Hansard, 1962-03-14

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Mr S. V. Lingam (Aljunied) - from 8th February to 11th March, 1962. Mr John Mammen (Telok Blangah), Deputy Speaker - from 16th February to 10th April, 1962. Dr Goh Keng Swee (Kreta Ayer), Minister for Finance - from 1st to 9th March, 1962.

asked the Prime Minister when will the Commission of Inquiry on Political Nepotism be appointed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer the Member for Anson to my answer to the question of his on the 15th of January. I stated then that it would not be possible at any one time to have more than one High Court Judge available to conduct a Commission of Inquiry. It is the Government's intention to proceed with the first Commission of Inquiry as soon as a Judge is available. I have been informed by the Chief Justice that a Judge will be available towards the end of March or the beginning of April when another Judge On leave will be returning. Then the first Commission asked for by the Member for Anson will be set up to inquire into the Secondary IV Examination boycott by some Chinese Middle School students, and to determine to what extent it was brought about by exploitation of students by Communists and their open front organisations. The second, and less important inquiry, is to investigate the events which developed into open insubordination and defiance of the Board of Management by some 130 out of 480 workers of the People's Association, and to establish the connection between these persons and their leaders who are members of the Barisan Sosialis who had been on the Board of Management. The third Commission is to inquire into 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 the Assembly would undertake to repeat these allegations before the Commission and to give evidence of such allegations on oath or affirmation. A Commission will be set up as soon as a Commission on the first and second have been completed. The terms of reference will include, in the terms of the motions passed by this Assembly. all specific allegations made by Members of this Assembly in the course of that debate. My Secretary has written to all the Members who spoke on the debate asking them to indicate what allegations they have made which they would wish to have included in the terms of reference. So far no replies have been received except one from the Member for Anson. The Member for Anson appeared to have misunderstood the purport of the letter from my Secretary inviting him to mark out any or all of the specific allegations made in his speech on which he would give or tender evidence before the Commission so that these specific allegations could be included in the terms of reference. The Member for Anson wrote in his reply that it was for the Commission to decide what the procedure should be. It is the duty of the Government, in accordance with the motion passed in this Assembly, with Members of the Barisan Sosialis voting against and the Member for Anson abstaining, to determine what the terms of reference of this Commission should be. Such terms of reference must set out the specific allegations that have been made. It is hoped that the Members concerned will indicate what specific allegations they have made which they are going to give evidence upon so that they could be included in the terms of reference.

Mr Speaker, Sir, do I understand from the Prime Minister then that the Commission will not investigate any allegations from the public or any allegations other than those which were made in this House?

Sir, I have stated the position. The motion was as drafted in this Assembly and passed in this Assembly. It is now the duty of the government to implement the terms of the motion as set out in that particular debate. It is as simple as that.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, the motion that was passed was a motion of the Government, and it spoke of investigation of specific allegations. There was no question of investigation of specific allegations of Members of the Assembly. The question I am asking the Pr me Minister is whether it is Government's intention under the terms of reference to exclude investigation of specific allegations of corruption or improper conduct or nepotism which may come from the public.

Sir, this was the point which the Member for Farrer Park made in the course of the debate. It was taken then because in the course of the debate anybody could voice any allegation, and any allegation voiced by a Member in this Chamber would have to be repeated before the Commission. I am asking Members of this House who have made their allegations to mark out those passages in order that they be included in the terms of reference.

Only one more question. Sir. It does not arise out of the original question, but it was mentioned by the Prime Minister. I would inquire whether the second Commission he has in mind with reference to the People's Association would not incorporate in its terms of reference an investigation into the political activity and affiliation of the employees of the Association.

There was considerable debate on this point, if I remember. I am speaking from memory now. In my reply to this particular question put by the Member for Anson, I dealt with the three points that arose. I think it was made quite clear that if there was to be a Commission of Inquiry, as was suggested by the Opposition - sorry, not by the Barisan Sosialis but by the Member for Anson, because I do not think the Barisan Sosialis were ever very keen on a Commission of Inquiry - it was to be an inquiry into the acts of insubordination of the 130 persons involved and their connection with the Barisan Sosialis. Those records are in the Hansard, and they hear witness to what transpired.

If I can satisfy the Prime Minister that, in fact, the issue sought by certain Members on this side of the House was an investigation into the political membership and activity of the People's Association, would he consider incorporating that as one of the terms of reference of that second Commission?

If the Member for Anson can persuade me that any Member on this side of the House has made such a proposal or agreed to such a proposal, I will certainly do so. I will stand by what has transpired in the debate, whatever has been affirmed to and assented to by this side of the House.

asked the Prime Minister whether he would indicate who are the Constitutional lawyers assisting Government with reference to the proposed constitutional changes.

Sir, I have been informed by the State Advocate-General that he has been in communication with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, Dr Ivor Jennings, and with Professor Wade and Professor Hood Phillips.

Are we to understand that, in fact, nobody has yet been appointed to assist the Government in these matters?

Sir, as I have indicated in my reply to the last question, there is no question of appointing anybody to, as the word goes, assist the Government in these matters. When there are matters of constitutional difficulty arising in which the State Advocate-General considers that he requires expert advice, he has this panel to advise him. But it is the duty of the State Advocate-General's Chambers - persons properly qualified and constituted to discharge their duties and functions - to carry out the necessary statutory amendments which will he required.

Mr Speaker, if you will permit me the Prime Minister informed this House on the 23rd January that the State Advocate-General was in correspondence with Constitutional lawyers of considerable experience who would be helping him, and was offering a contract to a Parliamentary draftsman to assist in the work of drafting. Would the Prime Minister inform us whether there has been any progress on those two aspects?

That is exactly the point. Mr Speaker, Sir. Had the Member for Anson been kind enough to refer to or refreshed his memory on what was stated, he would have saved us this unnecessary straying away from the point. There were two specific matters. One was legal advice, and I have named the persons with whom the State Advocate-General has been in touch. The other is the question of appointing a Parliamentary draftsman to do the actual work of drafting. Without having to mention the name of the draftsman, I would like to add that what has happened now is that the Attorney-General's Chambers in Kuala Lumpur has decided to engage this person under contract instead of the State Advocate-General's Chambers in Singapore. This Parliamentary draftsman of some experience was offered a contract by the Singapore Government, and I think he was also offered, either simultaneously or subsequently, a contract by the Federation Government. As I understand from the Attorney-General in the Federation, he has accepted the contract offered by the Federation Government.

Forgive me, Sir, do I understand that the position is this: that in respect of the proposed constitution, the only assistance the Government of Singapore will have will be a question of reference by the State Advocate-General to the Constitutional lawyers named, of the proposed sections and parts of the Constitution on which he will be seeking advice? Is that the position?

The assumption made by the Member for Anson is that our State Advocate-General and his staff are somehow inadequate for their duties and that, therefore, somebody who really knows all about constitutional matters should be there to assist or to be really in charge of these duties. As I see the task before us, it is somewhat different from the experience of the Member for Anson. He decided in his own wisdom in 1956 to take an All-Party mission to London of some 13 Members of this Assembly. Whether or not it was the unlucky choice of numbers or for any other reason, the fact that the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University who is now in touch with the State Advocate-General, was also there to advise him on the Constitution did not help him to succeed. Because it was not the business of the Constitutional lawyer to settle the Constitution. Constitutions are made by people who are supposed to know what is good for their own country. And we have reached basic agreement with the Federation as to the constitutional arrangements with the Federation. And the Constitutional lawyer comes in insofar as he is able to give effect to the intentions expressed by the two Governments. He is not there to try and create a constitution. He is there to implement one. And insofar as the State Advocate-General feels that he requires advice in respect of implementation of details, then he will seek that advice.

asked the Prime Minister to indicate (a) the average hours of work of firemen employed by the Singapore Harbour Board; (b) whether these firemen are required to perform duties other than fire-fighting duties; and (c) how do these conditions of service compare with those of firemen in other fire-fighting services in the State.

Sir, I propose to run briefly through the conditions of service, but I will also table it for the information of Members. The average hours -

Order. If the answer is lengthy, the Prime Minister is perfectly at liberty to say that he will circulate the answer in the Official Report.

I will summarise the oral reply to give the Member for Anson an opportunity to ask any further supplementary questions. Sir, the average hours of work a week of firemen employed by the Singapore Harbour Board are as follows:- For those on day duty-62 hours, in addition to which the men are required to be on stand-by for 28 hours. For those on night shift-42 hours, in addition to which the men are required to be on stand-by for 36 hours. Firemen work alternative shifts each week. In addition to the normal fire-fighting duties, the Harbour Board firemen also carry out the following preventive duties:-

Is the Prime Minister aware, from the figures he has given, that with a day shift of 90 hours a week and a night shift of 78 hours a week, the Harbour Board Firemen do not have a single day's holiday in the week at all? Does he consider that appropriate, or would he consider seeking an amelioration of those conditions?

These are matters which are looked after by the union. My own personal experience is that the firemen set out to form their own union sometime in 1956/1957 when a group of them broke away from the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association. It is now a matter for debate whether the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association or some other union which they formed represents the majority of the men. But whatever the position is, I would say that this is a subject matter for negotiation, and not for the Prime Minister really to apply his mind to each particular case to see whether it is just or unjust. I would like to point out, however, that 28 hours out of the 90 hours in the day shift and 36 hours out of the 78 hours in the night shift are stand-by duties, which means that a man should be available in case there is an emergency. In other words, if he is going to a cinema, he should inform his family where he could be found. If he is going to visit an ailing aunt, he should make sure that somebody at home knows where the ailing aunt lives, and so on. If he is out with a guitar serenading by the quay-side, similarly it is expected that he will inform his friends where he can be found if needed for his other arduous duties. But everything said and done, what I would suggest as appropriate in this case is that if the men feel that conditions are too onerous, they have a union - they have two in fact - and representations can be made to the Board.

Do I understand from the Prime Minister, who is in charge of the Ministry into which the Harbour Board comes, that the representations should be made to him?

I think the Member for Anson understands wrongly. I am not the employer of the men. The employer is the Singapore Harbour Board. There is a Chairman, there is a Board. It so happens that for ministerial purposes, it comes under my portfolio. But I think that the Member for Anson will appreciate that if I were to be in charge of all these other things, it might well be that I would wind up in a dizzy spin, as others who try to do as much often do wind up in dizzy spins.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has adopted any policy regarding the reported discovery by the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce of the "mass graves" of people said to have been massacred by the Japanese in early 1942.

Mr Speaker, Sir, questions of war reparation, including compensation for atrocities and war damage, were the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government who in 1951 signed a treaty of peace with Japan. The Government has written to the U.K. Commission asking the U.K. Government to take up the matter with the Government of Japan to seek amends and atonement for the atrocities that they committed. The U.K. Commission has referred the matter to London and sought further information as to the scale of the present discovery of the intended remains. They have enquired whether the number of the persons involved may run to several thousands or something much less. They would like to know whether this evidence is related to some hitherto unrealised atrocities or of one already known. The U.K. Commission wrote to say that they believed that this recent discovery is evidence not of an atrocity as yet unknown but is connected with the massacres that had taken place, and were known to have taken place, though the actual sites of the graves may not have been known in detail. There are no reliable figures as to the total number of persons who were massacred by the Japanese invading forces in 1942. Some estimates put the figure around 10,000, and some much more, but certainly thousands of families have beloved ones who were missed shortly after the Japanese invasion. All of them were taken away from screening camps and were never heard of or seen again. While it may be difficult to ascertain the actual identity of the persons who had been massacred or their immediate dependents and families for compensation to be made direct, there is no doubt that the people of Singapore, as a whole, suffered by these massacres. It is our view that atonement should be made to the people of Singapore collectively. The Government is also considering the acquisition of the site where these bones have been discovered in order that a suitable memorial can be put up in, memory of the men who have been massacred. If the area is suitable, a green belt to provide for a small park may also be designated.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Japanese Government refuses to compensate for this reasonable request, then what steps will the Singapore Government take in the matter?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I need only point out that foreign affairs is in the hands of the British until independence through merger. I am quite sure the Barisan Sosialis now understands how stupid the proposal was that the next constitutional step for Singapore was full internal self-government with foreign -

Order. I am afraid that answer is completely out of order. I think that question is hypothetical anyway, and I must disallow it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just go on? I was on the point of going to the meat of the matter.

I have disallowed the supplementary question as being hypothetical.

A supplementary question.

Tun Lim.

The Minister for Finance was recently in Tokyo. He was there in all anxiety to foster good relationship with the Japanese Government and Japanese industrialists. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he did make use of the opportunity just to sound the Japanese Government about the cry of the people of Singapore when those bones were exhumed?

I do not wish to prejudice private conversations on this matter, but I would like to say that the Japanese officials who were in contact with our officials and who happened to have been in Singapore previously fully appreciated the feelings on this matter. I think they may be more than prepared to make some atonement for the atrocities that had been committed.

asked the Prime Minister (a) whether Government intends to build another power station in view of the proposed industrialization, and (b) whether he would name the site of the station.

Sir, I would refer the Member for Mountbatten to my reply to her colleague, the Member for Tanglin, at the sitting of this House on 15th January, 1962, when he expressed his fears of future blackouts. I then said: `A new power station to meet the needs of industrial expansion is also being built and a World Bank loan is being sought for this. The consultants for this project are already in Singapore. The first Phase of the new station is for plant capable of generating 60 M.W. which is scheduled for commission in 1965. With these developments, it is not expected that there will be any sudden shortage of supply in the future. On the contrary, our total generating plant, once installed, should enable us to meet our expanding needs, including the Jurong Industrial Development project.' The new power station will be sited on land adjacent to the existing Pasir Panjang Power Station. Consideration is also being given to another extension to the existing station.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is it true that if this new proposed power station is built at Pasir Panjang, to take it to Jurong would cost over $7 million?

Can I have the actual meaning of the expression "to take it to Jurong"? To take the power to Jurong, or to take the station to Jurong?

To bring the power to Jurong, Mr Speaker.

I would not like to embark on minute subsidiaries of this nature, because I do not think the consideration of the site is influenced only by the cost of laying cables from Pasir Panjang to Jurong. There must be certain other factors, such as proximity to the present site for management purposes and so on, which bear heavily on these questions. I am not in a position to give an expert opinion on these things. If the Member for Mountbatten feels that she has been sufficiently advised or briefed to question the propriety of the sitting of the site, perhaps notice could be given, and I would be properly advised on the matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just wonder whether the Prime Minister is aware of the fact that there is an oil company next to the station which has made me raise these questions. If ever there is a leakage of oil coming up to the surface and should there be a fire, and if the centralisation of this station is at Pasir Panjang, then the whole of Singapore, including industries, will not have electricity. Has the Prime Minister given consideration to that fact, and having given consideration to that fact, does he not think that it would be cheaper in the long run to have an entirely new station at Jurong - as other more developed countries are doing decentralising their power stations?

With respect to the hon. Lady, that is an entirely different factor altogether. As I see it, the first question is related to the cost of taking power from Pasir Panjang to Jurong. Now an additional argument is put forward, that perhaps, to site one power station next to another is bad, and in any case the position is further made worse because an oil company is nearby. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not in a position to answer each of these questions in specificatio. As I have said, if she will put them down specifically, I will give the expert's answers to them. But I will make this one point, Sir. Before the oil company was allowed at its present site, all the experts had been consulted and all the necessary rules and regulations had been complied with to the satisfaction of the experts as far as fire was concerned. On that score, I can, from my personal recollection of what took place in the negotiations, assure the hon. Lady that there is a minimum of risk arising out of fire. I am in fact, assured by the authorities concerned that the risk is not to the Pasir Panjang Power Station. If the risk is a risk to any important installation, it is the harbour and the anchorage.

asked the Minister for Labour (a) whether any central body of trade unions is recognised by the Government as representing trade union interests in Singapore; (b) what is the name of such body; and (c) what is the number of unions affiliated to it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to question (a) is no. That being so, questions (b) and (c) require no answer. At a later date when the position has been clarified the Government will give consideration to this matter.

Sir, can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the T.U.C. is still a registered trade union?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as the record of the T.U.C, is concerned, it has been announced that it has been dissolved because of the split between two groups of unions on political issues.

Sir, what I am asking is whether, according to the records of the Labour Department, the T.U.C, is still a registered trade union?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes.

Then, can I ask the Parliamentary Secretary by what strange process the T.U.C., which has been recognised as a central body to represent trade unions in Singapore, is now no longer recognised when it is still in existence?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill knows very well that the T.U.C, was, during his time, run by him and was in existence on the register, but there were no activities at all on the premises of the T.U.C. So, similarly, after the split in the T.U.C., it goes back to the same position, which means that there is no activity now in the T.U.C.

The Parliamentary Secretary is avoiding the question. What I say is, if it was recognised before by the P.A.P., why is it not recognised now? Will he please remember that in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the T.U.C. is the body to nominate members to the employees' panel? Does he realise that? If the T.U.C. is no longer recognised, then the Industrial Relations Ordinance must be amended.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the position will be clarified as it develops day by day. But, anyway, in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, there is provision too that the Minister has the power to nominate persons to become members of the panel.

asked the Minister for Labour who are the present occupiers of the former Nantina Home in Queen Street, what are the terms of the tenancy and the reasons for granting such tenancy.

Mr Speaker. Sir, the present occupiers of the' former Nantina Home in Queen Street are: The Singapore National Seamen's Union; The Singapore Insurance Companies Employees' Union; The Singapore Bank Employees' Union; The Musicians' Union of Singapore; The Amalgamated Union of Public Employees; and The United Workers of Petroleum Industry. No terms of tenancy were entered into by Government with the occupiers of Trade Union House (Nantina Home), which was made available to the then Trades Union Congress free of rent as a temporary measure until such time as the new Trade Union House has been built. This is in accordance with the election programme of the Government to build a Trade Union House to serve as a Central Headquarters for all trade unions in Singapore. The long-term plans to provide a new Trade Union House at Shenton Way are well advanced. The new building on this site will be known as the Singapore Conference Hall-cum-Trade Union House. It will serve as a venue for the holding of international conferences and other Government functions of a like nature, besides providing all the amenities of a Central Headquarters for the trade unions in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all the trade unions mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary are trade unions under the control of the P.A.P. -

Naturally.

- and to allow, those unions to make use of the Nantina -

Order. Let us have a supplementary question, if any. We cannot have a debate on the question.

Sir, the supplementary question is: Can the Parliamentary Secretary please say whether those unions mentioned by him are not unions under the control of the P.A.P. or closely associated with leaders of the P.A.P.?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is no. The Singapore Bank Employees' Union's legal adviser is the Member for Anson.

What has that got to do with it? [Laughter]

Order. A further supplementary question?

The further supplementary question is: Is it open to other trade unions to apply for the use of the premises?

Have you any new yellow unions?

Order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have stated in my reply, the Nantina Home was allowed to be made use of the then Trades Union Congress. Therefore, if any individual union wants to apply to the Government for the premises to be made use of for union purposes, well, it is a separate matter.

Sir, the now unrecognised Trades Union Congress is still in occupation of Nantina Home. Is this not a fact?

Sir, the answer is no.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he would make a further statement on Judges' salaries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the review of the pay of Judges has been made in relation to that paid in the Federation and in the light of arrangements for merger between Singapore and the Federation after which the Judiciary will become a unified service. Following upon the revision of salaries of Federation Judges, a review in Singapore becomes necessary. The total pay of the two Chief Justices is about the same. As regards the Puisne Judges, the total pay, including cost of living allowances, syce allowance and entertainment allowance of a Federation Puisne Judge is $2,620 p.m. The Singapore Puisne Judge gets a total of $2,470 p.m. There is a difference of $150 p.m. and it has been decided to make up this difference by providing our Puisne Judges with an entertainment allowance of $150 p.m.

Would the Minister indicate whether that further allowance is to be paid as from the future or as from some past date, because these differences have been in existence for a considerable time?

These allowances are payable with effect from the 1st of January.

asked the Minister for Finance how many Government pensioners are at present reemployed in the Government Service and of these, how many are above the age of 60.

Out of more than 25,000 employees in the Government Service, there are 91 re-employed pensioners in the Service and of these 25 are above the age of 60.

asked the Minister for Finance what was the total amount of income tax collected from salary and wage earners in 1960 and 1961, respectively.

The salary and wage earners are assessed on the aggregate of all income from all sources including salary and wages, business profits, rents, dividends, etc. As tax is paid on this aggregate on' a sliding scale, it is not possible to allocate with precision the portion of the tax collected from salaries and wages. It is therefore regretted that the information asked for by the Member for Pasir Panjang is not available.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, has the Minister noted that on the 1st of March this year, an editorial in the Sin Chew Jit Poh -

Order. I think it can be said that the Minister is not responsible for whatever is said in the Sin Chew Jit Poh. Therefore, no reference can be made to any article in any newspapers; not at Question Time.

(In Mandarin): Can the Minister for Finance give us the figures later on for the information of Members of the House?

I have already explained that, in the nature of things, it is not possible to apportion tax arising from different sources because the whole lot is lumped in one total. If the Member is still unconvinced about this. I could explain to him in more detail the mechanics of the operation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister note that what `they are seeking is information not in respect of salaries and wages, but information as to income tax from salary and wage earners. The question is: are there such classifications, and can the Minister say what is the total tax collected from wage earners; what is the total tax collected from salaried persons; whether in respect of salaries and wages or salaries, wages plus? He has not got the question.

The question is quite clear. They want to know the tax paid from salaries and wages.

From salary and wage earners.

My recollection of the statistical appendices attached to the Annual Report of the Income Tax Department is that classification along these lines is not available. The Income Tax Department does classify assessable income according to source, that is to say, income from employment, business profits, rents, dividends, and so on. That information is available and it might give a rough order of magnitude of tax accruing from salary and wage earners. For instance, in the year of assessment 1959, the total income assessable to tax was $543 million of which $250 million was derived from employment. So roughly rather less than half the total assessable income took the form of salaries and wages.

(In Mandarin): Has the Minister any intention of reducing or increasing the personal allowance?

Does the Minister wish to answer that?

No, I do not think I will answer that question.

asked the Minister for Finance (i) how many Government Quarters for Senior Civil Servants are vacant, and (ii) how long they have been vacant and why.

There are 482 senior officers' quarters. Of these, 171 are institutional quarters and 311 are what are sometimes called pool quarters. Institutional quarters are quarters under the control of departments and Ministries. Occupation of institutional quarters is required by virtue of the work performed by the officers, for example, hospitals, prisons and other places. There is no problem of vacant quarters here. Pool quarters are quarters formerly occupied by expatriate civil servants and a limited number of local civil servants. In 1955, the Government decided that local officers should be encouraged to own houses and that no further quarters should be allocated to local senior officers. Those who were already in occupation of such quarters would continue to do so while they remained in Government service. With Malayanisation, a large number of pool quarters fell vacant and it became necessary to lease a number of them to members of the public. Twenty-four such quarters were leased out in 1960. Some of these quarters have been vacant for three years or more. At present, as a result of departure of further expatriate officers, there are 51 vacant quarters of which 16 are being reserved for experts and overseas officers who will be arriving in the near future. The others will be let out to members of the public. They are now being tidied up and big employers as well as members of the Consulate Corps are being invited to take up leases of these quarters.

Mr Speaker, I do not know whether I have missed it, but I do not think the Minister has told us how long these quarters have been vacant.

The exercise that the present Government took in 1961 covered a fairly large number of quarters that have been vacant, as I have said, for some three years or more. Since 1961, some more houses have become vacant. There was some uncertainty about exactly how many we can lease out to members of the public, because the number of experts and technicians we were then trying to recruit from overseas had not been finalised. But now we have a pretty close idea of how many experts and technicians we can get from overseas so that it is fairly safe now to lease some 35 quarters which have been vacant. Most of them will be vacant perhaps for a year or so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister not agree that as a result of the 311 houses vacant for three years -

No.

- the Government has lost a great amount of rent?

No, not 311 houses vacant. The 311 are what we call pool quarters, that is, they are available for administrative officers and so on. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think you are in occupation of one of such quarters. The number of houses that were vacant for three years or more and which were leased out in 1960 were 24. Since then, more have fallen vacant.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the position which indicated a considerable waste of public money, would the Minister consider putting on the market for sale those houses which the Government is quite satisfied it would not require for its own purposes in the future?

I have been considering the sale of surplus Government houses for a very long time and I have not come to a decision yet.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister tell us whether it is true that there have been several applications from local senior officers for the use of quarters and from various Government departments for their departmental purposes and that they have been refused? I wonder why these applications were refused in spite of the fact that the quarters were vacant.

If they have been refused, the reason is that it is not suitable to use residential quarters for office purposes. The practice, of course, has been to stretch to the limit the generous interpretation of this policy. For instance, the Ministry of Labour has got away with quite a number of applications. We agreed to allow the quarters along Canning Rise to be used as offices because of their central convenience to members of the public, but where they move off into residential areas such as Tanglin, I think the hon. Lady will agree that it is quite inappropriate to use such houses as offices.

asked the Minister for Health and Law whether he has any further statement to make on the subject of Law Revision Committees.

The question of the establishment of the Law Revision Committee has been referred to the Judges and to the Singapore Bar Committee. The Registrar of the Supreme Court has replied that the Judges would like to have the views of the Singapore Bar Committee before expressing their own views.

asked the Minister for Health and Law whether, in regard to certain parts of Singapore, (a) he is aware of an increase in flies and mosquitoes despite repeated complaints about insanitary conditions; and (b) in view of the failure of the present system for clearing rubbish and drains, he will make a statement as to what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

We come back to the subject of nuisance mosquitoes and dirty drains. There has been an increase of nuisance mosquitoes which was worse than during the latter part of the year following the strike of the City Council employees and consequent chokage of outlets and roadside drains. This was aggravated by the unsatisfactory arrangements for cleansing of outlet drains to which reference was made at an earlier sitting of the Assembly. There is no appreciable increase in the complaints of flies. About seven to ten such complaints were received per month and were dealt with. There has been no increase in mosquito-borne disease or fly-borne disease according to our hospital records. The Ministry is aware of the deficiencies in the previous system for the cleansing of outlet drains. These have been improved, the contract system has been tightened up with new specifications for the quality of the work, and the 1962 contracts stipulate the minimum number of workmen to be employed on the job for each specified area daily. Where about 40 men were formerly employed in cleansing outlet drains, the present contract requires a total of 276 for the job. In fact, the condition of most outlet drains in the city now has greatly improved and this state of affairs will continue to be maintained. For the purpose of maintaining an adequate refuse disposal system, orders have been placed in the last nine months for 14 new vehicles for the transport of refuse. Of these, 4 vehicles have already been delivered. The Ministry has recently decided to call for tenders for the removal by contract of refuse in specified areas, in specified bin centres and from bin centres of the Housing and Development Board's estates with a view to relieving the increasing pressure on the maintenance and extension of this service. There are 16 checkers in the city area and a mobile squad of 14 men for the rural areas to check on mosquito-breeding,. Breeding of nuisance mosquitoes in canals, drains and other places subject to public cleansing has received full attention. Education of hawkers and the public has been carried out in connection with the prevention of nuisance mosquito-breeding in affected areas by field staff on their rounds. Radio publicity in all languages has been effected. The prevention of mosquito-breeding and fly-breeding will require, besides positive measures by the Ministry, the active co-operation of hawkers, householders and other members of the public. All measures to deal with the situation are being taken and the position has materially improved recently.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Minister is aware that in some places especially outside markets there are piles of rubbish six feet high sometimes. I wonder whether he can assure us that these will be dealt with immediately under the new arrangements. May I state, Sir, that these are in the most congested areas which can least afford such rubbish?

Order. I must pass a remark. The hon. Lady is very fond of bringing in matters which are completely extraneous and might excite a debate. Supplementary questions must be short and to the point.

Mr Speaker, improvements have been made in the cleansing service. There was a lot of backlog to be cleared up after the recent strike and recent enquiries have disclosed that the situation has improved considerably.

asked the Minister for Culture what was the total expenditure incurred on account of the conference and meetings of the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee held in Singapore in February, 1962.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the total cost for Malaysia Week, including the cost of the exhibition, the cost of "Malam Malaysia", posters, decorations, bunting, flags, and so on, was approximately $115,000.

Order. We are on Question No. 14. Is the Minister electing to answer Question No. 15 as well?

No, if the hon. Member is referring to meetings of the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee held in Singapore, then the expenditure in connection with the Singapore meetings was $21,384.66.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to what we know, the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee has a Secretariat. What I want to ask is this: are the expenses incurred by the Secretariat to be paid by the Government of Singapore?

No. The expenses of the Secretariat are made the responsibility of the respective Governments concerned.

(In Mandarin): In that case then, how much has the Singapore Government got to pay?

So far, I think our expenses were about 12 tapes that we have sent to Sarawak. At the cost of $6 a tape, they amount to $72.

Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee meetings, I would like to know whether that is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or of the Government.

No, Sir. There were in all three Consultative Committee meetings, including the one in Singapore. Two of these meetings were attended by Members of the Barisan Sosialis. These were paid for by the C.P.A. and the rest by the Government.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to what the Minister for Culture has said regarding the expenditure of $21,384, can he enlighten this House on whether the passage expenses of the Sarawak representatives were met by the Singapore Government?

All the delegates from outside Singapore paid their own passages.

asked the Minister for Culture to state (i) the total expenditure incurred in holding the Malaysia Week, (ii) the cost of the Malaysia Week Exhibition, (iii) the cost of "Malam Malaysia", (iv) the cost of posters, and (v) the cost of decorations, bunting and flags.

The total cost for Malaysia Week was approximately $115,000, of which the cost of the exhibition was $8,932. The cost of organising "Malam Malaysia" was $6,175. The cost of posters was $2,570, and the cost of bunting, flags and decorations and illuminations was $19,176. Most of this expenditure was for labour cost.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister for Culture tell this House who was responsible for the expenses incurred by the Brunei artistes who came to Singapore to perform?

That will be dealt with in Question 16*. *Question No. 16 reads as follows Mr Tee Kim Leng: To ask the Minister for Culture (i) how many artistes from Brunei took part in "Malam Malaysia"; (ii) what was the cost of their air passages; and (iii) what was the cost of their board and lodging during their stay in Singapore. Mr David Marshall rose -

Order. It seems to me that possibly it will be convenient for Question 16 to be answered as well now. Mr Rajaratnam.

Yes. This is the answer to Question 16. Twenty artistes from Brunei took part in "Malam Malaysia". The cost of air passages was met entirely by the Brunei Government. In answer to (iii), as regards the cost of board and lodging, the visitors stayed in Brunei House in Singapore without cost; expenditure on food was met by the Singapore Government, and this amounted to $923.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture, in reply to Question No. 15, said that "Malam Malaysia" Cost the Government about $6,000. Can the Minister tell this House whether the performers and artistes on that night volunteered their services or were they paid by the Government?

No. As regards the Brunei artistes, I have indicated that it cost us nothing apart from food. As regards the artistes from the Federation, we put them up at the University Hostel, which cost us $7 per head a day. Those were the costs incurred. But if - I am not quite sure but am just recollecting - Members opposite have in mind an allegation that they have made elsewhere that these artistes were professional people of ill-repute, may I say that most of the artistes are civil servants, workers, who have come here voluntarily to help celebrate Malaysia Week? I think it is unfair to make such an allegation against these artistes who have come here to help us celebrate Malaysia Week.

Mr Speaker, Sir, quite naturally I appreciate the generosity of the Brunei Government and of the artistes who took part in "Malam Malaysia". I would like to point out that the Minister indicated $115,000 as the overall expenses and yet gave us particularisation of only about $37,000. Could we know what was the balance, and a very vast balance, of $115,000 spent on?

Certainly, Sir. I have the breakdown figures here. I only answer questions in relation to the items here. There was the Malaysia Exhibition - illumination and neon signs, and we produced a booklet called Malaysia Heritage. Then there were "Malam Malaysia" decorations, temporary workers and bills in connection with printing and hiring of cars, and so on. It is a long list of items, Sir, but -

Order. I do not think, the Assembly should be inflicted with a long list of figures. If the Minister will send in those figures, they will be published in the Official Report. Following is a breakdown of the actual expenditure incurred in connection with Malaysia Week Celebrations 1962. Actual Particulars Expenditure $ c. (i) Special effects to City Hall Building, Victoria Theatre and Memorial Hall and Assembly Building (venues for Malam Malaysia and Rally, Exhibition and sessions of Consultative Committee Meeting respectively, as estimated by P.W.D.) 9,221 22 (ii) Installation of Neon Signs at City Hall frontage and Victoria Theatre and Memorial Hall 2,350 00 (iii) Decorations of City Hall, Victoria Theatre and Memorial Hall and Assembly Building 9,370 00 (iv) Malaysia Exhibition (exhibition from Malaysian territories, production of materials locally, special display requirements, effects, etc.) 11,131 83 (v) Malam Malaysia and Rally at City Hall Steps (Board and Lodging at University Hostels for about 60 dancers and musicians from Federation of Malaya and Borneo territories, payment for local artistes) 6,574 65 (vi) Incidental expenses for Victoria Theatre and Memorial Hall (Over time charges and use of air-conditioner) 228 39 (vii) Printing of Malaysia Heritage (a four language publication to commemorate Malaysia Week and Fourth Meeting of the Consultative Committee and for distribution in Malaysian territories 58,710 00 (viii)Temporary workers for distribution of publicity material and other miscellaneous jobs 714 50 (ix) Expenditure for organisation of 4th Malaysia Consultative Committee Meeting (organised by Prime Minister's Office with the co-operation of the Ministry of Culture) 21,842 11 ------------- $120,142 70 -------------

asked the Minister for Culture (i) what was the total expenditure for the 1960 Loyalty Week celebrations, and (ii) what was the total expenditure for the 1961 National Day Celebrations.

Sir, there was no expenditure for the 1960 Loyalty Week Celebrations because no such celebrations were held in 1960. If, however, the hon. Member is interested in figures relating to Loyalty Week Celebrations held in December 1959, I shall be glad to furnish him with such figures. As regards the second part of the question, the total expenditure for the 1961 National Day Celebrations was $56,659.92.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether one Mr Tan Chong Yong, brother of Mr Tan Chong Meng of Sarawak, was refused permission to enter Singapore to study at Nanyang University to which he has already gained admission, and the, reasons therefor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Tan Chong Yong arrived in Singapore from Sarawak on 8th February, 1962, and was issued with a Visit Pass valid till 10th February, 1962, to enable him to return to Sarawak. His entry into Singapore has been refused on security grounds, just as in the case of the restriction on the movements of his brother during his transit through Singapore recently after the Communist Front Conference on Malaysia held in Kuala Lumpur.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder if we could again have the last part of the reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall repeat it for the benefit of the Member for Anson. Mr Tan Chong Yong's entry into Singapore has been refused on security grounds, just as in the case of the restriction on the movements of his brother during his transit through Singapore recently after the Communist Front Conference on Malaysia held in Kuala Lumpur.

If the Minister for Home Affairs is satisfied that the Malaysia Socialist Conference was a Communist front organisation, I being a member thereof would suggest that he should try and take me to Changi Gaol, Sir. And if he will not, would he explain, why not - including all other persons who went from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur? Telling me of a perfectly honest and honourable association -

Order. I think the hon. Member for Anson could have raised the point of order whether or not the Minister was in order in making an allegation of that nature in answer to the question. I would, of course, have ruled the Minister out of order. Mr Tee Kim Leng.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (i) how many police inspectors and constables were recruited in 1960 and 1961; (ii) how many of those recruited were Federal citizens, and how many were Singapore citizens; and (iii) how many rejected applicants were Singapore citizens.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of police inspectors recruited were two in 1960, both of whom were Singapore citizens; nine in 1961 of whom eight were Singapore citizens and one was a Federal citizen. As to the number of police constables recruited, 283 were recruited in 1960, of whom 242 were Singapore citizens and 41 were Federal citizens. In 1961, 234 police constables were recruited, of whom 223 were Singapore citizens and 11 were Federal citizens. The number of rejected applicants who were Singapore citizens was 1,309 in 1960 and 669 in 1961.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister tell this House why those applicants who were Singapore citizens were rejected, whereas those applicants who were Federal citizens were accepted?

Mr Speaker, the applications from Singapore citizens were rejected because they were either aver-age or underqualified. I was informed that those who were rejected were predominantly underqualified.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (i) how many permits for Open-Air Cinemas were issued from January 1960 to the latest convenient date; and (ii) how many were rejected and the reasons for their rejection.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it would be misleading to speak of the actual number of permits or licences issued for open-air cinemas, since a licence is generally valid for one month and, in the course of a year, there will be 12 licences issued in respect of one particular cinema. There are also cases where a particular cinema originally issued with a licence has had its licence subsequently cancelled. I take it that the Member is really interested in the number of open-air cinemas for which licences were granted and the number for which licences were refused, and, on this basis, the information for the period from January 1960 to 5th March, 1962, is as follows: (a) Number of open-air cinemas for which licences were issued 35 (b) Number of open-air cinemas for which licences were refused on application 10

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister tell us what were the reasons for those rejections?

The reasons for the rejections were: (i) Objections raised by the residents; (ii) Unsuitability of the site chosen; (iii) The presence of a permanent cinema within a one-mile radius; and (iv) Secret society activities.

(In Mandarin): With regard to reason No. (iv), would it be that if we closed down all open-air cinemas, there would not be any secret society members around?

From past experience, it would appear that the closure of open-air cinemas has reduced considerably secret society activities in that particular area.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the case of other cinemas, for example, the big cinemas, there are also some secret society members around them. Does the Minister intend to close them down as well?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the permanent cinemas are better situated, well lit and better organised.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he is aware that certain story books and comics, which have been banned, are still being circulated in some community centres, and what action does he propose to take in the matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Tanglin could give the House the names of the community centres involved and relevant details of the banned books and comics, I shall have the matter investigated.

Mr Marshall, Question No. 22.

Sir, the Government Gazette of yesterday's date has answered my question*. *The question reads as follows: To ask the Minister for Education when will the Commission to enquire into the Government's Education Policy be appointed.

The hon. Member has risen on my call. If the Minister for Education wishes to make any further statement, he can do so now.

No.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will be announcing its scheme for compensation and resettlement of the residents affected by the Toa Payoh Satellite Town Development Project and whether he intends to hold a mass meeting of the affected residents for the purpose of explaining the scheme to them in detail as well as ascertaining their views on the scheme.

Sir, Government's resettlement policy and compensation terms for people who are resettled are well known to the Member for Toa Payoh, because when he was still in the P.A.P., he played an active part in explaining and supporting the Government's resettlement policy and compensation scheme among Toa Payoh settlers. The Government, moreover, provided the Member for Toa Payoh and officials of the Country People's Association with copies of rates of compensation in both English and Chinese. May I, very briefly, refresh his memory as to the terms that have been offered to the settlers of Toa Payoh? A settler who chooses to find his own accommodation is paid compensation for whatever improvements he has made to his land. But a settler who chooses to move to a Housing Board flat is paid no compensation. In the case of a hut owner, he can have in exchange a newly-built terrace house in Kim Keat Road, with electricity, water and sanitation facilities. The value of such a terrace house is about $5,000. In the case of a bona tide farmer he can choose to resettle in a farm lot of about two acres given to him free of charge in a resettlement area, such as Chua Chu Kang or Jurong, where he can carry on work as a farmer. It costs the Government about $4,000 per acre to acquire and develop the land and another $1,000 to provide a basic hut. In other words, a farmer who is resettled receives compensation to the value of some $9,000 in land and hut. May I also add that the resettlement policy and compensation scheme have been explained to the settlers who are so affected? This scheme has been implemented and accepted by 1,500 families who have been resettled in the past two and a half years. As to the second part of the hon. Member's question, he can rest assured that the Government will not only explain once more the scheme to the affected residents but also to protect them against political adventurers who are trying to make use of rural dwellers by creating confusion among them. We will hold all meetings and consultations as may be necessary to help rural residents solve their personal and practical problems. But it is not the policy of the Government to utter falsehoods and shout empty political slogan's hoping to exploit innocent farmers.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister whether it is true, as a recent Press report said, that the Government would carry out its development scheme in April?

Order. During Question Time, a Minister cannot be asked whether or not any statement in the Press is correct.

Would the Minister state whether the persons resettled will receive titles to the terrace houses and the land, since the Minister speaks of compensation in the realm of $9,000 and $5,000, including the value of the properties?

Sir, I have said that these houses and the land will be given free as compensation to the farmers or the hut owners. Obviously they will have titles to these.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, to remind the Minister for National Development - when debating the Budget last year, he said the Government had revised the compensation rates. But, as a matter of fact, the Government has not revised them. May I ask the Minister whether the Government will consider increasing the present rates of compensation?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang had spoken at length on this subject during the Budget session and I had made a reply to this. It is typical of him to harp on the question of the compensation scheme not being abandoned. I stated very clearly in this Assembly during the Budget session that from time to time the compensation schemes had been amended. For instance, Sir, I have just mentioned that in Toa Payoh a special scheme has been improvised. I am quite sure the Member for Choa Chu Kang will not find this in the compensation scheme as published. This is one of the things that from time to time the Government has adopted to alleviate the hardships of certain people in certain circumstances. As in the case of Toa Payoh, a hut owner will be given a house in exchange, because of his special circumstances, for instance, bean-curd making and poultry rearing. We have stated in the last few days that this scheme is specially improvised for the special circumstances of the people living in Toa Payoh. If the Member for Choa Chu Kang will refer to what I said in this Assembly during the Budget session, he will find that from time to time the compensation schemes have been amended. That perhaps will stop him from uttering all these falsehoods.

Order. I must ask the Minister to withdraw the word "false-hoods" enunciated in this context, because obviously it is equivalent to "lies". He must withdraw the word "false-hoods" in this context.

I withdraw.

May we know from the Minister when this compensation scheme was ever revised?

I will have to refer the Member to the Hansard.

(In Mandarin): I think the Minister should consult his Parliamentary Secretary whether, in reply to a question in this House, he had said that the Government had revised the scheme. But from what we have received, we know that the Government has not revised any of the compensation rates.

I might inform hon. Members of this House that the Member for Toa Payoh has given notice that he will raise this matter on the Adjournment. The matter might come up on Monday if there is a sitting. That does not, of course, prevent Members from asking further questions.

"to provide for the establishment of a corporation to be known as the Singapore Overseas Telecommunication Board and for the exercise and performance by the corporation of functions relating to the provision and operation of external telecommunication services and for the transfer to the corporation of the external telecommunication undertakings of the Government and Cable and Wireless Limited in Singapore and for matters connected therewith", presented by the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Monday, 26th March, 1962, and to be printed.

"to amend the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Monday, 26th March, 1962, and to be printed.

"to amend the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 207 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Dr Toh Chin Chye; read the First time, to be read a second time on Monday, 26th March, 1962, and to be printed.

4.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That this Assembly doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report as contained in Paper L.A. 1 of 1962. Sir, the Committee of Privileges has met and considered the resolution which was moved in this Assembly referring to the Committee of Privileges a matter concerning a breach of privilege. Members of this House will remember that on the 29th of November, 1961, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Mr Lee Khoon Choy, was obstructed from attending a sitting of the Assembly. This matter on resolution has been referred to the Committee of Privileges and the Committee has indeed round that a breach of privilege has been committed by those persons who were guilty of preventing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education from attending a sitting of the Assembly that day. Unfortunately, the police has not been able to trace the culprits and, therefore, punishment cannot be inflicted on these culprits. However, the House has already condemned the conduct of these hooligans at its sitting on the 29th of November. The Committee of Privileges has concluded that this case be now closed. Question proposed. 4.06 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis agree with the Report that has been submitted to the House, but I would like to draw the attention of the House to one fact, that the Acting Leader of the House at that particular time made a highly exaggerated report to the House about the incident. You will -

Order. The Member for Queenstown is completely out of order. These remarks would be properly passed at the time the incident occurred or at the time the Assembly was debating the resolution proposed by the Acting Leader of the House. The Committee of Privileges merely addressed themselves to the issue whether or not the Parliamentary Secretary was obstructed from and insulted when coming to the Assembly, and found, in fact, that he was obstructed and insulted. If the hon. Member for Queenstown agrees with the Report, then, of course, that is the end of it. But if he does not agree with that finding, then he is at liberty to move that the Report be recommitted to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your guidance. The Committee of Privileges has here in its Report indicated certain aspects of the statement made in the debate on the motion by the Minister for Education. As I understand it, the Leader of the Barisan Sosialis was seeking to draw your attention to other aspects of the statement which we know to be inaccurate and which were made during the debate on the motion to which no reference has been made by the Committee of Privileges, and which, perhaps, it should have taken into consideration and made findings in respect thereof. Is that not an appropriate procedure, Sir?

As I have indicated, if any hon. Member considers that that aspect of the matter is relevant to the issue itself, then, of course, he might now argue that the Committee of Privileges might have come to a different conclusion. The Member for Queenstown commenced his speech by saying that he was satisfied with the Report, he agreed with it, and therefore, by saying he agreed with it. I cannot see how his remarks are relevant.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, having perused the Report, I note with regret a complete omission of any consideration of the allegation by the Minister for Culture that there were 300 persons who beleaguered the Parliamentary Secretary, and also a further allegation by the Prime Minister that the Minister for Education was not present because he was beleaguered. Sir, as I understand it, those statements had a very considerable effect in persuading this side of the House to agree to the motion. It seems to me that those aspects should have been made part of the findings. Those aspects which materially affected the gravity of the conduct of the persons who obstructed the Parliamentary Secretary should have been commented on and their accuracy or otherwise considered for purposes of report to this Assembly.

Order. I think I must make it quite clear that the duty of the Committee of Privileges is to find whether or not there has been a breach of privilege. The remarks passed by the Member for Anson are remarks, as I have indicated to the Member for Queenstown, which could properly have been passed when the motion which was set out in paragraph 2 of the Report was being debated in the House. Now, we have reached a stage where the Committee of Privileges on an issue of breach of privilege has made a finding. If Members do not agree that that finding is correct, then they are at liberty to move reference hack to the Committee of Privileges.

Sir, the motion to which you refer on page 1 was in all goad faith passed by this side of the House. We voted in the belief that the statements made by responsible Ministers were correct. We had no information at that stage. What I would like to ascertain now is, would reference back to the Committee of Privileges raise these matters at all, or is it merely an issue of: Was the individual concerned, in fact, obstructed? Because whether he was obstructed was conduct that was really grave conduct - 300 pickets - or whether it was a passing matter, does have a certain effect upon our minds here. The result is the same. It is true, as you say, Sir, the finding will be that he was obstructed, but the circumstances of the obstruction surely are part of the Report which the Committee of Privileges should return.

To cut this matter short, the hon. Member for Anson is at liberty to file a notice of motion rescinding the resolution of the House taken as shown in paragraph 2 of the Report. That is the procedure. If hon. Members are not satisfied that the resolution taken by this House was properly arrived at, then the remedy is to move that it be rescinded. But the Report of the Committee of Privileges still remains, that is, on the issue whether or not there was obstruction and whether there was insult. The Committee has found that there was obstruction and there was insult, and, therefore, it was a breach of privilege, and recommends that this House take no further action for the reasons given. No other Member wishing to speak? Dr Toh? Dr Toh Chin Chye indicated dissent.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report as contained in Paper L.A. 1 of 1962.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.14 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the introduction of this amending Bill has three main purposes. These are, firstly, to make the Defence Forces Record Officer, instead of the Commandant, Singapore Military Forces, responsible for all matters pertaining to reservists; secondly, to provide for the enlistment of youths between the ages of 14 and 17 years as drummer boys and band boys; and thirdly, to establish a benevolent fund for regular member of the Singapore Military Forces. In accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Ordinance, the executive command of all members of the Singapore Military Forces is at present invested in the Commandant, Singapore Military Forces. These members consist of two categories of personnel. They are (a) regulars on "army service" and volunteers doing "colour training" service on the one hand, and (b) those regulars and volunteers who have completed their service of active service and are not on the reserve on the other. Whereas the Commandant, Singapore Military Forces, is the correct authority to exercise command over all serving regulars and volunteers, the authority responsible for dealing with all matters pertaining to reservists should properly be the Officer in Charge of Records as in the British Army. In the case of the local forces, the officers holding the appointment of Officer in Charge of Records is called the Defence Forces Record Officer. This officer's duties in connection with reservists include, amongst other things, looking after their past records of service and recording their up-to-date addresses; the re-engagement of a soldier (about to go on the reserve) for further "army service" if regulars, or for further "colour training" service if volunteers; transferring a reservist from the reserve to the active list; granting a reservist permission to leave the State up to a period of two' years; permitting a reservist to wear uniform on special occasions, etc. The Defence Forces Record Officer is also responsible for paying pensions to retired service personnel and is the "Pensions Authority" under the Personal Injury (Civilians) Scheme, 1941, for paying pensions to war widows and dependants and for paying disability pensions to disabled service personnel. In order to place reservists under his control, an amendment is required to section 12 of the Ordinance. This is what clause 4 seeks to do. The amendment to section 12 of the Ordinance will entail consequential amendments to section 2, subsection (1) of section 11, section 42, and subsection (1) of section 43 of the Ordinance so as to make provision for the Defence Forces Record Officer to take over the duties formerly performed by the Commandant, Singapore Military Forces, in connection with reservists These consequential amendments are covered by clauses 2, 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill. These amendments will also entail consequential amendments to the Singapore Military Forces (Reserve) Rules, 1957. These will be effected later. As the Defence Forces Record Officer has since 1st September, 1960, been carrying out the duties already referred to in connection with reservists, it is necessary to give retrospective effect to this by ante-dating the Bill to 1st September, 1960. This is what clause I seeks to do. Clause 5 amends section 40 of the Ordinance to allow for the change of designation of the Officer in Charge Records from his former designation of "Officer in Charge Forces Record" to his present designation of "Defence Forces Record Officer". This amendment has already been incorporated in the Schedule to the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Ordinance, and the opportunity is therefore being taken in this amending Bill to make a similar amendment to the Singapore Military Forces Ordinance. Clause 3 amends section 10 of the Ordinance to allow for the enlistment of drummer boys and band boys between the ages of 14 and 17 years since the present provisions of the Ordinance provide only for the enlistment of those who have attained the age of 18 years. The intention in recruiting such boys is to ensure that the Singapore Military Forces Staff Band will have a regular flow of trained musicians available to take the places of those bandsmen who will leave the band when the latter's seven years' active service is over. Nearly all the present 60 bandsmen and drummers were recruited in 1958 within six months of each other, which means that all of them will be due to go on the reserve about the same time. It is hoped that at least some of them will want to re-engage for a further period of active service but we cannot be sure of that in advance. A similar system for maintaining a steady flow of trained musicians is adopted in the British Army. In 1954, it was also the scheme in force in the Singapore Police Force Band. Band boys and drummer boys of the Singapore Military Forces will be .governed by special terms of service and be paid special rates of pay, which will be incorporated in consequential rules based on this Ordinance. Clause 9 provides for a new section with the object of establishing a benevolent fund for regular members of the Singapore Military Forces. By virtue of the rules of the Singapore Government cooperative Thrift and Loan Society, which limits its membership to permanent civil servants of Government only, regular members of the forces cannot join that Society. Nor can members of the forces benefit from the Ex-Servicemen's Association in Singapore unless they have taken part in either World War I or World War II. Very few, if any, of the present regular members of the forces have so served. There is therefore no association or thrift society to which members of the forces can turn for financial assistance in a domestic crisis, or for other deserving purposes, unless a special fund is created for that purpose. The creation of such a fund is what clause 9 seeks to do. Consequential rules will lay down the conditions governing the operation of this fund. Question proposed. 4.22 p.m.

From what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs has said, it would appear that the Government, particularly the Ministry of Home Affairs, have been acting ultra vires the law for more than one and half years and that the appointment of the Defence Forces Record Officer was made on 1st September. 1960. It is only after l� years have elapsed that the Government came to this House for powers to make that appointment and subsequently to ante-date the amendment made to the Bill today. We feel that such action on the part of the Government can only be described as high-handed and that it is typical of the fashion of the dictatorial behaviour of the Government. We on this side of the House would urge the Government not to repeat the same mistakes in future, if at all they would admit that this is a mistake. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs will give us an assurance that similar oversights or errors will not be made in the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I listened with delight to the stream of language which poured forth from the Parliamentary Secretary at a speed of reading to which I am not always equal and which prevented me from completely understanding him. But I would say this, Sir, he asks us in a great deal of technical jargon to approve something because the British Army does it. Well, I have a great regard for the British Army and I have no doubt that what it does it has good reasons for. But to me it is not adequate that we should do something just because the British Army does it. Surely we have our own problems. I would like to know, apart from the fact that we are copying the British Army, whether there is any reason at all why the Commandant of the Forces should not be in charge of reservists. Instead we have to create a special post, a gentleman to be known as the Defence Forces Record Officer, and we would like to know whether this officer is being paid more for being in charge of reservists than himself as Officer in Charge Forces Record, which was his previous title; and if so, since when has this additional payment been made? Has it been made since 1st September, 1960? Have we been for 1� years making payments not authorised by this Assembly? If that is the position, then at least elementary frankness requires that we should be told the truth. I do ask that the Parliamentary Secretary put away his brief and tell us if he knows what really is the reason for the change of title, what is the cost in the change of title and the cost incurred by the change of status, and why it is necessary that we should remove the Commandant of the Forces from command of the reservists and put in his place this gentleman. What exactly is behind all these manoeuvres? It may be that they are perfectly legitimate. I just do not like the sound of them because I do not understand it. Then we have this question of the Singapore Military Forces benevolent fund. The poor gentlemen have nowhere to turn to and no ex-servicemen's association. But, Sir, if there is legitimate need to care for these persons who leave the Singapore Military Forces, there is surely the Government and there is the question of their own pension. In any event, would the Parliamentary Secretary indicate who is going to make contributions to the Singapore Military Forces benevolent fund? Is there going to be a public appeal for funds? Or does he not know? There is a comment, Sir, that this Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. Is this a technical truth for today or is it also the truth for tomorrow? What is the truth about this?

Mr Chan Chee Seng, in reply.

Mr Speaker, with regard to the charge made by the Member for Anson that we are copying the British Army, this is in fact true. The duty of looking after the reservists has been carried out by the Defence Forces Record Officer since 1960, and the same procedure is adopted by the Malayan Government. So we are not following the British style. The Member for Anson has also asked how much this officer is being paid. At the moment, I cannot supply him with the necessary details. But if he wishes it, I can furnish him with the necessary information.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Chan Chee Seng]. Bill considered in Committee. 4.30 p.m.

Clause 1 - Question proposed, "That clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

Clause 1, I take it, is the Short title and the date of operation, Mr Speaker, Sir. In those circumstances, I would like to draw the attention of the Assembly to the fact that his operation is being ante-dated one and a half years for no adequate reasons at all. Sir, it is a constitutional principle that one does not introduce retrospective legislation except for the gravest reasons. One does not lightly embark upon changing the law retrospectively. We are entitled to, and I do demand, adequate explanation of the reason why we should ante-date these amendments by one and a half years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I presume it is because the Defence Forces Record Officer has been in charge for the last one and a half years.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is really begging the question. First, they commit an impropriety - I will put it no higher. And then they say because it has been improper, therefore, it is now proper to be a second time improper. If that is the only reason to be given, then I should say the Minister should take a good look at whatever officer was responsible and should make him feel ashamed of himself, as I hope the Minister feels. I for one will refuse to approve this provision.

I take it that the Member for Anson has seen clause 5.

Clause 5? Yes.

"What is in a name" - that is the answer. Question put, "That clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

Division, Sir. The Committee divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 13; Abstentions, 3; Absent, 5. Ayes Noes Abdul Hamid bin Bani, S.T Haji Jumat Chan Sun Wing Buang bin Omar Junid. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Byrne, K.M. Lee Siew Choh. Chan Chee Seng Leong Keng Seng Chan Choy Siong, Lin You Eng Madam. Low Por Tuck Chor Yeok Eng Marshall, David Goh Chew Chua Ong Chang Sam Goh Keng Swee Sheng Nam Chin Hoe Puay Choo Tan Cheng Tong Madam. Tee Kim Leng Kandasamy, G. Wong Soon Fong Lee Khoon Choy Lee Kuan Yew Abstentions. Lee Teck Him Lingam, S.V. Lim Cheng Lock Ng Teng Kian Lim Yew Hock Ong Eng Guan Mohd.Ali bin Alwi Absent. Mohd.Ariff bin Suradi Ahmad bin Ibrahim M. Ismail Rahim Ahmad Jabri bin Ong Pang Boon Mohammad Akib Rajah, A. P. Koh, C.H Rajaratnam, S. Mammen, John. Ramaswamy, S. Teo Hock Guan Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Tan Kia Gan Thio Chan Bee Toh Chin Chye Wee Toon Boon Yaacob bin Mohamed Yong Nyuk Lin Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 - Question proposed, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Explanatory Statement of the Bill, the second sentence states very clearly that: 'This will bring the executive command of the Singapore Military Forces Reserve into line with that of the British Army Reserves where the Officer in Charge Records is also the Commanding Officer, Reserve.' When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs was replying on the Second Reading of the Bill, he emphatically denied that the passage of this Bill in this House was connected with British traditions or was in line with the British Army Service. In view of the contradictory statements issued, Sir, could we have a clarification from the Government whether this Bill was actually brought in to bring the Singapore Military Forces Reserve in line with the British Army Reserves, or whether the Parliamentary Secretary was correct when he denied that?

To bring it in line with the Russian Army!

Mr Speaker, when I replied to the Member for Anson just now, I never said that it was not in line with the British Army. I said that it was in line with the Federation Army as well. And you can even put it in line with the Russian Army or the Chinese Army. This is not something ridiculous. It is something that fits in with the circumstances in Singapore, and so we do it.

Point of order, Sir. Can we check the records? I cannot recall that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs has ever mentioned the Federation Army just now in his reply.

The hon. Member can look at the Hansard when it comes out.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary stated in so many words - it is wholly inaccurate (he did not use the word, he says), it is absolutely inaccurate what the Member for Anson said, that this has anything to do with the British Army procedure. All I want from him now is: would he like to deny that he ever made that statement? We will check it at a later date. But I say to you, Sir, that he did, in fact, say that he denied it totally as being wholly inaccurate. My suggestion was that the only excuse for these provisions was to keep in line with British Army traditions.

Sir, the House is aware that the purpose of this Bill is to place the Singapore Military Forces Reserve under the executive command of the Defence Forces Record Officer. Now, Members of the House are also aware that the Federation Regiment is run along certain lines, and we are also aware that in the future when merger takes place -

Wait for it.

- the Central Government will be in charge of Defence and Foreign Affairs, and therefore in charge of the Army. So it will be in keeping with that if in this Explanatory Statement it is quite plainly stated that certain lines are followed. I see no contradiction at all. 4.45 p.m.

The British Army -

Order.

Sir, I am really astonished to hear the Member for Anson getting excited over the British Army tradition and, in fact, condemning the Government for following an administrative pattern which he believes in the tradition of the British Army.

On a point of order, Sir. The allegation by the Minister is inaccurate, Sir.

The point of order being?

The point of order is that he has completely misconstrued me.

Order. That is not a point of order. It is a point of explanation. The hon. Member for Anson will have an opportunity.

The Member for Anson's objection rests on the fact that we are imposing the pattern of the British Army on our local forces, and I say this is absolutely astonishing coming from -

Order. I think it is time for the Chair to intervene. That was not what the Member for Anson was alleging. His allegation was that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs did not make a correct statement when he said that this was not modelled on British lines. That is all.

Sir, I was referring to his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill. The remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary were consequent on what he said during the Second Reading. As I have said, Sir, it is absolutely astonishing for the Member for Anson to object to this Bill on the grounds that it follows certain administrative procedures -

Order. The Minister is out of order in raising that point in clause 2. He should have raised it on the Second Reading. We are now on clause 2, which seeks to add to the definition of the word "Forces" to insert "with the exception of the Singapore Military Forces Reserve constituted under Part IV of this Ordinance." In other words, just to take over command of the Forces Reserve from the Commandant and give it to the Defence Ministry. That is all there is to it in clause 2.

Sir, the debate on this clause has ranged rather far and wide. I just want to make an observation based on what the Member for Anson said when clause 2 comes up for consideration before this Committee. The Member for Anson during the Anson by-election displayed four medals before the electorate.

Order. I must stop this trend. I am sure the Minister will have another opportunity. Let us get on with the debate on clause 2.

You were then a member of the British Army!

Order.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 - Question proposed, "That clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, to quote Shakespeare to the Prime Minister or his colleagues would be wasting pearls. But I would ask, Sir, just what is the purpose of this which seems to reach the stage of a farce? We want to change "Officer in charge Forces Records" to "Defence Forces Record Officer", and it requires a whole section. Why? What is the meaning of this absurdity, this pantomine?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson is surely familiar with the functions of this officer because, when he was a prisoner of war after an inglorious campaign in Singapore, he received four medals just like every other person, and these were duly displayed before the electorate in Anson. Now, he had dealings with this particular officer, so that he could draw a pension and get free transport to Australia, I believe, to recuperate. Obviously this particular officer in the old days performed functions which are dissimilar to those which he is performing today. Therefore, a change in nomenclature is to be expected. It is quite natural. I do not know why the Member for Anson is making a song and dance about this very trivial matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, obviously the Minister knows as little about English as I know about the officer in question. I am delighted that he has had the opportunity to display yet once more his unhappy jealousy at my war record. But I still ask the Member, who was comfortable in bed when I was a prisoner for his sake, amongst others - to my regret; I did not know I was defending the P.A.P. - just why and what is the difference between "Officer in Charge Forces Record". I will repeat it in simple English. What is the difference between "Officer in Charge Forces Record" and "Defence Forces Record Officer". That is what I like to know.

Sir, in the course of his military career, I believe the Member for Anson went as high as the rank of Lance-corporal. An hon. Member: Unpaid!

Unpaid. I therefore assume that he is not unfamiliar with military usage, much of which is incomprehensible to civilians. I have never even reached or gone above the rank of Private and never had occasion to deal with military terminology. I suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this is a very trivial matter. With respect, I suggest we get on with the rest of this Bill.

Why?

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

May I have a reply, Sir, to my query as to who is expected to make donations to the Singapore Military Forces Benevolent Fund? And whether the allegation or statement in the Explanatory Note that the Bill does not involve Government in any extra financial expenditure is merely technically true for today, and whether, in fact, it is anticipated that the Government will be involved in expenditure in the future in making donations to this benevolent fund?

I would imagine that a large amount of the donations to this benevolent fund would come from members of the public.

I would like to ask a serious question, Sir. There is a statement in the Explanatory Note to say that this does not involve the Government in any expenditure. Is this merely technically true of today? Are we to anticipate expenditure in the future.

Sir, if it says it does not involve Government in any expenditure, then no contribution will be made to this benevolent fund. On the other hand, if in some distant future, circumstances are such that a Government contribution to this benevolent fund has strong justification, then the matter can `be considered. I do not really know what difficulty the Member for Anson, is raising. I am saying that no payment is envisaged now. But we cannot say that for all time the Government will not make any payment. There is no trouble at all.

Surely there is.

Order.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

I think it is time to suspend. I will suspend the sitting until 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.59 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Diphtheria Immunisation Ordinance, 1961, was enacted by the Assembly as a positive measure towards the improvement of child health in the State during the last session of the Assembly. The amendments now proposed are for the following reasons: Firstly, to provide for the extension of the Ordinance to enable medical officers and nurses serving with the United Kingdom Forces in Singapore to carry out intra dermal tests and inoculations required under the Ordinance. This will be necessary to cover effectively the substantial armed services population who normally receive complete medical care from their own medical service units. This objective is achieved by amending the definitions of "medical practitioner" and "nurse" in section 2 of the principal Ordinance to include in its ambit service medical officers and nursing personnel. Secondly, it was found that the principal Ordinance had no provision for exemption of a child from inoculation. The `principal Ordinance made provision for postponement with a maximum of three months at a time. This might in practice be found to be inadequate especially in the case of certain debilitating conditions of a permanent nature, such as uncompensated heart disease, chronic nephritis, serious allergies. Clause 4 provides for such exemption to be made. Thirdly, the definition of "medical certificate" has been extended to include such other certificates as may `be accepted by the Deputy Director of Medical Services (Health) as evidence of inoculation. The purpose of this amendment is principally to enable suitable documents issued outside Singapore to be accepted as valid evidence of previous inoculation. The definition of medica1 certificate in the principal Ordinance was too restricted and covered only certificates issued by registered medical practitioners in Singapore. Fourthly, opportunity is taken to effect the consequential amendment arising from the reorganisation of the Ministry of Health last year, whereby the reference to Assistant Director of Medical Services (Health) in the principal Ordinance is changed to Deputy Director of Medical Services (Health) who will be the appropriate officer discharging the duties required under the Ordinance. The Diphtheria Immunisation Regulations are ready for publication and will be published as soon as this amendment Bill has been enacted and assented to. The publication of the Regulations will enable the Ordinance to be brought into force. It is expected to be able to do this by April 1962. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 5.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Last year as a result of strong complaints made by Federation postmen about the frequency of dog-bites suffered by postmen while performing their duties, the Federation Government introduced in the Federal Parliament the necessary legislation to meet the grievances of the postmen. This legislation was passed as The Minor Offences (Amendment) Act, 1961. Recently, in the course of negotiations over the terms and conditions of service of certain categories of Government officers conducted between the Government and the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees, the Union requested, among other things, that the Government should introduce similar legislation in Singapore for the protection of the State's postmen. This was considered to be a reasonable request, and the Government agreed that it would introduce a Bill accordingly. This Bill, which is based on the Federation of Malaya Minor Offences (Amendment) Act, 1961, seeks to amend the Minor Offences Ordinance so as to provide that any person (such as a postman) who enters any house or premises in the ordinary course of his duties or with the express or implied permission of the occupier and suffers any injury caused by a dog, shall be awarded compensation, not exceeding one hundred dollars, to be assessed `by a magistrate. Such compensation is to `be payable by the owner of the dog, quite apart from a fine not exceeding fifty dollars to which he is liable on conviction. The Bill also provides that in any prosecution it shall not be necessary to show a previous vicious propensity in such dog or the owner's knowledge thereof or even that the injury was attributable to the owner's neglect. But an owner is not liable for any injury sustained by a person as a result of any wrongful act on the part of such person. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 5.40 p.m.

Sir, there is a well-known saying that every dog has its day. Under the law, a dog is entitled to one bite at least before the owner is called to book for it. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome this amendment to the Minor Offences Ordinance. Although the persons primarily intended to benefit by this are the postmen, the Bill, I think, takes it beyond the postmen to any person who suffers a bite. The summary provision which enables a Magistrate to assess damages to a sum not exceeding $100 is welcome. But I would like some assurance from the Government that if, as a result of a bite, a prosecution has been launched and compensation has been paid by the Magistrate, then such compensation or a conviction of the owner will not preclude the person suffering from the bite from taking the matter further in a civil court. Because a bite could result, if it were a bite which the civil law will take cognisance of, in damages greater than $100. I do hope that merely because the prosecution has been launched and compensation has been ordered, the person who suffers the bite will not be precluded later, because of the compensation or a conviction, from taking the matter to the civil court. 5.42 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a person who has been bitten by a dog and who has received compensation cannot be precluded from bringing action in the civil courts if he is advised to do so. I think the Member for Farrer Park very well knows that that is the true legal position.

I take it the Parliamentary Secretary is not replying? Mr Chan Chee Seng indicated dissent.

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

Order for Third Reading read. 5.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." I am happy to report that Members of the Select Committee have reached the largest measure of agreement possible on the controversial clauses of this Bill, and in a spirit of give and take on both sides, improvements have been made to the Bill designed to ensure that there are appropriate sanctions available to the House in cases where abuse of privileges is committed by a Member or a stranger. It is hoped that armed with these new powers, the Legislative Assembly will be able to carry out its functions in a dignified and sober manner. I have no doubt, Sir, that hon. Members with their usual ingenuity will be able in time to develop a skill in debate which will enable them to sail close to the shoals and rocks of abuse without foundering and without attracting undue notice from you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Question proposed. 5.45 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree entirely with what the Minister for Law said when moving the Second Reading of this Bill and I hope that the occasion will not arise when the provisions of this Bill will be used against any Assemblyman. But I would like to express my regret at certain stipulations in the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recall that about ten months ago, the Government intended to pass this Bill through its three stages at one sitting. At that time, all of us in the Opposition on this side of the House expressed our opposition to such a move because the provisions in this Bill would have affected us very much as they would limit our freedom to a great extent. Later on, we asked the Government to refer the Bill to Select Committee for consideration. We are glad to note that the Government accepted the constructive suggestions from the Opposition side. Although the Report before us shows that the Government have accepted some ten amendments, there is one clause on which we have to express our opinion. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 20 provides penalties for dishonourable conduct. If my memory is not wrong, on 17th November, 1961, Opposition Members condemned the definition of the term "dishonourable conduct" because the Government did not give a clear definition of this term. As Members of the Opposition we are rather worried because our freedom of expression in this Assembly can be restricted by this term "dishonourable conduct" which is not clearly defined. Our freedom of expression would therefore be limited by law. Although the so-called dishonourable conduct of any Member is to be decided by the Assembly as a whole, we are rather worried, from experience in the past. If criticisms came from the Opposition side, the Government would very likely term such criticisms as "dishonourable conduct". Therefore, we are of the opinion that without a clear definition of the term "dishonourable conduct", the freedom of expression of Opposition Members would be greatly restricted. The Report of the Select Committee on this Bill discloses that the most important question discussed in Select Committee was the proper `definition of the term "dishonourable conduct". The reduction of the fine from $5,000 to $1,000 in the event of an Assemblyman being found guilty of dishonourable conduct is not very important. What is more important is that there should be a very clear definition as to what constitutes dishonourable conduct. Mr Speaker, Sir, we hope that the Government can truly carry out its duties in the spirit of parliamentary democracy. From now on, it should not try to make use of any loophole in the law to deal with Opposition Members. We sincerely hope that, when faced with possible criticisms from the Opposition side, the Government will not light-heartedly resort to the provisions in this Bill, especially the provisions in clause 20, to restrict the freedom of expression in the Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, we also hope that the Minister concerned will assure us that the use of the term "dishonourable conduct" will not be applied to Opposition Members because we will exercise self-discipline. As representatives of the people, we will be responsible for what we say to the people. I believe that the speeches of Assemblymen are made with a sense of responsibility. They are made from a national point of view with a sense of good will and good intention. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was glad to hear what the Minister said just now, that this Bill would not be applied to Members of the Assembly and members of the public and that there would be no occasion to apply the provisions of the Bill. If anything should go amiss by misusing the provisions of the Bill, then I say I would be pessimistic as to the future of parliamentary democracy. That is why I hope the Government will not lightly make use of this term "dishonourable conduct" to deal with Opposition Members.

Mr Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recall the alarm on the part of the Government Front Benches when we suggested that the Bill should be sent to Select Committee. What they enquired was, "What is the Assembly to do in the face of the wild men on the Opposition Benches without a Privileges Ordinance in order to protect them?". I trust they will digest the lesson of the valuable cooperation in Select Committee in seeking to bring about a provision which was acceptable to all Parties and also a recognition of the sense of responsibility displayed by Members on this side of the House and the complete absence of any foundation for the hysterical alarm they displayed during the Second Reading. I do not know if it is appropriate, but I would like to take this opportunity of expressing appreciation for the Chairman of the Select Committee who helped a great deal in bringing about fruitful cooperation in respect of a Bill which now receives the support of all Members. A certain amount of anxiety has been indicated by the previous speaker with reference to the phrase "dishonourable conduct". As you are aware, Mr Speaker, except in respect of mathematical terms, it is almost humanly impossible to define any phrase with absolute accuracy. The phrase "dishonourable conduct" has, in fact, been left undefined by the Select Committee because it was considered best that the matter should be left to the good sense of successive Committees of Privileges representing the ideas and feelings of their time and who, in the context of their own decency and their own integrity, will judge of their fellow Members or of strangers alleged transgressions. It is true that the majority on every Select Committee is quite properly the Government majority, and in this context, in respect of the immediate future, it is a P.A.P. majority. But I say. Sir, that whatever our views may be with reference to the gentlemen on the Government Front Benches, it is a fear with little foundation and that in practice we have found that though phrases may be wide and undefined, the ultimate result is rarely unjust. I for one, Mr Speaker, have no hesitation in giving my complete support to this Third Reading.

Mr Speaker, I rise to support. I myself was a Member of the Select Committee. So it is needless for me to say that I support the Third Reading of this Bill. But I would like to take this opportunity of answering the Member for Choa Chu Kang on one or two matters which seem to be exercising his mind. Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang is worried that because "dishonourable conduct" in clause 20 of the Bill as agreed to by the Select Committee has not been defined, conditions may arise in the Assembly which might place certain Members in the Opposition at a disadvantage. Sir, may I refer the Member for Choa Chu Kang to clause 3 (1) of the Bill which reads as follows: `Save as is otherwise expressly provided in the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, and in this Ordinance, the privileges, immunities and powers of the Assembly and of the Speaker, members and committees shall be the same as those for the time being held, enjoyed or exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom or the Speaker, members or committees thereof.' When a Member of the Select Committee moved discussion on the words "dishonourable conduct", if my recollection is correct, Mr Speaker, Sir, it was pointed out to him, as the Member for Anson has pointed out, that to define "dishonourable conduct" is a practically impossible task because honour varies from time to time and from place to place. But it was pointed out to the Member who moved discussion of the words "dishonourable conduct", that there was available, as a result of clause 3 of the Bill, a set of decisions which the House of Commons has adopted with regard to the phrase "dishonourable conduct". By virtue of clause 3 of this Bill, all those decisions in the House of Commons on what is or what is not "dishonourable conduct" would be available to this House for consideration as to what "dishonourable conduct" is in the circumstances in which that conduct was committed. So I would suggest to the Member for Choa Chu Kang that possibly his fears are misplaced. The other point which I would like to stress here is that this Bill, when it becomes law, is not going to be entrusted to the Minister to administer, but it will be entirely administered by the House itself and not by the Ministerial Benches.

Mr Byrne, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to point out to the Member for Choa Chu Kang that published with the record of the proceedings of the Select Committee is a paper which you prepared on breaches of privilege and contempts in the House of Commons as Paper B in Appendix IV. In this paper, Mr Speaker, Sir, you have referred to one case of dishonourable conduct which appears in May at page 116. The precedent that you cited as an instance of dishonourable conduct was a case of corrupt acceptance of payment for disclosure of a secret matter. Now, if the Member for Choa Chu Kang is interested in going further into this matter, I suggest that he look up May at that page and he can get all the information that he wants, all the precedents of cases of dishonourable conduct.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 6.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with this Bill. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill is an important piece if legislation in that for the first time in the annals of Singapore, legal provision is being made for the holding of a national referendum in this country. This method of ascertaining the popular will of the electorate introduces another aspect of the democratic process. As you are aware, Sir, this Bill stimulated considerable interest as evidenced by the number of amendments which had been proposed, so much so that the Second Reading of the Bill was referred in order to enable the Government to study them very carefully in all its implications. We have considered them in full and in detail, and later in my speech I will let the House know which of the Opposition amendments the Government accepts and which the Government rejects. The Government has also, after considering some of the amendments proposed, decided to put in some amendments of its own. I propose, therefore, to deal with this Bill by first explaining it as it stands at present, and then touching in general on the amendments proposed by the Opposition and those proposed by the Government. Sir, as it is drafted at present, the Bill can be conveniently explained in three parts, namely:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill before the House, the Second Reading of which has been postponed for reasons best known to the P.A.P., seeks to provide for the taking of a national referendum. I emphasise the word "national", Sir, because it is quite clear that in spite of what the Minister for Home Affairs has said, the Bill in its present form and even with amendments will seek only to provide for a referendum run on a party basis. It will not be truly national in character in that there is no provision for proper consultation of other political Parties or for the proper and appropriate ventilation of views of the people. There is also no provision for party consultation in the framing of the question to be submitted to the people. Then there is no provision for adequate time and opportunity in spite of what the Minister for Home Affairs has just mentioned for political Parties to put their views before the people concerning the question posed for the referendum. Therefore, we in the Barisan Sosialis feel that there must be certain minimum democratic safeguards that have to be included in the Bill. We are all too familiar with the -

P.K.I.

- secret deal of the P.A.P. over the question of merger. The people will have to be ever on their guard when they are confronted with these same tricky politicians conducting a referendum. An hon. Member: In the Barisan.

You made a deal with the British.

Sir, we are not the least against the principle underlying a referendum. But we want to draw the attention of the House as well as the attention of the people of Singapore to possible attempts by discredited politicians to make use of the referendum to achieve certain undesirable political aims. Our amendments are directed towards helping to prevent this happening. Complete with all the democratic safeguards, a referendum is calculated to ascertain in a truthful manner the collective will of the electorate over a clear-cut issue. It is the duty of the Opposition and indeed of the whole Assembly to see that this is actually so. The electorate is required in the coming referendum to decide on the constitutional future of Singapore, a vital issue the importance of which can never be overstressed. It is an issue on which many views have been expressed both inside and outside the Assembly and, as things stand, is an issue that can he made very confusing, depending on how the P.A.P. Government is going to pose the question to the people. One would have thought that since the P.A.P. has discarded the useful past practice of an All-Party conference, since the P.A.P.'s claim to overwhelming support has been invalidated both in terms of majority margin in the House and popular sentiments all over Singapore, and since the question of our constitutional future has to be decided by the people, the natural and logical thing to do is to hold a general election -

Why do you chaps not resign?

- in order to have a government more representative of the people and a government fully equipped with the mandate of the people to fight for our next constitutional advance. But not unexpectedly our call for an immediate general election has now been rejected by the P.A.P. for reasons best known to themselves.

You are the reason.

All sorts of rationalisations have been put forward to justify their rejection of a general election. I do not think the people will take them seriously. For example, both the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister twisted our preference for general elections to mean that we in the Barisan Sosialis fear that the people may not have the intelligence to know how to choose in a referendum -

That is what you have said.

- whereas the P.A.P. believes in the wisdom and intelligence of the people in the referendum. This is the P.A.P. line. Yet the Prime Minister, in one of his famous or notorious 12 talks, argues that a general election will confuse the people because of the multitude of Parties symbols, platforms and candidates, and because other issues brought out in an election will be confused with the merger issue. The Prime Minister -

Order. I wonder how the Member for Queenstown can relate what he is saying to the Bill. The Bill deals with the proposal to have a National Referendum Ordinance and the argument seems to be that the Member for Queenstown is not in favour of the Bill, if he alleges that a general election would be a better way of doing these things. I might remind the Member for Queenstown. and incidentally all other Members, that we are on the Second Reading of the Bill and under standing Order 67 (2), "a debate may arise covering the general merits and principle of the Bill." Therefore, I cannot see how the failure of the P.A.P. to call a general election has anything to do with this Referendum Bill.

I understand that. I merely wanted to point out the illogical argument all along put forward by the P.A.P. I have no intention whatsoever of dwelling on the subject of a general election or the argument for it. All I wanted to point out was that when they talk of the wisdom of the people they do not really mean what they say. When they say they believe in the wisdom of the people, they also say the people will be confused. Therefore they really mean otherwise. However, now that a referendum is preferred by the P.A.P. to decide on the constitutional future of Singapore, we in the Barisan Sosialis, and I believe all on this side of the House, are fully prepared for the eventuality of a referendum carried out on a democratic basis, on democratic lines. But first we want to know what - of course, it has to be explained - is the issue to be decided upon, and then we must also strive to ensure that all the minimum democratic essentials are not deliberately omitted. Sir, we have so far neither information nor consultation as to how and in what form the vital issue is to be decided upon in the coming referendum. How is the question to be posed? Is there to be one question only or are there going to be two or three questions? And how are the questions to be framed and worded? Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs talks of terms and conditions. What does he mean by terms and conditions? Why cannot he be straightforward and tell us all what this is all about?

Order. If the Minister for Home Affairs had enlarged on that phrase "terms and conditions", he would have been completely Out of order with reference to this Bill. We cannot go into details of that nature. The Bill does not specifically say that there will be a referendum in regard to merger. But in passing. Members can mention this Issue which will be perhaps the first issue under this Bill.

The Minister did say that it is for the constitutional future of Singapore, and we can assume that the referendum is about the so-called White Paper of the P.A.P. Sir, these are all vital questions and we are glad to note that amendments have been tabled by the Member for Anson on, this particular point, because we know only too well P.A.P. thinking on controversial issues. We know how the P.A.P. will try to do things only to the advantage of the P.A.P. and to nobody else. They have done too -

For the Barisan.

- many things arbitrarily in the last 2� years and have twisted and turned once too often. In fact, Sir, if it is a case of posing the questions as regards the constitutional future of Singapore, we would support the amendment of having only one question, as this would give the people an opportunity to give a categorical and clear-cut answer whether or not they want the P.A.P.'s White Paper merger proposals. That is assuming that we are talking of their merger. We are glad to note that the United People's Party also has come out with a statement that they are in favour of only one question to be posed to the people for their decision. Sir, I am told that in any social or economic survey, there exists a very close relationship between the questions put and the results that follow. The wording of the question can also have a very serious influence on the result that follows. Often improper questions asked -

The answer is no.

- and improper words used may lead to answers that may not correspond with the actual situation. I say, Sir, this is more so in the event of a referendum. Let us assume that the issue is whether the voter is for or against merger as our next constitutional advance - a simple one. There can be so many ways of posing the question. If a voter is asked whether he is for or against the P.A.P. type of merger as outlined in the White Paper, he may well say no -

On the other hand, he may not say yes.

- even though he is not against merger. So you can see the difficulty of the framing and the wording of the question. The P.A.P. think they have this trump card up their sleeves. But anyway we will have to watch and find out. But let me add, Sir, that if the posing of the question is going to be fair - since they talk so much about fairness - it must he clear, unequivocal and straightforward so that the electorate can have the chance to answer it in a straightforward and clear-cut manner. We in the Barisan Sosialis believe that in view of all this, the Government should table, in the first instance in the Assembly, their proposal regarding the issue, the question and its wording for examination, discussion and debate by Members. That is absolutely important. Then and then only will all Parties be satisfied that there is no juggling or underhand tricks on this vital issue of the specification of question or questions to be submitted to the people. Another important thing, as far as we are concerned, is that the provisions of the Bill will prevent corruption, rigging of votes and any unfair advantage that would make the result of a referendum meaningless, and a meaningless referendum - a phoney referendum - will give phoney legality to discredited politicians to further discredit parliamentary democracy in this part of the world. The Leader of the House laughs. We have heard a lot about parliamentary democracy from some of the P.A.P. leaders and I say this to them, "Practise what you preach."

Lim Ching Siong does not believe in that.

The hope of democracy does not lie in the preachings of men but in the practice of those who hold power, and unfortunately the P.A.P. have shown us how they have abused power.

Come off it!

We have seen how parliamentary democracy can be made into parliamentary dictatorship by P.A.P. leaders intoxicated with the taste of power.

Hear, hear!

If the P.A.P. are prepared to practise what they preach, then I say to them, amend the National Referendum Bill so that a truly fair referendum will be possible. When I talk about fairness, the Minister for Finance laughs and yawns. Obviously, he does not know the meaning of the word. Sir, if a referendum is really to reflect the views and wishes of the people, then it must be conducted in a manner that is above criticism and, what is more important, above suspicion -

Like Caesar's wife.

- to make the Referendum Bill such that those opposed to the question that is asked will have both the time and the facilities to explain to the people why they are opposed to the question that is asked, to make the provisions of the Bill such that there can never be any accusation that the Government seek to fix things in such a way that the whole business is a mere ritual. Let us make sure there is no mockery of democracy and of the people of Singapore. We want. Sir, to see parliamentary democracy work in Singapore. We want all the people in Singapore to see that parliamentary democracy can and does work in Singapore, and the P.A.P., as the government of the day, have a responsibility to see that parliamentary democracy can and does work in Singapore, not just for the benefit of only a section of the people but for the benefit of all sections of the people; otherwise even people who do not have the benefit of a Cambridge University education will see through the use - or shall I say abuse - of the democratic machinery for undemocratic practice. Sir, the record of the broken promises of the P.A.P. is still fresh in our minds. The way the P.A.P. have handled the whole question of merger, as revealed in the White Paper agreement between Singapore and the Federation, still leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their secret deal in this constitutional link-up does not encourage the man in the street to place any confidence in the Government. Sir, the amendments which seek to ensure that there can be no foul play, no chicanery can be divided into the following groups. There must be adequate time for a campaign both in support of and against the proposed question. The present clause in the Bill which makes it possible to hold the referendum seven days after the writ is issued is calculated to prevent the presentation of Opposition views. In fact, the period may be only five days, as under the provisions in the Bill the Government need only announce the question to be submitted to the voters not later than five days.

Order. I think all these details could be touched upon in Committee. I think the hon. Member has made his point, that is, the general point that adequate time should be given. I think that has been conceded by the Minister for Home Affairs. It is a question of debate in Committee as to what is adequate time.

I am only mentioning it in passing. The P.A.P. took seven weeks in Hong Lim and five weeks in Anson to canvass their point of view and even then they thought the time was too short.

You were also canvassing.

Therefore, according to our views, this period of seven days and five days is definitely far too short for a public discussion of a question that merits a referendum - a question that is going to decide the lives and future of all the people of Singapore. The proposed seven-day minimum period is grossly inadequate and can only be taken as an attempt to hold a snap referendum so that the P.A.P. can take full advantage of their control of the State machinery in presenting their case and preventing the Opposition from having either the time or the facilities for presenting the Opposition case to the people.

Order. I think the Member for Queenstown must have regard to what has been said by the Minister for Home Affairs. I think I am correct when I say that the Minister for Home Affairs has conceded the point that there should he adequate lime. Therefore, the amount of time that should be given would be a matter for debate in Committee. The Member for Queenstown should adjust his speech to meet what has, in fact, been said.

With due respect, Sir, I do not think the Minister for Home Affairs has conceded the point that the period should be very much lengthened. The Government have given the impression that they are willing to concede a slight extension of the time.

Order. That is exactly the point which I am trying to make. That is a debate which can properly be taken in Committee. All those points can be made. I hope the hon. Member does not think the Chairman is excluding him from saying these things. The Chair is only suggesting that those remarks could properly be passed in Committee.

I shall be satisfied, Sir, if you will allow me the opportunity to stress a point which to us is very important. In spite of what the Minister for Home Affairs has said, we feel that the case has not been presented in principle adequately unless we inform the House of the actual way we look at it.

Order. The Member for Queenstown is either trying not to understand me or deliberately not understanding me. I have not said that he will be debarred. He will have the opportunity of saying what he wishes to say in Committee. I am only trying to channel the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, which is on the general merits and principle of the Bill.

Skip the details, and you are all right.

Order.

Anyway, the clause as it stands in the Bill which limits the time period is a most undemocratic provision. Let me just finish off by telling the P.A.P. leaders this: do not help ill the creation of an undemocratic system. Sir, in clause 5, it is the Yang di-Pertuan Negara who considers when a referendum is to be carried out. In actual practice, the Yang di-Pertuan means the Minister. Now, a referendum as we all know, is a national matter affecting the lives and future of every voter as well as every non-voter in Singapore and, indeed, all Malaya. It is imperative, therefore, that all other Parties be consulted and given a say in the matter. Let the whole question be aired and debated in the Legislative Assembly first. The same thing applies in clause 7. Surely, it would be more democratic to let the Legislative Assembly be the final authority in this instance. Nowadays the P.A.P. Government have the habit of bringing into the Assembly all sorts of motions and resolutions on matters which should rightly belong to the authority of the Government. We have seen this happen during the merger debate three months back. Yet on matters of truly national importance. on a matter that may possibly occur only once in a lifetime, when a matter should rightly be debated in the Assembly, the P.A.P. Government want to arrogate all power and decisions to itself. Under those circumstances, where is the practice of parliamentary democracy? On the question of symbols, Sir, it should be borne in mind that the purpose is to prevent confusion, for if symbols are to be used, then all the symbols must be such as not to give the idea of unequal values to the voter. Symbols must be neutral. There are symbols which signify prosperity, and symbols which signify strife and hard-snip in the minds of certain people. Let this not be instrumental in influencing the voter in his real choice. Now, let me elaborate a little on the principles of canvassing. The Bill prohibits canvassing. A little while ago the Minister for Home Affairs gave me the impression that canvassing will still be permitted in many ways.

Only on polling day.

Only on polling day? Anyway, they have all this in the clause on canvassing. I think they are afraid that the truth will be told. I do not know; they may be afraid that their deception might be exposed. All the Parties, we feel, should be allowed to express their views on the questions submitted for the referendum. Truth fears no exposure. Anyway, it is in keeping with the spirit of democracy. The Government, with the monopoly of the radio and Rediffusion, and the help of what has now become a very friendly English Press, need not be afraid of canvassing. Whatever the Opposition Parties can do, I am sure the Government Party can also do. We have no monopoly on rallies. The P.A.P. can also hold their rallies and perhaps there are still a number of people who will go along to listen to them and chalk up more of their broken promises. We stress very much. Sir, that there must he freedom of speech and canvassing in connection with such an important national issue. The question of merger affects all the people of Singapore. And all the people of Singapore should be allowed to hear the views of all the Parties. Then and then only can it be said that the electors have been given a fair chance to decide for themselves. The Government say that this Bill has been based and modelled on the provisions of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. But we find that many important aspects of the Elections Ordinance have been omitted, deliberately or otherwise, in the present Referendum Bill. Therefore, if the assurance given by the Minister for Home Affairs that canvassing will be allowed excepting on polling day, then we say it is a good thing.

On a point of clarification. Mr Speaker, Sir. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Is it correct that the Minister for Home Affairs said - that is correct, there is no misunderstanding there, canvassing will be allowed except on polling day? Thank you, Sir.

But even then, Sir, I will need further clarification, because I am not sure whether canvassing will be allowed all the time until the day of poll. Will canvassing be allowed during the so-called period of referendum? What does it mean? That is enough, Sir.

On a point of information, Mr Speaker. Sir,I have said in my speech earlier that canvassing is allowed except on polling day, just as in the general elections.

Hear, hear!

I am very glad to have that assurance. Then I need not elaborate on certain points in order to impress on the P.A.P. leaders the importance of a campaign to present the views properly and in all perspective to the people. Another principle we wish to emphasise, Sir, is that all political Parties represented in the Assembly must he allowed to provide polling agents and counting agents. I am glad also that the Government has accepted our amendment, but I might point out that at the present moment the Bill only provides that the Superintendent may at his discretion allow. We feel that we cannot allow the Superintendent such discretionary powers in a referendum that concerns all Parties. We feel that there must be no discrimination and all Parties must be allowed to check and see that everything is carried out smoothly and satisfactorily. Again, Sir, in the spirit of the Elections Ordinance, we feel strict precautions should be taken to prevent possible malpractice in the voting in the referendum. I see also that the Minister has agreed to certain provisions, but I am in no position to know right now, Sir, what the full implications are. They have to be studied. I think precautions are necessary. Now that the Government have given the undertaking that a referendum petition will `be provided for, I will not touch on that particular point. But the Government's last minute amendments leave very much to be desired. We hope the P.A.P. Government will heed our criticism of the Bill. We understand the anxiety of the Prime Minister and his colleagues to rush things through. But more important for the good name of Singapore and for the success of parliamentary democracy in this part of the world, let there be no suspicion, not even a whisper of dishonesty or foul play. The amendments that have been moved in the Bill are only for the purpose of ensuring that when a referendum is held, it will be as clean and praiseworthy as the elections we have had in Singapore. The amendments are to ensure that Singapore's politicians when in power will not be allowed to imitate the election techniques of Ngo Dinh Diem and Syngman Rhee. Let it not be said that there is referendum rigging in Singapore. Let the referendum be so conducted that it can be seen to be truly fair, honest and completely above-board. Let there also be no cause for dissatisfaction or complaint. Once there is distrust in the proper running of any part of the State machinery, then the rot sets in. Despite what the Minister for Home Affairs has said, we hope the P.A.P. will still consider and accept our amendments, and the amendments of other Opposition Members, in the proper spirit of service in the cause of the people of Singapore. I might add, Sir, that the Government might even give us a categorical assurance that the referendum will be binding on the Government. I will not say more on this subject, Sir, as there is already a motion which will deal specifically with the subject. Lastly, let me say how unreasonable the Government have been in the manner in which they have notified Members of the Opposition about the Government's amendments. The Government may try to justify their action on the basis that the amendments have been sent in within the legally allowable time period. The National Referendum Bill is important, because on it will be based the law which will decide the future of all the people of Singapore. But their amendments to the Bill have been sent in at the last moment only just before the Bill comes up for Second Reading. Sir, the Government have long ago prepared the Referendum Bill. The explanation of the Minister for Home Affairs given a little while ago does not deceive anybody. The Second Reading was supposed to have taken place two months ago. Now `many months after the preparation of the Bill, amendments are sent in at the last minute. What is the real reason for this sudden pouncing on the Opposition with all these amendments? Is it a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to prevent sufficient time for proper study of the amendments by the Opposition? Or is it the intention of the Government to steamroller through this Bill with the amendments? Why is it that the Opposition Members have hardly 24 hours to study the Government amendments to a Government Bill that had its First Reading four months ago? Is this not, Sir, a travesty of the spirit of parliamentary democracy? Sir, there are some really terrible amendments proposed by the Government. They are some of the most undemocratic proposals that we have ever seen in the whole of Singapore. But we shall deal with them when we come to the Committee stage, Sir. All in all, this is a most unhealthy state of affairs. I he indecent manner in which the Government try to keep Opposition Members in the dark about important national matters until the very last minute is contrary to the normal practice of parliamentary democracy. I may say, Sir, that it is a perfect example of parliamentary dictatorship in Singapore.

P.A.P. democracy!

Mr Speaker. Sir,I rise to support the principle of the Bill. I have listened with glee to the not so lengthy speech of the Member for Queenstown when he tried to explain that a national referendum is not a national referendum. But I can understand, Sir, why he is so bitter against his ox-comrades in the P.A.P. I can also feel with him when he described the remnants of the P.A.P. as being people capable of doing twists and turns, and doing all sorts of things in a manner that has a basis of party politics. Sir, I am very glad to hear from the Minister in his speech just now that the prohibition of canvassing in clause 42 will be amended. He referred to the amendment sent in by the Government to apply only on polling day. Sir, I read these amendments yesterday, and since the Minister has made his speech, I have read it again. I would like to point out to him, Sir, that the amendment proposed by him does not carry out what he intends to do. The prohibition on canvassing is still a total prohibition, hut in so far as a man going into a house more than once is concerned, he can go in more than once so long as it is not polling day. But if it is polling day, then that is canvassing. I would ask the Minister to consult his colleague, the Minister for Health and Law, on whether the amendment put in by him bears out his statement of prohibiting canvassing only on polling day. Sir, reference has been made in the Bill, to referendum meetings. It first appears in clause 34 and it comes in again in clause 45. No interpretation has been given of referendum meetings to be held by political Parties. Moreover, clause 42 - prohibition on canvassing - even with the amendments proposed by the Minister for Home Affairs, will prohibit the holding of referendum meetings, because a referendum meeting, after all, is a sort of mass canvassing. There is another point, Sir,In regard to the appointing of polling agents and counting agents, this right is being confined to political Parties represented in the Legislative Assembly. Is it the intention of the Government that in the case of referendum meetings, after suitable amendments to clause 42, that the right to hold referendum meetings should also be confined to political Parties in the Legislative Assembly? If it is so, it should be made clear in the Bill. Sir, the Member for Queenstown is very fond of challenging the P.A.P. to a general election, but he has supported this Bill subject to the amendments which he has put in. Surely, Sir, with the National Referendum Bill, a general election could be avoided. I think one of the first things the P.A.P. could and should put forward to the electorate to decide is whether or not the P.A.P., when they came in with 43 Members, and now reduced to 26, still have the confidence of the electorate. Do the electorate want them to remain in cilice for the next two years? That is a simple thing. A referendum on that matter would, I am sure, disclose that to us. There is no need for a genera1 election. The referendum will disclose to us whether or not the P.A.P. is as good as it makes itself out to be. And if the P.A.P. is knocked out in a referendum of that kind, there is no need for a merger referendum. The answer is the same. If it is knocked out, then the answer is there. Go ahead with your merger proposals. I would ask the Member for Queenstown to get away from that particular hobby of his that every time there must be a general election. General elections would mean the Barisan Sosialis coming out too, and I do not think all the 13 Barisan Sosialis Members sitting behind me will be returned. I doubt it very much. Whether or not the P.A.P. after having bluffed the electorate in returning them with 43 Members, now reduced to a shambles of 26, should continue in office for the next two years would be a very good question to pose in a national referendum. Sir, there are many amendments proposed by Members of the Opposition and also by the Government. We will not therefore waste the time of the House on the Second Reading of this Bill other than to say that I will have a lot to say on the various clauses of the Bill when the Bill is in the Committee stage. With regard to symbols, there is one thing I would like to touch on. It is right that there should be symbols. But I would ask the Government to bear in mind that such symbols should not have a religious character or that such symbols should not bear any relationship to the symbols of political Parties. 7.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker. Sir, in most democratic countries vital issues such as the constitutional future of the State are decided in a referendum. In this country, the Government will sumbit such an issue to the people for a vote based on that practice. During the exchange of letters between political Parties of this Assembly and the Leader of the House, we demanded on the 18th of September, 1961, that the Government should submit its merger proposals to the people for a vote in a referendum. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have today this National Referendum Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, matters have gone very fast since then, and even though the Government might have second thoughts about the result of the referendum, it is very difficult for them to pull out from their position, and we believe they are fully committed to a referendum. What is important now is not whether a referendum will or will not be held, but the most vital issue now posed to the people is, what will be the question posed to them for a decision? Mr Speaker, Sir, it is no use our debating in this House whether time will be allowed for canvassing, or whether there will be electioneering facilities allowed to political Parties in this Assembly during the referendum, if the people are asked to choose in the referendum, for instance, between the devil and the deep blue sea; or between a tiger and, alternatively, to jump into a deep ravine; or either to choose eating, like during the Japanese occupation, ubi kayu or sago powder. Mr Speaker, Sir, we feel that provisions should be added to the Bill whereby the political Parties in, this Assembly should come to an agreement on the question to be posed before the people. If the people, for instance, in a referendum on merger are asked to choose whether they prefer the P.A.P. type of merger as contained in the White Paper, or whether they prefer the Malacca and Penang type of merger whereby all non-Singapore born citizens would be deprived of all citizenship, including Singapore citizenship, and thus becoming stateless; if the people in such a referendum are asked to choose between these two alternatives, then what is the use of our canvassing or asking time to canvass, because we would then canvass for the people to choose whether they like the devil or whether they like to jump into the deep blue sea? Therefore, Mr Speaker. Sir, it is our contention that the most pressing issue is to request the Government that an All-Party meeting be called to discuss the question to be posed to the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, all other technicalities of the electioneering campaign or the referendum campaign are of less importance. These can be discussed among the Parties after this vital issue of what is the question and what are the alternatives to be posed before the people has been settled.

Order. Do I take it that the hon. Member is advocating an amendment to clause 5, or is he speaking completely out of the ambit of the Bill?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just emphasising the fact that the Bill has no provisions which makes it compulsory for the Government to consult other political Parties represented in this Assembly, because in a referendum the most important thing is, what are the people being asked to' choose? That is the idea of a referendum. It is no use having a Referendum Bill if the Opposition Parties do not know or have no say in what are the questions the people will be asked to choose. The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of information.

If the Member will give way. Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Sir, the Government would be greatly obliged and indebted to the Member for Hong Lim if he could, with his wide knowledge of democratic practice in other countries of the world, give us a precedent from which to copy, where the Ordinance or the enactment provides for consultation with the Opposition Parties, in order that we could give it due consideration? Australia, for instance. Perhaps he may he able to help us in that respect?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful for the question posed by the Prime Minister. That is why it is all the more necessary that we should have an All-Party meeting so that we could give our views to the Prime Minister and to the Government.

Yes. We will have an All-Party meeting.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for instance in Australia, when the Government was going to pass a Communist Party Dissolution Bill several years ago, the views of the Opposition Parties were obtained. They were allowed to campaign. They were allowed to send their leaflets through the post. At the same time, Government leaflets were allowed to be sent through the post. These are things which we can bring to the notice of the Government at an All-Party meeting. The Prime Minister rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of information.

If the Member will give way. Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we accept all these valuable suggestions and proposals from the Member for Hong Lim. If he could point to that section of the Australian Referendum Ordinance or statute which provides for all these things, we are bound to give it all due consideration. We will accept all his valuable suggestions and we will have an All-Party meeting to consider all these valuable suggestions. It is most helpful.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if that is the case, I suggest that the Government commit this Referendum Bill to Select Committee, where we can discuss these things and we will give the information to the State Advocate-General for him to write to the Australian Government to supply all the requisite information. The Prime Minister rose -

Is it a point of order?

On a further point of information.

If the Member will give way. Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Regarding the example which the Member for Hong Lim has given about the dissolution of the Australian Communist Party, is he thinking of posing the question whether the Barisan Sosialis should be dissolved in a referendum? Perhaps he will get the help of all the, other Parties in this House. We will send out - Mr Marshall rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order. Is the Prime Minister permitted to abuse the privilege in the manner he is doing?

I think the Prime Minister rose on a point of elucidation. Perhaps he is asking a question which the Member for Hong Lim is quite capable of answering. I do not think he will ask the Member for Anson to answer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it shows that when the Prime Minister is confronted with facts, he dare not answer the questions straight away. Would he agree -

I agreed.

- that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee - Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of information.

If the Member will give way. Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Sir, I thought the Prime Minister was just asking for certain information from the Member for Hong Lim, that is, what section of the Australian Ordinance on referenda provides for All-Party consultations? The Prime Minister is not running away from facts. Nobody is running away from facts. We are asking for facts.

Therefore, it is our view that we commit this Bill to a Select Committee whereby we will get all the facts as to what happened in Australia during the referendum they had 12 years ago. It is no use for the Minister for Finance to ask me, what section of what Ordinance was passed in the Eskimo Parliament? Mr Speaker, Sir, if he is really keen on getting facts, have an All-Party meeting. We will get the State Advocate-General to write to the Australian Government. We will even send a team of people from the Elections Office and the Ministry of Home Affairs there to study and follow the practice of the Australian referendum held years ago. Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of elucidation.

If the Member will give way. Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Sir, various speakers, including the Member for Queenstown -

A point of elucidation must refer to -

Yes, to the Member for Hong Lim. All that appeal to noble democratic practices. All we want is for them to give some instances of these noble democratic practices in other countries. Surely it is a very fair question to ask of people, who evoke very high democratic principles, just where these principles are being observed in the most democratic of democratic countries?

Mr Speaker. Sir, I have already said just now that during the referendum in Australia the voters were posed this question: "Do you agree to the Communist Party Dissolution Bill?" Yes or no. Now, will the Prime Minister just answer this question straight away, or will the Minister for Home Affairs do so later in his reply? What would be the question posed?

Order. I think I must stop the hon. Member for Hong Lim. We are now debating the general merits and principle of the Bill. The Member is going into details. He wants, in effect, an amendment to clause 5. I have not seen any notice of amendment which he has sent in. Let us now carry on with the general merits and principle of the Bill and not as to how the Bill is to be implemented. If in Australia the Government did consider that the Opposition Parties should be consulted, that, I take it, was a matter of how the Bill should be implemented. But whether there is a condition in the Australian Ordinance or Australian Act that the matter must be referred to the Opposition Parties, I do not know.

Could I, on a point of elucidation?

Yes.

May I say this, Mr Speaker, Sir? When we postponed the Second Reading of the Bill from January to March on account of the many amendments that were proposed to be moved, we were accused of wanting to run away from the referendum. Now, it is suggested very seriously by the Member for Hong Lim that, in all fairness, the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee in order that all democratic practices could be incorporated in it. Sir, far be it from the Government to try to railroad through the Bill, or otherwise give the Opposition no chance - although it has already had two months to consider all the amendments it wishes to put in, including any useful provisions in the Australian statute - if it is the considered wish of the whole of the Opposition to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, we are quite prepared to let it be a free vote of the Opposition to let the Bill go to Select Committee, on condition that the Bill is reported back before the end of April, or by the end of April. That is the position of the Government. I do not want it ever to be suggested' that we are undemocratic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, the only other thing which I would like to raise is -

Sir, before I forget a matter. At the end of the Second Reading, let the Member for Hong Lim move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, but the Government's condition is that the Select Committee is to report back to the Assembly before the end of April.

Very fair, very fair.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we want this Bill to be discussed properly in the Select Committee. How could we in the Opposition make a decision whether the Bill will be ready before April or not? It is for the Select Committee to push through the Bill and try to hurry it up as quickly as possible. But we will move that the Pill be referred to a Select Committee.

Now the Barisan is in difficulties.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just refer to one of the important amendments to be moved by the Minister for Home Affairs, i.e., if people do not vote, they will be deemed to have voted with what is passed by the Assembly, which means, if it is on the issue of merger, the P.A.P. merger proposals as contained in Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Government will be able, in their reply, to quote in what particular section of other Referendum Ordinances in other parts of the world this, particular provision has appeared.

Hear, hear!

No other Member wishing to speak? Mr Ong Pang Boon then in reply. Mr David Marshall rose -

Does the Member for Anson wish to speak?

If it please you, Mr Speaker -

Because if I call the Minister, the Member for Anson will lose his opportunity. 7.42 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in medieval times there were alchemists who sought to transmute mud into gold and failed. The P.A.P. has the most unhappy propensity of successfully transmutting gold into mud. Sir, the concept of a referendum is pure gold. It is a concept of direct democracy, and direct democracy is of course, the ultimate just method of government. It is in large areas cumbersome in practice and impractical for the normal work of government, and, unfortunately, far too little used in the British Commonwealth. Nevertheless, it has been indicated by the previous speaker that it has an honourable history both in Switzerland and in Australia, and we have recently seen it working in France. The power of referendum to the people is a sign of political maturity. If the P.A.P. had it worked as one would have like it to work in this matter, it could have earned legitimate credit for a valuable measure. But, Sir, some people are only comfortable when living in mud and we have had this curious position that a valuable provision in an important Bill has been messed around, manoeuvred in the traditional P.A.P. style.

The Member has just said, "Very fair, very fair!"

Order.

We had this Bill for debate on I think it was the 15th of January. Opposition Members put in amendments by the 4th of January, giving the Government ten clear days at the time for the amendments to get from you, Sir, to the Minister and other Members. It is true there were a number of amendments. Mr Speaker, Sir, they had' ten whole days. With their State Advocate-General's Department and all the Ministers concerned, they could not .digest those amendments. If it was true that they could not, they could quite easily have submitted the matter to a Select Committee and between 15th January and today, 14th March, it is two whole months. The Prime Minister suggests that we should now commit the Bill to Select Committee -

The Member for Hong Lim.

- and he has very fairly agreed to the suggestion with a limitation the validity of which I can see, limiting the period of six weeks. We could have done that and completed the agony of the minute examination of this Bill during these two months. On the excuse that they wanted to consider the Opposition's amendments, ten days were not enough for them, Sir. Now we have seven pages of amendments filed two days ago by the Government containing amendments to seven clauses, and 12 new clauses which they expect us on this side of the House to digest and cope with in two days.

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

Sir, many of those amendments are really amendments to the amendments proposed by the Opposition. Instead of giving two clear days notice, we could very well have given no notice at all, and in Committee stage move the amendments to the Opposition's amendments. In fairness, we gave notice as if they were new amendments. I think the Member for Anson must be quite fair in acknowledging that we have the right, if we wanted to spring any surprise, to move the amendments to his amendments in Committee without notice.

The Prime Minister is misinformed, Mr Speaker. Sir,If he will look at his list, he will find that none of them are those which could have been moved as amendments to our amendments He is completely misinformed.

All your petitions?

Now, Sir, he refers to my petitions but I take it he means the provisions for referendum petitions that I seek to incorporate. He could not have moved those by way of amendments to my amendments, although, in fairness to the Minister - or whoever did the work for him - I wholeheartedly agree that the provisions, except in one aspect with which I shall deal in Committee, spell out what 1 seek more extensively than I have done myself. But they cannot be said to be amendments to my amendments in any shape at all. They have taken the ideas and incorporated them and insofar as they go, I have no complaints, Sir, except that I should have liked a little more time to deal with them. But the interesting point is this. The Government find ten days too little to examine our amendments, but throw seven pages at us with 12 new clauses and seven new amendments and expect us to deal with them in two days. That is the unhappy approach of the P.A.P. to this matter. Sir, I have indicated that the principle of the Bill is one that I welcome. In the amendments that we from this side of the House have tabled, we have sought to clean up extremely suspicious provisions. We have also sought to introduce provisions where there is a complete lacuna. I am happy to note that the particular lacuna of referendum petitions has, in fact, been recognised by the Government, even though it took them two whole months plus ten days' previous notice in order to put in not merely last-minute amendments if it please you. Mr Speaker, Sir, but more than twelfth-hour amendments, because these amendments were, in fact, not tabled in time for discussion today. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workers' Party would have liked to see introduced in this Bill provision whereby a percentage of the electors could petition His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to hold a referendum at any time - and I am not being personal here - as to whether any government in office should remain in office, as an additional check to the arrogance of absolute power of which the Prime Minister has so much experience. However, we in the Workers' Party -

On a point of order, Sir. Am I to understand that on the Second Reading of this Bill, the Member for Anson is introducing a further amendment of which he has not given notice?

Any Member of this Assembly can comment during the Second Reading on any omission in the Bill, and this is an omission. He is entitled to comment on it.

He is not moving an amendment, I hope?

Once upon a time, the Prime Minister was referred to as a young man in a hurry. Shall we say now he is just a man in a hurry? If he had waited, Mr Speaker, I was going to mention that we in the Workers' Party are practical people and conscious that this referendum is primarily intended - or so we hope - to give an opportunity to our people to vote on the issue of the proposed closer relations with the Federation. In these circumstances, it is not our intention to introduce what might be controversial features which would delay the passing of the Bill and which would bring acrimony to what we had hoped would otherwise be an easy passage. There are undesirable' features of this Bill which can and should be dealt with by this Assembly. The principal one is that everything seems to be what the Government will. The Bill seeks to give the Party in power the right to call for a referendum when it wishes and in such form as it wishes, raising a confusing number of questions if it wishes, appointing officers in control of the counting of votes, which I am now glad to hear will be subject to some check.

To every check.

Now at last, not originally. Mr Speaker. Sir, there are amendments which this Government have brought to cur notice and with which I say to you quite frankly I have not. been able to cope adequately under the pressure of other work. But I was very interested to note that the Minister for Home Affairs was as bashful as a blushing stork hiding its head in the sands in ignoring the rather horrible provisions incorporated in this notice of amendment: `Any person whose ballot paper is unmarked or is uncertain shall be deemed to be a person who accepts or is willing to accept the decision of the Legislative Assembly on the matter referred [to in the Assembly].'. Mr Speaker, Sir, I take it that ballot papers unmarked can belong to those who are dead and I am not surprised that the P.A.P. seek to canvass the cemeteries since they can expect few living human beings who will support them. But I should have thought -

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

Is the Member suggesting that there are provisions to ensure that blank ballot papers belonging to those who are dead are put into ballot boxes to be counted?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the words are "Any person whose ballot paper is unmarked".

Is just put into the ballot box.

Not necessarily, Mr Speaker, Sir - "Any person whose ballot paper is unmarked or is uncertain". I think whoever drafted that may not have been aware of the conscious desire of the P.A.P. to canvass the cemeteries but, in fact, made such provision. I would, however, point out that even if they do not canvass the cemeteries, they must be indeed bankrupt to have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to this extent, that whatever is ambiguous shall be the Government's vote.

Not in the Assembly.

In the Assembly, Sir, they have this majority of one which they have used to steamroller us and it is this majority of one which gives them the right to speak of the vote for the Assembly but, in fact, it is the P.A.P. seeking these ambiguous votes, pleading for these ambiguous votes to be made votes for the Government.

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

The Member for Anson never made this accusation, Sir, because he probably never harboured these thoughts; but the Member for Queenstown over a radio forum said that Singapore was so poor in democracy that the people were not equipped for advanced democratic processes like a referendum, so that in order to take care of those who might fall into his category of people who are unable to live up to the matured democratic processes we bring in the aid of the Assembly for them.

I am indebted to the Prime Minister. I thought he sought elucidation from me, but let us forgive him. I am very interested to see now actually put into words by the Prime Minister what I understand to be the P.A.P. philosophy. The maxim and the foundation stone of the P.A.P. approach to the people is that the voter of Singapore is a blind chicken. Now if the Barisan Sosialis, who retain certain remnants of the P.A.P. contact, have also got the same idea that the voters of Singapore are blind chickens, I am sure they will soon disabuse themselves. But it is very interesting to note the parentage of this idea, that the P.A.P. is seeking to look after these blind chickens by claiming them as its own. Anybody who cannot make up his mind, the P.A.P. has got him. I hope that only those with empty minds will ever support the P.A.P. Sir, you will notice a matter which I know was stressed to some extent by the Member for Hong Lim but which I fear did not sufficiently receive the appreciation which it merited, and that is that the provisions of this Bill permit the Government a confusing number of questions without any check by any organisation at all. Sir, far be it from me to suggest that the P.A.P. would wish to be dishonest towards these blind chickens. They know that blind chickens can be driven forward before them, as they have driven the poor misguided voters before them in the last elections. But I do say, Sir, that there should be at least a debate in this Assembly in respect of the question that is going to be put to the people and that there should not be an unfettered discretion in, the Government whereby the people can be confused and the people can be misled by the form of the question - 8.00 p.m.

Order. Moment of interruption.

Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly do no adjourn. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, equal pay for equal work is the heart-throb of every trade unionist, and wherever workers get organised this call is taken up and repeated from time to time. In Singapore the demand for equal pay for equal work by women teachers and women in other professions in the Government service dates back many, many years. And political Parties join in the fight. The S.P.A. too stands for parity for women. This is a very important issue and the Government's acceptance of the principle of equal pay for equal work is one which we welcome and support.

Hear, hear!

We accuse the Government, however, of insincerity, of playing party politics and of using this apparent acceptance as a vote-catching device. We accuse the Government of insincerity. If it were sincere, why should it delay full implementation until 1965? And why should new women recruits be engaged at the starting point of the scales for women? Why 1965, when the natural life of the Government will come to an end by May 1964? Why 1965, when equal pay for equal work was one of its election pledges? We accuse the Government of playing party politics. And we base our accusation on the fact that the Minister for Finance made known the Government's acceptance of this principle through pre-arranged correspondence with the Women Affairs Bureau of the P.A.P.

Hear, hear!

Whereas equal pay for equal work is a long-standing demand of Government trade unions. I would not like to say, Sir, that, because the Singapore Teachers' Union is not under the control of the P.A.P. that was why this Union was conveniently brushed aside in this manner. I cannot help but recall that in the partial restoration of the pay cuts, the Minister for Finance made full use of the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees through their Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. Unfortunately for the P.A.P., this political stunt resulted in the disgrace and exposure of the A.U.P.E., because what the A.U.P.E., through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, was prepared to accept was thrown out by the gathering momentum of resentment of the large number of civil servants who belong to other trade unions which look upon the A.U.P.E. as the biggest yellow union. Why is the Women Affairs Bureau of the P.A.P, used in this particular instance? Is it because the scheme is so insincere and that the P.A.P.'s Women Affairs Bureau can be relied upon to keep mum? As a Member of this Assembly, I insist that the proper place to make such an important pronouncement is in this Chamber, and the political stunt indulged in by the Minister for Finance in this regard is to be thoroughly condemned. We accuse the Government of using this apparent acceptance of the principle of equal pay for equal work as a vote-catching device. The people know that the P.A.P. as a Government and as a political Party is dead.

Hear, hear!

And they are waiting impatiently to do the burial service when general elections take place.

For the S.P.A., is it not?

Although the natural life of the Government extends to May 1964, the P.A.P. cannot hope to last that long and they know that general elections will be sooner than they like. Therefore, the P.A.P. are desperate and must make full use of -

The Barisan.

- the opportunity while they are still in office to cash in on vote-catching devices. Women voters form half the electorate of Singapore, and so parity for women will provide the draw they hope.

The Member for Mountbatten had better watch out!

Three years of P.A.P. misrule have caused great hardship to the people of Singapore, and it is the women who suffer the most. It is the mothers and wives of the unemployed and the under-employed who suffer more than the men themselves.

You are doing better than you were doing before, you know.

Do the P.A.P. hope in this way to make out that they are the staunch champions of women's rights? Can, they explain, if they are staunch champions of women's rights, why they have refused to allow 8th March to be celebrated as Women's Day? Such celebrations [Laughter] - the Minister for Finance may laugh - were allowed to be held even during the reprehensible colonial days -

And the Lim Yew Hock Government days.

- and during the time of the previous Government.

You embarrassing yourself, you know.

Sir, I have raised this matter on the Adjournment in order to make it clear to the Minister that the place to make any important pronouncement is here, and that he should refrain from indulging in playing political stunts in, matters of this character.

I will not take very much time, Sir. The P.A.P. has degenerated so much that even its new-found allies have to attack it. This proposal of equal pay for equal work, as everybody knows, is a very insincere vote-catching device of the P.A.P. They know that all the women in Singapore as well as women all over the world have been campaigning for equal pay for equal work. And just when Women's Day was about to come along, they took the opportunity to send special letters to the Women's Bureau of the P.A.P. and announced to the whole of Singapore that now they intend to treat women equally. As has already been divulged by the Member for Cairnhill -

Are you a staunch supporter?

- this is a belated effort of the P.A.P. because it was originally a P.A.P. election promise.

We have kept our promise.

The whole idea at the present moment is to buy votes. That it was really a sudden impulse and not a thought-out effort on the part of the P.A.P. to give equal treatment to the women can be seen from the fact that the Minister for Finance does not even know how much money is involved in their effort to please the women in the civil service.

What makes you think I do not know?

If it were really known, it would have been mentioned in the debate on the Budget. But no such thing was mentioned. Even today the Minister for Finance does not know how much money is involved. This completely shows what a sudden impulse it is. We agreed this is a very good effort, although belated, because this is another step forward towards the emancipation of women. But the only unfortunate part is, as has already been pointed out by the Member for Cairnhill, if they are really sincere about the whole thing, then how is it that they do not recognise 8th March as Women's Day? I remember in the heydays when the P.A.P. was popular, the present Minister for Home Affairs himself led a delegation to see the then Chief Minister about Women's Day. At that time the P.A.P. wanted the 8th of March to be proclaimed as Women's Day as well as a public holiday. But unfortunately they have now changed their minds. So how can they really be sincere about their intention to help the women in our society? At the present moment, one must remember that there is this merger proposal of the P.A.P. and the forthcoming referendum. So the P.A.P., knowing that their days are numbered and hoping to push through their merger proposals all the same, want to make sure that they gain as much support as they can. But let us remind the P.A.P. leaders: while they say they are trying to help one section of the people, they are also trying to mask the fact that they are in fact selling out the rights of all the people of Singapore. And in their helping the women in the civil service at the present moment, they are only helping a small section of the women of Singapore. The really deserving cases, the poor who really need all the help from the P.A.P., have yet to get any support and help from the P.A.P. And we with that they will see -

You are even reading his script now, is it not?

- about this matter. Yes, this is written by the Prime Minister of Singapore, Sir.

Dr Lee Siew Choh.

There is another matter that I would like to bring to the attention of this House. At the present moment, the P.A.P., knowing that they will have hardly any hopes in any future general elections, are now trying to do all the best things they can. They want to do all the things that they can do, all the things that appeal to the people, and ignore all the really important and difficult tasks. For example, they want to build houses. Every time they open a school, it is advertised in all the papers. They want everybody to know about it. When they build a standpipe, it again is in the papers. And again they want everybody to know about it. All these are simple things which can be seen and can appeal to the people. They want to make sure that they have some results to show to the people when the time comes. But the really difficult tasks like industrialisation, the education policy, and the unemployment problem - what are they doing about them? They do not seem to know what to do.

So?

So they ignore the important tasks which will help to improve the lot of the people and instead do things which they know are insincere, and are not meant to help the people. Mrs Seow Peck Leng rose -

Only three minutes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as one who has been fighting for equal pay, I am very glad to hear that the Government is implementing the principle of equal pay for equal work for women at last. But I am disappointed that the years of struggle, the years of appeal by myself, the struggle by professional women associations and the Teachers' Union have all been ignored. All of a sudden, from nowhere, out of the blue, the Chairman of the Women's Section of the P.A.P. said in a memorandum - and there you are, it was granted. Everybody can judge what it is. There is no need for me to describe it. But what I want to draw the attention of the Minister to is this. The fact that the Government have accepted this means that they have the money. I would like to remind the Minister of the injustice that is still being perpetrated by the Government concerning the pay cuts. If they find that they have the money, they should correct this injustice. When the restoration of the pay cuts was made, it was said that it was a result of the closer relationship with the Federation. May I inquire whether this equal pay is also a result of closer relationship with the Federation?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a story in Aesop's Fables about a fox. The fox tried to eat some grapes, but after jumping for them several times, it did not succeed in getting at the grapes and eating them. So the fox went away saying that the grapes were sour. Right across this Table, Mr Speaker, Sir, we see, so to speak, a bunch of foxes. An hon. Member: A vixen!

A vixen. It is quite inappropriate for one former Chief Minister to say the grapes are sour. Why did he not do it - this vote-catching? And another former Chief Minister saying, "Hear, hear!" They had their chance when they were in control of the Government, Mr Speaker, Sir. All these women professional associations, this, that and the other appealed for years. They listened to their voice which went unheeded in, the desert air -

On a point of explanation.

Order. The Minister has very little time in which to reply. Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

He has given away.

During the time of the two ex-Chief Ministers, finance was in the hands of a colonial master and he was the man who said "yes" or "no", and not the Chief Minister.

Poor chaps. You were stooges.

Order.

Sir, this is a ghastly admission that the Government could not tell the Financial Secretary what to do. I mean this is just a feeble excuse and a pretext. The two foxes in this instance never even attempted the jump. Sir, let us not be so stupid as to say that this is a vote catching stunt. There is no general election round the corner.

On a point of order. If the Minister cannot speak without abuse, I suggest he does not speak at all. I take objection to the word "fox". I take objection to the word "stupid".

I think probably the Member for Anson is a bit too late in taking objection to the word "fox". It was used five minutes ago. But as regards the word "stupid", I think that is a very laudable parliamentary word in certain circumstances and has been used, I think, very often by Members of the Opposition Benches.

I am rather surprised that the Member for Anson should raise an objection. I mean, Sir, you must allow me to say that he has a very rich vocabulary -

Order. In fact, the Chair has more or less indicated that that is so. The Member for Anson has a very rich vocabulary. But I do not think the Minister for Finance should debate that.

So, Sir, we will dismiss all these allegations of vote-catching with the contempt that they deserve. Then they say, why announce this thing in a letter to the P.A.P. Women's League? Why not write, for instance, to the Singapore Teachers' Union, the professional women's association and so forth? The reason is quite simple. On the 3rd November, the Women's Affairs Bureau of the Party sent a memorandum to me and, indeed, sent a delegation to see me about this matter. From November to March we had to do some pretty rapid calculation of what would be the consequences of implementing the proposals that they set out in their memorandum. I do not think we have been too dilatory about this. The simple fact of the matter is that from November to March the researches that my Ministry conducted showed that it is financially possible immediately to implement this policy of equal pay for equal work. The Member for Queenstown was foolish enough to say that we had made no such calculations. In fact, we did. If it might interest him, the cost of this exercise for the next three years, after which the female salary scales would be abolished - it has been worked out in close detail - amounts to this. This year we will spend an additional $395,000. Next year we will spend an additional $92,000, and the year after $404,000. After that, further additional increments the full effect of which will span the whole salary scales in the occupations affected. So it is quite untrue to say that this decision came about by way of a sudden impulse. We clearly stated in our election campaign that the Party, if elected to power, would carry out the policy of equal pay for equal work. Indeed, if I may be permitted to quote the actual text of the speech made by Madam Chan Choy Siong on 8th March, 1959, when she spoke on behalf of the Party at a pre-election rally at Bukit Panjang: `There is no place in a socialist society for exploitation of women. The PAP, believes in the principle of equal pay for equal work. This may not be possible immediately. It must he achieved step by step without dislocating our economy.'. And the present policy that we are now implementing is just the fulfilment of a pledge that we made before the electorate in March 1959. As I have said, although we announced this policy of equal pay for equal work in reply to a memorandum received from the P.A.P. Women's League, we do not intend to disregard the efforts and campaigns of other women's organisations. They made their representations in the past. Unfortunately, these appeals fell on stony ground and bore no fruit. But I am sure the Member for Mountbatten, for instance, could hardly expect us to announce this new policy to such associations as have never made representations to us on this point at all. Now, one surprising thing about this issue is that, strange to behold, the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party and the U.P.P. have joined together. An hon. Member: Not necessarily the Barisan!

As I have said, this is just a question of sour grapes. The foxes cannot get the grapes and so they say the grapes are sour. May I suggest to the foxes that the next thing they should do is to cut off their tails?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the gentleman who has just referred to all of us as foxes is unfortunately too churlish to recognise the contribution of the Member for Mountbatten in persuading him to come to his fox-like decision. Let us recognise in this House that it is the Member for Mountbatten who is no member of my Party, nor any ally of mine, who has persistently and consistently pressed for this matter, who has been asking questions since I remember being in this Assembly, questions which were evaded in a most pathetic fashion by the Minister's Ministry and his Parliamentary Secretary. It is a matter of shame for the Minister, if he is capable of shame, that he should be incapable of recognising the contribution of the Member for Mountbatten to his coming to his decision in this matter. He should also recognise that it was in answer to persistent questions here that he suddenly found it valuable to direct his mind to some petition that came from a women's organisation of the P.A.P. - bless their little hearts! And he cannot recognise that it is to this House, and this House principally, - Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of information.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, he has had plenty of time. I have very little. He has used his time in order to abuse us, to call us foxes and stupid. Where it is a question of measuring stupidity, measuring malice, measuring a lack of respect for one's political opponents, I know where the weight would be. But I say here and now that I am more than a little ashamed that the Minister for Finance of this country cannot at least give a little credit to a political opponent who did a magnificent job in egging him and prodding him on, and that because she is not a member of his Party - 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.