to us, "It is our duty as a Government to control these statutory bodies." This is indeed, Mr Speaker, an extraordinary admission, an admission made out of ignorance of the constitutional position. I am, in fact, charging the P.A.P. with seeking control of public bodies for party ends. Is he not aware, Mr Speaker, that the very reason for separating statutory bodies from the Government machinery is that they should be free from political control and political interference? Take a case in point, Mr Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister sneeringly said, "Does the Member for Anson expect us to appoint him to the Income Tax Board of Review?" (Laughter] "Ha, ha, ha!" And why should I not be if I had an adequate knowledge of income tax? Would the fact that I am a Member of the Opposition and have this strong repugnance for gibbering gibbons, affect my judgment in deciding the justice of a claim by the Comptroller of Income Tax or by the taxpayer? If that is what he has suggested, then he in fact admits, Sir, that he has his own men in in order that their judgment should be prejudiced, and affected by their political affiliation. Because that is the total idea.

Were you in the -

Order. I think the Leader of the House knows the Standing Orders. If he wishes to intervene, all he has to do is to stand up and I am sure the Member for Anson will give way.

Sir, I have always been -

Mr Speaker -

Order. Will the Member for Anson take his seat? The Deputy Prime Minister has risen on a matter of elucidation. I do not know whether the Member for Anson will give way.

No, Sir.

All right. Will the Deputy Prime Minister sit down?

He must expect no more courtesy than he gives. The Deputy Prime Minister says, "Does the Member for Anson expect to be appointed to the Housing Board?" And why not, Mr Speaker? Do I want housing any less than they do? If I had the qualifications, if I had the knowledge, if I had the ability to be of service to the Housing Board? Does the fact that I belong to an Opposition Party make it impossible so to appoint me? Sir, the very sneer, if analysed, indicates the basis of their thinking - that a member of a political Party on a statutory board must necessarily be biased and seek political interference in the justice or otherwise of what that Board seeks to do. And I want to make it clear, Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that there is no impression in anybody's mind that I seek to be appointed to any statutory board by this Government.

You have no chance.

I am so glad.

Point of elucidation, Sir.

If the Member will give way. Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

There is a vacancy on the Woodbridge Hospital Board. Does the Member for Anson want to be a member of that Board? [Laughter]

Mr Speaker, Sir - [Laughter]

Order.

I grant courtesy and I receive porcine insults. I shall remember it. Sir, the position is this, according to the Deputy Prime Minister - that it is the duty of the P.A.P. to appoint to statutory boards those who would boot-lick the Prime Minister and wag their tails in every P.A.P. board in order that they should have control of all aspects of Singapore life. That is what I am charging. Mr Speaker, I am impressed, genuinely impressed, by the cold, contained fear emanating from the Front Bench since yesterday when we started on this motion, and the puzzled sighs of relief that we have not been flinging chunks of mud but instead have been dealing with principles. I can understand they are more at home with mud. I can understand they expect a lot of mud because I have no doubt they have many skeletons in their cupboard and they anticipate I have information of some of them. It is their guilty conscience which sighs with relief and which crows. But let us again recognise the aim of this motion is not to fling mud. It is to seek the protection of statutory bodies and the civil service from interference by men - who call themselves men -

Like the Member for Anson.

The charges have been made and I am indeed grateful to the Member for Farrer Park - I do not know if he is present - for the lucid and fair manner in which he expressed what I sought to say to this House: the place for the specific allegations is the tribunal and is the Commission of Inquiry. The Member for Farrer Park drew attention to the most curious feature of the Government's fears which were put into words by the Prime Minister when he said, "Are we going to allow the civil service to bellyache to the Judge? "Bellyache". Mr Speaker, why this word "bellyache"? There is an arrogant tendency on the part of the Front Bench to denigrate their civil service and particularly on the part of the Prime Minister. That word "bellyache", I remember, being first used in this House -

By the Member for Anson.

Never. That is a complete inaccuracy. As you can well know, Mr Speaker, you have been here all the time. I read of this word "bellyache" by the Prime Minister when he termed the complaint of the civil service about the ruthless, unwarranted and unheralded paycut as a bellyache. Now, it is "bellyache" if they complain to the Judge who chairs the tribunal. The very words of the Prime Minister are indicative of my charge that the civil service is being intimidated, and improperly intimidated, by these men of the day. Mr Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister asked whether checking civil service inefficiency is interference. How very clever! Did anybody suggest it? No, Sir. But if they cannot knock down honest arguments, they put up their own specious and fallacious arguments, and knock down their own skittles to the amusement of their own mates. Mr Speaker, what we do say is that there is a constitutional procedure of which the Minister for Culture seems to know little; a constitutional procedure whereby and only whereby, the civil service should be checked. We are against P.A.P. thuggery being employed by any future Party in office. We want to protect the Civil Service from the P.A.P. type of thuggery. Again, Mr Speaker, the extraordinary pathological arrogance of the P.A.P. is transparent in the Deputy Prime Minister's remark that the Government cannot have retired civil servants on a Commission because that would be asking former civil servants to judge the present Government. What extraordinary pride! What fantastic ego! Mr Speaker, all I can say is that, for us normal human beings, we watch with amazement things like that being confessed to publicly before the Press. Is it not recognised by this Government that amongst our former civil servants are men of integrity, men of training, men who have dedicated their life-time to the service of the State, men from whom you can obtain not only a just decision but who, having been in the civil service, can understand where the shoe pinches and can understand how to recommend the protection of the civil service and the maintenance of its integrity? No, Sir. "We, the P.A.P., can never be judged by anybody who is a mere civil servant retired." That is the mental approach of the so-called socialists of the Front Bench. This contempt for the civil service, this arrogant superiority on the part of the Government to the civil service is something that no Member of this House not blinded by party affiliation like the Minister for Culture could ever tolerate.

Mr Speaker, in a point of elucidation.

No, Sir.

No.

You have seen what has happened to me by granting courtesies. I learn by my mistakes. I was saying, Sir, that one other feeble and pathetic excuse made for refusing to give us two civil servants on the Commission is that the public might think they are biased in favour of the Government. That is funny, Sir, because they know as well as I know, as well as everybody in Singapore knows, that the contempt for the P.A.P. on the part of the civil service could not be greater. It is only their loyalty, their sense of discipline and their dedication -

Hear, hear!

- which has prevented them from bringing into the open their dissatisfaction and their unhappiness, except those who have resigned and now keep silent in dignity. I urge this House to recognise that even more important - in fact, the reason for ascertaining whether there is, and to what extent there is, political nepotism and to what extent there is political interference - is to know how to prevent it in the future. Sir, it is very difficult for a man in this Assembly, having made a stand, to change his mind, although constitutionally the democratic process is intended to give an opportunity for logic, reason, good sense and persuasion to attempt to vary existing attitudes. I do appeal to the members of the United People's Party to recognise that, despite any personal experience, and in fact because of the leader's personal experience, a Commission of Inquiry does a great deal of good in clearing the air and in helping the people -

Hear, hear!

- to a recognition of the reality. There is tremendous value in a Commission of Inquiry. The money spent and the energy that goes into it is well worth while when the topic is of major importance to the welfare of this country. This Commission of Inquiry is sought not in a punitive spirit, as the one that was sought against the Member for Hong Lim. It is sought in the spirit of seeking an improvement of our ad, ministration and the protection of our civil service not only from this Government but from any other government that seeks to use these methods. I do earnestly appeal to them. Their vote does count; their vote is vital; to recognise that they hold the balance in this matter, and it is important for us that at least on this subject we should have -

Who is the mover?

Order.

It is curious, Mr Speaker, again and again we have this superficial levity in matters of gravity, for this is a matter of gravity, allegedly accepted by the Deputy Prime Minister who puts in an inept amendment which, in fact, seeks to limit the scope of the inquiry only to matters that have been specifically aired in this Assembly. Sir. let us recognise again what the Member for Farrer Park has tried to explain - that the people of Singapore are the people who will know what has happened to them. The civil servants particularly, of whom there are none present here today, and the members of the statutory boards, should have an opportunity to make complaints to this tribunal. The Prime Minister says, "We are not afraid of any Commission any time anywhere."

Sure.

But then why not let us have this Commission without the absurd limitations that this amendment seeks to have? Any Commission! Let us implement that proud boast.

Make the charges.

We are asking for this Commission, Mr Speaker, Sir. My charge is that it is my firm belief that there is political nepotism. It is my firm belief, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there has been improper interference by this Party amongst the civil servants.

Such as?

I am so sorry, Mr Speaker. They want particularisation. They want me to have the knowledge of all the people. I tell you, Sir, that the people should have the opportunity. I ask every Member of the Opposition to recognise that it is our duty to give the people this opportunity to make their complaints in the appropriate place. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Government finds itself cornered and the heat is on, "We will have any Commission any place, any time." Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

And then when you pin them down, the "any time", Mr Speaker, turns out, according to the Prime Minister, to be the never, never time of the indefinite, nebulous future, if and when the Government finds itself a Judge. That is the "any time" of the Prime Minister. Let me say this, Mr Speaker, Sir. There is power in this Government to appoint acting Judges. And there are able men in the State Advocate-General's Department and at the Bar who could well fill that function. I say, let us appoint acting Judges to the High Court and use existing Judges for the number of Commissions that we require in order to facilitate the business of this House.

Sir, on a point of information. Mr David Marshall remained standing.

A very serious suggestion has been made -

Order. The Prime Minister must not intervene like this. He knows it is against the Standing Orders. Mr Marshall. An hon. Member: Afraid!

Somebody says I am afraid, Mr Speaker. I hope he will have the courage to stand up. I will make way for him to repeat that remark. No. One coward! Mr Speaker, I will end.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order.

Point of order.

Would it be discourteous to this House, if I am prevented from speaking on a very serious matter of elucidation, to have to repeat it outside because I was prevented from saying it in this House? It has been suggested that I should appoint -

Order. That is not a point of order. Mr Marshall.

I am much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Prime Minister was not present, Sir, and that is the reason we should excuse him for seeking clarification. He was not present to see the treatment I received at the hands of his Ministers and colleagues. [Laughter] Ah, a matter for amusement! I shall remember that too. Let us end. It is not a question of personalities. It is not even a question of condemnation of this Government that I seek. I seek an impartial tribunal with retired civil servants who know from their own traditions how to protect the civil service for the welfare of Singapore, to protect them from improper political interference and to protect statutory bodies from the type of conduct to which the Deputy Prime Minister has admitted. 7.30 p.m. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 20; Abstentions, 3; Absent, 3. Ayes. Noes. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Buang bin Ahmad Jabri bin Omar Junid. Mohammad Akib. Byrne, K. M. Bani, S. T. Chan Chee Seng. Chan Sun Wing. Chor Yeok Eng. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Goh Chew Chua. Lee Siew Choh. Goh Keng Swee. Leong Keng Seng. Hoe Puay Choo, Lim Yew Hock. Madam. Lin You Eng. Kandasamy, G. Low For Tuck. Lee Khoon Choy. Marshall, David. Lee Kuan Yew. Ong Chang Sam. Lee Teck Him. Rajah, A. P. Lim Cheng Lock. Mammen, John. Ayes-cont. Noes-cont. Mohd. Ariff bin Seow Peck Leng, Suradi. Mrs M. Ismail Rahim. Sheng Nam Chin. Ong Pang Boon. Tan Cheng Tong. Rajaratnam, S. Tee Kim Leng. Ramaswamy, S. Teo Hock Guan. Sahorah binte Thio Chart Bee. Ahmat, Madam. Wong Soon Fong. Tan Kia Gan. Toh Chin Chye. Abstentions. Wee Toon Boon. Lingam, S. V. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Ng Teng Kian. Yong Nyuk Lin. Ong Eng Guan. Absent. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Koh, C. H. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Amendment accordingly agreed to. Original Question, as amended, put.

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 13; Abstentions, 10; Absent, 3. Ayes Noes Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Bani, S. T. Buang bin Omar Chan Sun Wing Junid. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Byrne, K. M. Lee Siew Choh. Chan Chee Seng. Leong Keng Seng. Chor Yeok Eng. Lin You Eng. Goh Chew Chua. Low For Tuck. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Chang Sam. Hoe Puay Choo, Sheng Nam Chin. Madam. Tan Cheng Tong. Kandasamy, G. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Khoon Choy. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Kuan Yew. Wong Soon Fong. Lee Teck Him. Lim Cheng Lock. Mammen, John. Abstentions. Mohd. Ariff bin Abdul Hamid bin Suradi. Haji Jumat. M. Ismail Rahim. Ahmad Jabri bin Ong Pang Boon. Mohammad Akib. Rajaratnam, S. Lim Yew Hock. Ramaswamy, S. Lingam, S. V. Sahorah binte Marshall, David. Ahmat, Madam. Ng Teng Kian. Tan Kia Gan. Ong Eng Guan Toh Chin Chye. Rajah, A. P. Wee Toon Boon. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Yaacob bin Mohamed. Thio Chan Bee. Yong Nyuk Lin. Absent. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Koh, C. H. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi Original Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly calls upon the Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry 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.

7.47 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion has been long delayed, so much so that it has been rendered almost out of date by the recent course of events. It is almost like trying to lock the stable door after the horses have been stolen. Nevertheless, this motion will serve its purpose if only to remind the Government that "merger" is not a One-Party issue but a national issue and therefore an All-Party issue, and it should be treated as such. If only this motion will help to show the P.A.P. its past mistakes and if the P.A.P. would only admit these mistakes and take appropriate steps to rectify them, then the time of the House wilt not have been wasted in debating this motion. Sir, much of what I have intended to say in this motion has already been said in the debate on merger and my amendment to it. I shall not, therefore, bore you -

Thank you.

- with an unnecessary repetition of many of the revelations of striptease politics which are well known to all the people in Singapore. I shall therefore confine myself to bringing out the salient features in the P.A.P.'s treacherous betrayal of the people.

By Lee Siew Choh.

Sir, as I have already said, merger is not a One-Party issue. It is a national issue affecting the lives and the future of each and every one of us in Singapore. Yes, even our children and all our future generations will be affected by the way in which we resolve this national issue. If it was really a private matter affecting only the P.A.P. and no other people, then the P.A.P. could make it a One-Party internal matter and no one would complain. For example, if all the Assemblymen on the Government Back-benches should gang up together and oust the arrogant Ministers from their high pedestals, then we would just watch and let the P.A.P. handle its own affairs and settle them the way it wants. But merger, Sir, is an entirely different matter. It affects the lives of present and future generations and as such transcends party politics. Political Parties represent only certain sections of the people and one would have expected the P.A.P. to have the magnanimity to treat the issue with all the national importance and consideration it deserves and not make it a completely One-Party affair. The P.A.P. surely knows that there are different aspects of the problem which will give rise to different viewpoints, and that an All-Party consultation would be necessary as all the different views representing different sections of the population would help to give a proper perspective and better understanding of the issue at stake, especially so today when the P.A.P. is only a shadow of its former self - a mere shell - and cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said to be a popular Government that can claim to be representative of the people. The P.A.P. has not only not consulted the other political Parties, both inside and outside the Assembly, on this all important merger issue, but has also been so dictatorial in its behaviour inside the Assembly, in the way it has gone about its interjectory motions and lifting of Standing Orders during the last few sittings - all without prior consultation with Opposition Parties that all the people of Singapore today know that the P.A.P. is still as dictatorial as ever, and that it is all the time trying to impose a one-man majority parliamentary dictatorship in the Assembly and in the whole of Singapore. Let me remind the House of the shameful record of the P.A.P. in its attempts at hiding the facts of merger from the people and from other political Parties. (1) When the Yang di-Pertuan Negara spoke of the tremendous drama that had accompanied the progress and development of merger and Malaysia talks in the last five months - now 7� months - we had already known of the secret negotiations of the Prime Minister of Singapore and the Prime Minister of the Federation for quite some time. (2) During the Anson by-election, the Prime Minister said that merger must follow certain conditions which must be approved by the people and not by the Ministers. I hope the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues will not forget these words of promise they made to the people. (3) There was further mention of "merger" by the Prime Minister over Radio Singapore, now Radio P.A.P., on 27th July, 1961. (4) On 8th August, 1961, according to the Tunku, merger was only an informal proposal. (5) On 23rd August, 1961, the first joint statement of the two Prime Minister was issued. (6) It was three days later, on 26th August, 1961, that the Acting Prime Minister wrote to the leaders of the Opposition Parties, purporting to seek their views on the two points already agreed to, in principle, by the two Prime Ministers. Sir, here was the Government having negotiations with the Federation on a matter of national importance, on a matter that concerns everyone in Singapore. Yet the people and other political Parties knew nothing about it until agreement had been reached in principle. Concern was expressed by civil organisations, unions and leaders of the Singapore and Chinese Chambers of Commerce. We were wondering if there was any meaning in that letter from the Acting Prime Minister. The Acting Prime Minister asked if we agreed to the two principles already agreed to. Was it a genuine and sincere seeking of views? If it was meant to be a sincere seeking of views and a form of consultation, then it should have been sent before, and not after, agreement had already been reached in principle between the two Prime Ministers. In our reply to the Acting Prime Minister on 1st September, 1961, we pointed out that the attitude of the Government in going about its business, regardless of the views of the others, especially on a matter of such magnitude and importance affecting our entire people, was, to say the least, most reprehensible. Under the circumstances, we could not help but come to the conclusion that the letter from the Acting Prime Minister was only intended to deceive the people into believing that all Parties were being consulted in the P.A.P. attempt to sign away the future of our people. The fact that this letter was released to the Press even before replies were received from the Opposition leaders, showed the farce and insincerity of this so-called consultation. It is absolutely clear that this letter was a result of after-thought for the P.A.P.'s earlier sin of omission. And what was the purpose of this cheap political propaganda stunt but to deceive and sell-out? Even the reactionary Lim Yew Hock Government had to take heed of the public when it came to consider constitutional matters in 1958. All the Parties were first consulted and they had agreed to the principles before they proceeded to negotiate upon them - 8.00 p.m.

Order. Moment of interruption.

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

If it please you, Mr Speaker, in 1955 when the people's first elected government took office, they promised to examine exhaustively the Emergency Regulations with a view to dispensing with such powers that are no longer essential for the maintenance of law and order within the framework of normal legal procedure. As soon as we came in, Sir, we began to repeal parts of the Emergency Regulations and finally reviewed the question whether we could repeal the whole of those deservedly unpopular regulations. The Federation of Malaya sent urgent representations through its Defence Secretary and Chief of Operations urging upon us the gravity of relaxing the measures, and out of deference and because we had not fully studied with the question, Sir, we agreed to temporary measures pending further study of the issue. Those temporary measures were incorporated in what is now known as the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance wherein it was sought to give the maximum security for the citizen within the context of basic security of the country. I pointed out then, Sir, that the P.P.S.O. was more liberal - I had so thought it - than the Security of the Pakistan Act, the Preventive Detention Act of India, the Public Order Preservation Act of Burma, and the S.O.B. provisions of Indonesia, which all give powers of preventive arrest and detention in respect of those whose conduct may imminently prejudice the security and safety of the State. The main safeguard, Sir, incorporated in these provisions of the P.P.S.O. was a tribunal of three Judges which would review all decisions of the Cabinet and could order the release of a detainee if they considered that his detention was no longer necessary for the security of the State even though it was against the Government's wishes, and such -

Order. Will the Member please remember that his speech is being translated? He is speaking a bit too fast.

I am obliged, Mr Speaker. It was then I said that it was with a heavy heart that I introduced a Bill which did not completely remove the existing inroads into the rule of law as I had hoped to in the early days of my government. The law that was passed was for three years, so that the Government should have to account to the Assembly before that Assembly ended its life. The Minister for Labour (then the Member for Sembawang, Che Ahmad Ibrahim) during that debate said, "These Regulations were no longer serving the purpose of saving the country from a grave political crisis, but were, in fact, a fetter on the political development of the people in this country. Trade unionists and freedom fighters were fully alive to this threat to the Malayan freedom movement and to ordinary trade union activity." The present Prime Minister, during the debate in 1955 did not deny that the law was far better than the existing Emergency Regulations and, in fact, stated in col. 723: `It is an advance, I am not denying that. It is better than what it was before, when one Judge could not order but could only recommend a man's release.' That was said by the very man who, when he became Prime Minister, promptly removed the Judges and took away the power to order a man's release.

Point of elucidation, Sir. In the name of -

Order, it is a question of the Prime Minister, I think, being misrepresented on record.

I am quoting from the record - col. 723 of the Hansard of the 21st of September, 1955.

Order. I think the Prime Minister should wait until the Member has completed his speech and he can then give his explanation if the Member will not give way.

If it please you, Mr Speaker. Now, that Bill was passed without a division and I can say in all conscience that so long as I was in office no man was detained because of dislike for his political affiliations or because he was being troublesome, but genuinely because he was believed to be not merely a nuisance but a major threat in respect of potential large-scale disturbances -

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I have here Hansard, col. 723. I believe the Member for Anson did not give the correct quotation. May I read from col. 723 what the Prime Minister said? He said: `Three Judges! Great play has been made of three Judges! ... One good judge is as good as three.' That was what he said.

Mr Speaker, I believe we have the same Hansard. It is a question of a little more eyesight. `It is an advance, I am not denying that. It is better than what it was before, when one Judge could not order but could only recommend a man's release.' If I may go on, Mr Speaker. I was saying that for us it was a question of incarcerating only those who were potential organisers of imminent widespread disorder and they never detained a moment longer than was necessary. I had sought, in fact, the report on the entire administration of this Ordinance. My successor, the present Member for Cairnhill, utilised the provisions of the P.P.S.O. with extraordinary width and incarcerated amongst others no less an eminent person than Dr Chuang Chu Lin, now the Vice-Chancellor of the Nanyang University - Tun Lim Yew Hock rose ---

Point of order?

No. Point of explanation.

If the Member will give way. Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

I think it might interest the ex-Chief Minister to know that Dr Chuang Chu Lin was not detained under the P.P.S.O. but under the Banishment Ordinance.

Well, Sir, in that case my memory serves me wrong, but I was quite convinced that he was detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, and I shall be happy to check that perhaps and refer it back, Mr Speaker. The curious thing is that this gentleman was never, in fact, banished. But the question is this: I am trying to show you the way things have gone. When the P.A.P. took office there were 61 persons detained by the Member for Cairnhill's Government, and the P.A.P. itself in the two and a half years it has been in office has detained 30 persons in all. On 14th October, 1959, Sir, an amendment to the P.P.S.O. was introduced by the Prime Minister of the present P.A.P. Government on a Certificate of Urgency. It was passed on the same day. The amendment abolished the tribunal of three Judges and the power of the tribunal to make orders contrary to the wishes of the Government if it considered that there were inadequate reasons for further detention. This Government abolished the very safeguard which was placed by the Prime Minister when he was in the Opposition at the time it was passed. But when he became Prime Minister, in his own words he substituted for this provision of three Judges - and these are his words in Hansard, 14th October, 1959: `... Substitutes in its place the original position obtaining under the Emergency laws, that is, an advisory committee.', and to the credit of the Opposition they voted against that amendment. The excuse, Mr Speaker, Sir, was that the Judges were unhappy about their duties. I say this to you, Mr Speaker -

Point of order, Sir. When the Member for Anson quoted the Prime Minister in col. 668 of Hansard, col. 668 gives the speech of the Chief Secretary.

Order. I think the Minister is getting a bit frivolous now. He has not got the right quotation from the right volume.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, the excuse made by the Prime Minister was that the Judges were unhappy at the discharge of their duties. These Judges who still -

On a point of order. I do not want to complain of a breach of privilege, but I have been grossly misrepresented. I read here a letter from the then Acting Chief Justice saying he does not want anything to do with the P.P.S.O. under the then provisions. I am saying that I am now being alleged to have misrepresented the then Acting Chief Justice.

Mr Speaker, he says he read a letter. Col. 668 - have you got it, Mr Speaker, Sir - of the Hansard of the 14th October, 1959? The Hansard has grossly misrepresented the Prime Minister. Paragraph 3: `First, clause 5 of the Bill repeals section 5 of the present Ordinance which provides for an Appeal Tribunal consisting of three judges, and substitutes in its place the original position obtaining under the Emergency laws, that is, an advisory committee. In September this year, I had discussions with the present Chief Justice [of the letter] about the functions of the judiciary under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, which is due to lapse later this month.'

Order. I think the letter is contained in col. 669.

May I read it, Mr Speaker, Sir? `"My brother judges and I are all of the opinion that it is extremely undesirable for members of the judiciary to constitute the Appeal Tribunal...".' They are still members of the Appeal Tribunal. A Judge is still chairman of the Appeal Tribunal. I read on: `"... we think it was a mistake to have caused the judiciary to be associated with the work of the tribunal.".' They are still associated with the work of the tribunal. I will read on: `"However, in view of the reasons for extension of the life of the Ordinance set out in your letter and more particularly in view of your assurance that the judiciary will not be called upon to do this work for more than one further year, [October 1959] the judges who constitute the tribunal have agreed with great reluctance to continue to serve as members...".` Sir, they are still Judges of the High Court, but instead of giving them the dignity of being able to release a detainee, that power has been taken away from them by this Government; not that they did not want to shoulder that responsibility but that they did not want to associate with the tribunal. However, they were compelled to be associated and they could still discharge that function. But the Government was not happy that they should have the power to discharge and to release detainees whom the Government might wish to detain. In fact, Sir, you will remember the evasive reply of the Minister for Home Affairs when I asked him whether there was any occasion on which he had rejected the advice of the Appeal Tribunal. And he said, "I cannot remember." "I cannot remember." Sir, on 20th July this year the Deputy Prime Minister in a very emotional moment solemnly informed this House that there were at the time 18 persons still under detention who had been detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and whom it was the desire of the P.A.P. Government as long ago as the 12th August, 1959, to release. In fact, he tabled a secret document in which he said -

That they were Communists.

--- "once Lim Ching Siong is released, it makes very little difference from the point of view of subversion whether the remaining 40-odd detainees are released or not, because they cannot materially affect the security position."

Quite right.

Sir, what is rather interesting is the assurance given by the Deputy Prime Minister on the 20th July that the Government would release these detainees from time to time in accordance with the original proposals of the Singapore Government. Yet the Minister for Home Affairs, in his reply to my question which was tabled in this House on 16th November, stated that at that date, the 16th of November, two months ago, there were still these 18 detained and that 4 of the 30 persons detained by the present Government were still under detention. Mr Speaker, on the same date, the Minister for Home Affairs, in replying to my question asking whether he would publish a report on the working of the P.P.S.O. since its inception, sneeringly said that since I was its framer and creator I should know how it worked. Mr Speaker, Sir, I know what it was intended for, but I do not know how it has been used. That information I know will be strenuously denied us by this as well as by the previous Government. Mr Speaker, it is not so much the persons who are detained under the P.P.S.O. that we are concerned with as the power of intimidation that it has given this Government over the people of Singapore.

Come, come!

It is unfortunately true, Mr Speaker, that it is not necessary to carry out this threat in this country. It is enough that you should have the power to make that threat. They discovered that by detaining two silly journalists - so-called Right-wing subversionists - they could intimidate the-entire Press and subjugate it in terror. They have utilised this P.P.S.O. with Machiavellian ingenuity. [Interruption] Ah, the Minister for Culture feels the banb. Mr Speaker, it is to be noted furthermore that that Ordinance, which was intended for three years, has been extended to nine years. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance was passed by the Government of the Member for Cairnhill, allegedly to meet the threat of gangsters - not political gangsters. I mean secret societies. I have reason to believe that it has been used in other than secret society cases. In any event, Mr Speaker, it is a radical departure from the rule of law in that it authorises the imprisonment of persons for successive periods of two years without trial at the will of the Government with the concurrence of the State Advocate-General. Mr Speaker, it is the duty of Members of this House - all Members and not only the Opposition - to seek to safeguard the liberty of the people who have elected them and to scrutinise jealously every infringement of normal legal rights. The purpose of this motion is to urge upon all Members of this House to recognise that we have in our midst two major breaches in the rule of law, that they have been in operation for a considerable period of time and that they have not been adequately examined. There have been no reports on them. I say that we in this Assembly and the people of Singapore are entitled to have from the Government a report on its working from its inception. I for one, who was responsible for its creation and in part had administered it, have no fear of any disclosures that could be made. I say that there should be clearly established reasons and justification for the continuance of the provisions of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance in the considerably improved situation in Singapore today. I say we are entitled to this information. 8.20 p.m.

From time to time it is my unpleasant duty to say how wrong we have been. There was a time when I felt that whatever the short-comings of the Member for Anson, here was one, albeit innocently and naively, who believed in democratic rights and freedom on very basic principles. But I am convinced, after listening to him for the last twenty minutes - I was not here for the first two minutes - that that is not the position. He was entrusted with the survival of the State, and when he was entrusted with the survival of the State, he made no bones about his responsibility and of the necessity to have these laws. He quoted India and Pakistan with great eloquence to demonstrate to the then semi-elected Assembly how independent countries had to protect their integrity and survival from the ruthless machinations of those whom he hated from the very bottom of his belly.

Plague-carrying rats.

Plague-carrying rats whom he hated and so on. And now I hear from him not in the same voice, but in a different one. He is now the champion, albeit in a back-handed way - how nice it would be to have a chap like the Member for Anson as Prime Minister - he believes them all. We should deal with them gently, and only detain them for short periods. I say to him that in the art of brinkmanship, there are two qualities required. First a fine judgment of just how far one wants to go, and that depends on what one is fighting for: and second, the ability, when the time requires, to stand up and fight. And I say, when we took office, we had calculated all the odds involved and I stand by every word of that document to which he has referred. Once we released Mr Lim Ching Siong, it is utterly irrelevant and trivial to hold up the balance of these people whom from time to time we shall release till the last of them are out. I say the Barisan Sosialis and their chief performers understand. This is all a purely academic argument. It is a waste of time and we want to get it out of the way. The Member for Anson - I say from my information, knowledge and belief - understands full well that without the P.P.S.O. and the judicial exercise of those powers on the right target, there is not the slightest hope of democracy surviving. He himself has admitted it. You do not have to use any powers, says he. All you have to do is to threaten, and it is not the Government who does the threatening. It is the chaps who run the underground and say, "I will fix you - and I will fix you in a quiet corner - not in accordance with the law, but in accordance with the gun." And they get obedience. We have seen in this very Chamber how chaps have melted away. They believed in democracy. But when the heat was put on, they melted away: mind you, believing that the other side was going to win. But that is another matter. That is the tragedy that we are faced with, that few people have sufficient belief in democracy to stand up and fight for it and die for it. The tragedy I was touched by just now was that once I used to list the persons who would fight and die for democracy. I am afraid, after listening to the Member for Anson just now, I will have to scratch him from the list. He is no more. He may have started, Mr Speaker, Sir, as a naive well-meaning liberal. By the time he was finished with 15 or 16 months as Chief Minister in one of the most turbulent periods of Singapore's history since 1945, he knew what this was all about. He told me what it was all about. I think he ought to do me at least this one act of justice, that I have never at any time denied any of the truths he tittered in this Assembly, truths which I knew to be true. But the Member for Anson locked up Mr Fong Swee Suan. And he is an evil-doer. I never denied it. We pleaded and appealed to his better nature. It was my duty as Secretary-General of the Party. I do not know whether it was my plea or the ferocious utterances of the supporters of the Bus Workers' Union that persuaded the Member for Anson to release Mr Fong Swee Suan. I like to believe that it was my gentle plea for mercy that made act in that way. But when all the sweet talk about liberty and the rights of men is over, I say there is a right of self defence, and the Members on the Opposition Benches, the Barisan Sosialis, understand that. They know it full well. In the last resort, what worries me is not that there will be three Judges or one Judge who will review these matters. Does it really matter? Any government that abuses the P.P.S.O. to use it against non-Communists destroys the efficacy of the P.P.S.O. The last Government knew it. The Federation Government is fully alive to it. The Tunku says he is very selective and judicious. Because to make it an effective instrument, you must be judicious. Then people know. Ah, quite right.

What about reporters?

Reporters? We said quite rightly that they were not Communists. I thought we had dealt with it under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. We said so. When they were not Communists, we named them. A.R.T.I.S. - they were not Communists - we named them. But I say or him and the former man entrusted with power deliberately to cast a cloud over it, to say that the democratic liberal line is quite innocent leaves me completely cynical. If you remove these powers, he knows as well as everybody else that he will not be going before a Judge and arguing these things out: in a very short while you will be lynching chaps in Orchard Circus and settling matters there. He cannot deny that. He knows it. What worries me is this, that there will be enough stupid chaps in Singapore and elsewhere in Malaya and in Malaysia who will make it increasingly difficult for us to maintain the democratic tradition because they play the undemocratic game. That is the tragedy. I would tell the Member for Nee Soon particularly - and I have told him this long before these serious errors of calculations were made - that in the last resort, if the Communists use methods of intimidation, force and pressure, they cannot expect a democratic government to sit back and allow itself to be eaten away; and the more the methods of pressure and intimidation, the Central Government will, albeit reluctantly, have to act with firmness, regret and effectiveness. But I think the operative word is "effectiveness". Otherwise we will not be here. There will not be pensions to be paid to civil servants.

No Commissions!

There will not be Commissioners either. Thank you very much for reminding me. An hon. Member: The People's Court.

Things are settled in an expeditious way, as they are, in several parts of the world. But one last parting word to the former Chief Minister of Singapore. I am personally grateful to him because he opened Pandora's Box. I was there watching. He opened one box after the other and a cobra popped out at the end. His successor put the cobra back. We drew out the fangs of the cobra. It is now running around and I do not know when it is going to be put back, but it is without fangs now. Before it grows new fangs, I am pretty sure that the hopes, freedom and liberty of the people of Singapore, Malaya and Malaysia will be guaranteed. The Question having been proposed at Eight o'clock p.m., and the time appointed for the termination of the sitting (half-past Eight o'clock p.m.) having arrived, Mr Speaker adjourned the Assembly without question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eight o'clock p.m.