Hansard, 1963-04-05

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly:- Mr Yong Nyuk Lin (Geylang West), Minister for Education - from 7th to 15th April, 1963.

31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That a Ministerial Statement be taken before Questions. The reason is that Members of the House are aware that there are a number of questions on the Order Paper today which seek to enquire into the constitutional arrangements between Singapore and the Federation. It is therefore appropriate and cogent that the Prime Minister makes a report to this House on the progress of the talks which have been made so far.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That a Ministerial Statement be taken before Questions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to report to the House on the progress that has been made in working out the form of words for the constitutional provisions for Singapore in the Federation of Malaysia in accordance with the provisions contained in White Paper Cmd, 33 of 1961 and as amplified or amended in formal exchanges of letters between the Federation Prime Minister and myself. I am making this Statement before answering the several questions that have been tabled in order that when I come to answer these questions, Members can see the issues against a wider perspective. Although the White Paper and the formal exchanges of letters were all finalised in November 1961, the working party of officials did not start meeting until 5th December last year. This was because the Federation officials were occupied with the Sabah and Sarawak negotiations and they wanted to complete the main framework of the Borneo side before tackling the details of the Singapore side. Our team of officials, which consisted of the State Advocate-General, the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs (Mr Stewart), the Permanent Secretary, Finance Division (Mr Howe Yoon Chong), the Acting Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of National Development (Mr Sim Kee Boon) and the Cabinet Secretary (Mr Wong Chooi Sen), met the Federation team on 22 occasions from 5th December, 1962, to 14th February this year. They reached agreement and submitted joint recommendations on most of the provisions to be incorporated in the new Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia and of the State of Singapore. However, on a number of points which included banking, insurance, shipping, navigation, broadcasting, television, constitutional guarantees and finance, the Federation and the Singapore teams of officials were unable to reach agreement. These matters were therefore referred to the Ministers. Plenary meetings of Ministers and officials took place on three occasions - 28th February and 1st March in Kuala Lumpur, 21st and 22nd March in Kuala Lumpur and 2nd April in Singapore. I am happy to report that except for finance nearly all the points left unresolved by the official teams have now been agreed. There remain only a few points to be tidied up by the draftsmen. One of them is the question of Singapore retaining day-to-day control of programmes and administration of broadcasting and television whilst following overall Federal policy. A special constitutional agreement may have to be drawn up to spell out the rights and obligations of the State Government of Singapore vis-a-vis the Federal Government. Another point is the spelling out of State autonomy with the consequential provision that Malaysian citizens who are also Singapore citizens cannot have double enjoyment of both State autonomy in matters like education and labour and at the same time have full enjoyment of education and labour rights in the other States. Last but by no means least remain the financial arrangements. First, I would like to report to the House in brief and broad outline the points that have been agreed. At our first plenary meeting of Ministers on 28th February and 1st March, the important questions of acquisition and deprivation of citizenship were discussed. All Singapore citizens will become citizens of Malaysia by operation of law. The Federal Government shall have the power over acquisition of Singapore citizenship by naturalization after Malaysia. All such acquisitions shall be with the agreement of the Singapore Government. There shall be a provision in the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution to the effect that the Singapore Government must be informed of all acquisitions of citizenship by naturalization approved by the Federal Government. The Singapore Government will, however, retain power over the acquisition of citizenship by registration. As these citizens will automatically become Malaysian citizens, it shall be the responsibility of the Singapore Government to inform the Federal Government of all acquisitions by registration. Deprivations of citizenship are on national considerations, and hence the Federal Government shall have power of deprivation on all grounds. The Singapore Government should have the right to deprive on grounds of fraud on the State or under Article 25 (1) (c) on a conviction. There will also be a provision in section 10 of the Second Schedule of the Federal Constitution to the effect that both the Federal and Singapore Governments should keep each other informed of deprivations of Singapore citizenship on all grounds. The Federal Constitution should contain the following provision:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, the first question I would like to ask is to seek clarification of the remark that "Singapore citizens are not to have double enjoyment of education and labour conditions in other States." Does it by any means infer that Singapore citizens resident in other territories would be unable to find educational facilities for their children in schools of those States? Is there any suggestion that Singapore citizens would be unable to find employment in other States? It is a somewhat ambiguous phrase and I would appreciate a clarification.

Certainly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful for that question. The position is as follows. In the same way as we will extend to Malaysian citizens who are not Singapore citizens educational and other facilities as of grace, not as of right, so the Federal Government will extend educational and employment facilities to Singapore citizens as of grace, and not as of right. It really depends, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the ultimate development of industries and educational facilities in the two territories after Malaysia. If the present position is maintained, then I say that we will be in a position to continue to extend as of grace the yearly credit balance that we acquire of about 7,000 to 10,000 persons per annum in the transfer of people on the identity cards. But if, as a result of a massive inflow from the Federation, it may not be possible for us to pay for not only education but lots of other items like housing and other social benefits: then, of course, the Federation Government would also consider itself not obliged to extend these facilities to our citizens as of grace and they will perhaps be charged for their school fees there, as we may well charge Federal citizens for their school fees here.

Mr Speaker, it is very important. What about the question of workers-no question of grace-apart from Government employment? Will the citizens of Singapore be able as heretofore to go into the Federation freely? Will they be able to obtain private employment without limitation and vice versa in so far as the Federation is concerned?

That is so. Mr Speaker, Sir. There is no intention whatsoever to prohibit the flow of labour one way or the other. But the proviso is included because we want to make provision for a situation in which we may well have to refuse to shoulder responsibilities which may he more than what our State finances can hear should the flow turn into a flood.

Mr Speaker. Sir, on the question of Malay rights, I think the Prime Minister said just now that with the coming of Malaysia, Singapore Malays would enjoy not only the privileges of being Malays as embodied in the Constitution of Singapore but also other rights in the Federation of Malaysia. At the same time, he also said that insofar as proportion of posts in the Public Services of Federal Departments are concerned, this privilege would not be applicable to the Singapore Malays. Am I right? Now what other privileges would Singapore Malays get by being citizens of the Federation of Malaysia?

I can do no better than go back to the form of words that I have, I think, taken some care to spell out. It means that in Singapore, Malays will continue to enjoy their special rights as at present, with particular reference to free education from primary school to university and if they choose to go to the other States, will enjoy special rights as for Malays there. In this way, we have been able to maintain the principle of free competition in Singapore for employment in the Public Service and for businesses like taxi licences, bus licences, trade licences and so on. I do not think it is fair on a delicate subject like this to ask me to ad lib.

In other words, Sir, Singapore Malays would have to migrate to the Federation of Malaya in order to enjoy those privileges. As long as they remain in Singapore, they would not enjoy any privileges accorded to Malays in the Federation. Am I correct?

I do not think I can altogether agree with that proposition. In fact, I have gone to great lengths to explain that we are affording the Malays in Singapore privileges which, if we were to follow the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya, would be unconstitutional, namely, giving them special privileges in education.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like clarification of the phrase "that transitional provisions will be made for the first 15 representatives of Singapore to the first Malaysian Parliament". Am I to understand that those 15 representatives will he nominated by this Government?

Sir, I do realise that from time to time the Member for Anson gives the worst construction possible. But I can assure him that there is no such diabolical scheme. He is as much in the running for one of the 15 seats as anybody else in this Chamber or outside this Chamber. Mr David Marshall rose -

On the same point?

The same point. Do I understand that, in fact, those transitional provisions will provide for elections?

Mr Speaker, Sir, obviously it must be so. But I am not in a position to say elections in what manner, in what form, nor when. I am sure some Members on the other side are extremely anxious to know when, because the date and the timing of these matters have certain consequential results on those persons who are likely to appear in the Federal Parliament. And I am sorry that much as I would like to allay the anxiety of hon. Members of this Assembly, I cannot really add anything more to what I have said.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I wish to seek clarification from the Prime Minister about the constitutional talks. What is the present position on the problem of the common market? In the new constitution, who will decide, for instance, the tariff policy applicable to Singapore, income tax, customs, the question of pioneer certificates, and the over-all question of economic and fiscal policies of Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to go into the details of what are extremely intricate and delicate negotiations. As I have already indicated, strong views are held on both sides on the subject. All I need refer the hon. Member to is the presence of the Rueff Commission, the World Bank Mission here to advise the respective Governments on the conditions for a common market. I need hardly say that the financial arrangements, our contributions and the balance of apportionment between the State and the centre all hear very closely on these common market matters. I would like to state, as a matter of principle, that we would like to carry our fair share of Federal responsibilities. Further, if common market conditions are such as to make it possible for us to industrialise and increase our prosperity, then it is our intention that that prosperity should be shared with the Central Government. The Finance Ministry has worked out a formula called "The Census of Production and Employment Increases." [Interruption] No. The Finance Minister drafted it. In some quarters he has been thought of as being academic: but in other quarters he is believed to have propounded an extremely workable and very valuable incentive for the Central Government to ensure that Singapore industrialises. Because, by this formula, as more industries are created in Singapore and more workers get jobs, so our contributions to the Federal Government will increase. As less workers get jobs and less factories open, so our contributions will decrease. Therefore. I think the Member for Hong Lim, as an accountant, will understand that these are related matters, and at the appropriate time no doubt we will he able to disclose to him the formula by which we ensure that it is worth everybody's while to make sure that Singapore survives and prospers.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, according to the explanation of the Prime Minister, I am of the opinion that one of the major issues in the constitution concerns language. I pose this question: why has it not been explained in the Assembly that it is the policy of the P.A.P. Government to follow the footsteps of the Federation Government to make the national language an official language by 1967 at the latest? The special position of the Malays is only extended to free education, but they still have to pay for textbooks and sports fees.

Order. I must remind hon. Members that this is Question Time. If the hon. Member carries on in that strain, that will develop into a debate. I take it that all these agreed provisions will ultimately be written into the draft constitution. There will be room for debate then.

As I have indicated, Sir, I am quite prepared to debate now or later, whichever is more convenient to Members of this Assembly.

The hon. Member has asked a question. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to answer that.

Might I answer in English, in case my Malay is inadequate for the rather tactful reply which it requires? May I say that, on principle, we are all committed to Malay as the national and official language but whether we should go one step further and name a specific year by which all Members of this Assembly and many people outside are deemed to have a knowledge of the national language is another matter altogether. In spite of the great inducements that have been made to Members of this Assembly - free tuition: a teacher going to their houses, and their being paid transport allowance in order that they can improve their knowledge and capacity to express themselves in the language - not very many have persisted in these endeavours. I feel it would be straining realities if we were to name 1967 as the date by which we are all supposed to be sufficiently knowledgeable in Malay to conduct the business of government in Malay, let alone the business of this Assembly.

Regarding the revision of the constitution after merger, and especially about the division of the constituencies, will that be done by the Singapore Government or by the Federation Government?

Sir, I can do no better than read from my text. The words have been drafted with some care, and all it says here is: `Conduct of Elections Article 113-Federal Elections Article 113 should apply to Singapore in respect of Federal elections subject to necessary transitional arrangements for the first election of the fifteen representatives of Singapore to the First Parliament of Malaysia. The period of review set out in Article 113 (2) shall continue to obtain after merger.' In other words, but for the first transitory provisions the constituencies will be delineated by the Federal Elections Commission. For the first election, as I have told Members just now, they must contain themselves. I know this is a matter which excites a great deal of interest, and in some quarters even anxiety, and I am sure everybody will be fully acquainted of the matter in due course and can decide which is the best way in which they can make their way to the Central Parliament in Kuala Lumpur.

I will pass on to Questions. 3.21 p.m.

asked the Prime Minister when it is anticipated that the Draft Constitution for Malaysia will be published.

Sir, although the constitutional provisions have been agreed upon in the White Paper and in the exchanges of letters between the Tunku and myself, there has been some difficulty over the financial arrangements as I have explained just now, in particular, the cost which will represent Singapore's fair share of Federal services in Singapore as Singapore's contributions for Pan-Malaysian services like Defence, Foreign Affairs, and a few other items. We hope that this vital question of finance can be resolved soon in time for us to table all the constitutional amendments for adoption by May in order that the treaty can be signed in June.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, I am misunderstood. The phrase there is "Draft Constitution for Malaysia", not merely that section of the Constitution for Malaysia referring to Singapore. I would inquire when it is anticipated that the Draft Constitution for Malaysia will be published, and whether the Government will give an opportunity for debate here.

Sir, I am sorry the Member for Anson again has misconstrued me. He has given me the worst possible interpretation. There are only certain sections of the Federal Constitution which will require amendment, either because of Singapore or because of the Borneo territories. And there will he, therefore, the Federal Constitution - a copy of which I have here and which I hope Members of this House interested in the matter will familiarise themselves with. Then there will be the amendments which will be inlaid into this Constitution. That, together with the Singapore State Constitution, will provide the whole picture of Singapore in Malaysia. There is no intention to fob the Member for Anson off with just a few constitutional amendments.

Sir, perhaps it was an oversight that the Prime Minister has omitted to indicate whether the Government will give this Assembly an opportunity to debate the whole Draft Constitution, including the Constitution of Singapore in the context of the Constitutions for the Borneo territories.

Sir, I have to check the exuberance of the Member for Anson here. I remember on one famous occasion he ---

Order. This is not the time for debate. I ask the Prime Minister just to give a reply.

Indeed my reply, Sir,I have already on one famous occasion over the radio reminded the Member for Anson that it is not my duty to explain what proportion of Brunei's responsibilities go to the centre and what proportions remain in Brunei. I am concerned with Singapore, in the context of the whole of the Malaysian Constitution and Singapore. I am not obliged, nor is it my responsibility, to explain the constitutional arrangements which have been agreed to by the Council Negri of Sarawak or by the Legislative Council of North Borneo or by the Sultan and his advisers in Brunei. That is not my problem. I am not charged with these responsibilities and I see no reason why I should move their State amendments in this Assembly or allow it as a subject for debate, in which ease I shall have to defend or condemn it. But I will certainly allows the fullest debate on the whole of the Malaysian Constitution and on the Singapore State Constitution but not the Constitutions concerning Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in the context of the terms for incorporation of the Borneo territories in Malaysia, the Singapore Government has made or will consider making representations for any alteration in the conditions for the incorporation of Singapore contained in Paper Command 33 of 1961.

Sir, the Singapore Government consider it unwise and against the interests of the people of Singapore in any way to depart from the published terms and conditions for merger contained in the White Paper and amplified or amended by the formal exchanges of letters between the Prime Minister of the Federation and myself. These terms had been publicly debated and voted upon by the people. Any departure from these terms will make it necessary to have the whole matter redebated and re-endorsed. Members will know that there have been some strong feelings and some strong statements about these financial arrangements between Singapore and the Federal Government after Malaysia. Whilst it may be preferable for the Federal Government to have Singapore on par with the Borneo territories in respect of finance, we do not consider it either practical or advantageous to us to depart from our agreed terms in which we shall collect all the taxes, including Federal taxes in Singapore, and the present machinery will be retained for that purpose. We shall then make a contribution for Federal services in Singapore and for our fair share of Pan-Malaysian services like Defence and Foreign Affairs. There are at present some delicate discussions on the formula for the payment of such Federal services. For the benefit of the Member for Anson, who I trust is one of the more interested Members of this Assembly on constitutional matters, I would like to draw his attention to the relevant parts of the White Paper in paragraph 17 and the exchange of letters. There he will see that paragraph 17 of the White Paper says: `In view of the larger measure of local autonomy and the consequent large expenditure on Singapore services and development' --- and development, Mr Speaker, Sir: `--- the financial relations between the Federal Government and the States set out in the Federal Constitution will not he applicable in their entirety to Singapore..The present machinery for the collection of taxes in Singapore will be retained. The proceeds of the national taxes will be used to pay the cost of Government and Public Services in Singapore and the Contribution to the Federal Government for Federal services. The details of the apportionment' --- that is, apportionment between contributions and what we keep: `--- will be worked out by the Joint Working Party.' In the exchange of letters we stated: `Finally, we have agreed that Singapore would keep more than three-quarters of her revenue for the discharge of her responsibilities on education and labour, social welfare, health and all the other matters set out as state or concurrent responsibilities in the schedule annexed to our memorandum, and be entitled to 15 seats in the Central Parliament of the new Federation.' Sir, I do not know whether the Member for Anson, when drafting this question, was alluding to the 40 seats which have been awarded to Borneo and Sarawak -

Inter alia.

Perhaps he was. We welcome this generous brotherly approach to unity in Malaysia. However, we think it to be inappropriate for Singapore to have arrangements in which for several years to come the 40 Members of Parliament from Sarawak and Sabah will be elected not on a universal franchise but on a collegiate system suitable to Borneo and her long-houses. We have none here. It would, in fact, mean that 30 out of the 40 of these members from the Borneo territories would be in part nominated as chiefs or otherwise leaders of their communities, various long-houses and rivers and so on, tribal territorial chiefs and so on and so forth. I am quite sure the Member for Anson, who has travelled in these then foreign lands, is conversant with the tribal customs and mores of the people there and he will appreciate that the Federation Prime Minister did the right thing in taking such a generous attitude. However, I must assure him that I think the people of Singapore would not take kindly to any suggestion that the various clans should foregather and elect various representative; or that we should have Hokkiens, Teochews, the Huay Kuans, the Jewish synagogue elected members and so on. I think, having been accustomed to the one man one vote from the base upwards, it is better that we stay that way. And in any case, I have the feeling that if we multiply ourselves by three from 15 to 45, we may end up by having even less say in the centre if this system were applied to Singapore.

Mr Speaker, I have no doubt the Prime Minister finds himself amusing in misconstruing the question I sought to ask. May I repeat it a little more clearly? It is this: we have from time to time received news, seeping through the newspapers, of conditions applying to merger both of Borneo and Sarawak and conditions extremely favourable to those territories in respect of the powers that they have, inter alia indicating that they will have 40 representatives in the Central Parliament, thereby having a very strong voice in the Central Parliament quite apart from the representation that Brunei would have, of which we do not have details yet, which would add to about three to four times per capita representation that Singapore would have in the Central Parliament irrespective of the manner in which they are elected, reducing Singapore and its people to insignificance in the Federal Parliament. In that context, does his Government consider that - not looking at Singapore in isolation hut looking at it in the context of the whole of Malaysia - it would be appropriate to ask for justice - for fair play for Singapore from the Federal Government?

That is exactly what we are doing, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are insisting - not only asking - on fair play. I think the city of Singapore that has thrived for over 100 years under solemnity of the contract will appreciate the point that a contract having been made has to be honoured. In this case, for the reasons I have enumerated, we feel - regardless of what the Member for Anson feels - that the people of Singapore are with us in this, that it is more important we control our finances and retain more than three-quarters of our revenue and pay our contribution to the centre and have 15 seats as agreed than to reopen any of those items, running the risk thereby of reopening the financial arrangements which have already been agreed. Mr Speaker, Sir, everybody knows that if you sell rubber short and the price goes up, then you lose money; and vice versa. Singapore understands this. If you go to Change Alley and buy an imitation Parker 61 for $5 and the day after that the market is flooded with more imitation Parker 61s and the price goes down to $1, you cannot go hack to the shop and ask for your money back. Similarly in this case, we have come to this agreement in which we feel we bought a genuine Parker 61 for a sum of money and we are keeping more than three-quarters of our revenue, and I mean keep. I do not mean that this Assembly will remain a truncated appendix of some Central Parliament. We shall have the power of dispensation. The Member for Anson will, after 31st of August, have the power to have his say on the expenditure of a vast sum of money every year - more than $500 million. Of that, an estimated $70 million may go to the centre for Federal services, police, posts, telecommunications and so on. It may be more: it may be less. We will have to work it out. If he wants the Borneo terms in which these powers are delegated for the time being -d elegated, which is a different thing from ours as of right - then it is a different proposition. Then I would say the whole of these merger arrangements are scrapped; we start afresh; we redebate afresh; the Barisan runs around afresh -

Order. I think the Prime Minister and all Ministers should realise that this is not the time for debate. The Prime Minister, by those statements, is now inviting a debate and a debate is not permitted during Question Time. Any other supplementary questions? No? Mr David Marshall.

asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to hold a by-election for the Electoral Division of Sembawang.

Sir, as soon as the electoral registers which were recently put out for inspection have been settled and all claims for inclusion or deletions from the registers resolved - the Statistics Department estimates that this may take about two months - the by-election will he held soon thereafter.

It is nine months after vacancy.

Yes. Maybe thereafter.

asked the Prime Minister (a) how many visits he has made round the constituencies, giving the details of the constituencies and the cost of each such visit; (b) what is the total cost of such visits to Government funds and against what votes is the cost charged.

Sir, -

Order. I have been watching with interest that the Prime Minister takes sips from a glass which contains something which looks something like beer. I hope it is not beer.

No, Mr Speaker, Sir,I would like to do the highest courtesy and honours to my friends on the other side of the House and I think it will be too much if - it is all right if the questioner is non compos mentis, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I think the answer should be it is Chinese tea, and it is conducive to good speaking and good thinking.

You need it.

Indeed I do, Mr Speaker, Sir,I am kept on my feet for such long periods. I try my best to oblige everyone.

On the golf field.

Order. I think the Member for Anson is now inciting a debate on beer or tea. I do not know which. Let us get on with the business. Mr Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, besides playing golf over the week-ends, I made visits to nine constituencies up to date and they are: Jurong, Saturday, 24th November last year. Thomson, Saturday. 15th December last year. Kampong Kembangan, Saturday, 12th January this year. Jalan Kayu, Saturday, 19th January this year. Paya Lebar, Sunday, 3rd February this year. Sir, I will give the Member for Cairnhill a full list. He need not bother taking down these little notes. Bukit Panjang, Sunday, 3rd March this year. Nee Soon, Sunday, 10th March. Sembawang, Sunday, 24th March. Tampines, Sunday, 31st March. I am not clear, Mr Speaker, Sir, as to what the Member for Cairnhill means when he talks of the cost of each of such visits. In my estimation, it must have cost a lot of time and money to the people in the constituencies who subscribed for the arches, the banners, silk scrolls, the tea, the food and refreshments, and the souvenir gifts which are all properly surrendered to the Treasury for valuations such as a gold-plated shield valued by the Treasury at $60, the wood carving of a ship valued at $25 and so on. I will give a complete inventory of such items if required. I am unable to give the exact sums spent on each visit as it would not be good manners to ask the various reception committees how much money they actually spent for the friendly welcome they accorded me, nor is it possible to include the cost of the crackers which were fired by housewives and shopkeepers along the routes of my visits -

I did not hear them.

Thank you. I am sorry to have disturbed the Member for Anson from time to time on his peaceful Sunday morning. My visits, Sir, which will continue till all the rural constituencies have been covered will eventually cost the Government over $30 million which have been earmarked for development of rural roads, stand-pipes, electric supplies, street lamps, drains, irrigation canals and another estimated $20 million for clinics, veterinary service stations and community centres. Sir, these monies will be charged against the respective votes for rural development, health and veterinary services. Sir, in case - I do not know - the Member for Cairnhill intended to know the cost of each such visit, the travelling expenses of the Government on each occasion, I had asked for a careful check to be made of my last visit, because by then this question had come in. The visit was to Tampines. It came to $23.35 being the cost of petrol for the land rovers, the station wagons and other vehicles of the official party. Mind you, Sir, it is not possible to estimate the cost of wear and tear of the tyres and the paint work and so on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister is trying to evade the issue by giving an answer that is not asked for. Surely it cost the Government some money to make preparations for the Prime Minister to be there. Surely it cost the Government some money in sending members of the Work Brigade who were paid out of Government funds to he there to cheer the Prime Minister. All I want to know is how much did it cost the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have told the Member for Cairnhill. When I got his question before my last visit. I made the point of asking my Secretary to note our travelling expenses and it came to $23.

35. I have told him that I cannot check up on tyres and paint work and so on. He asks about the Work Brigade. The Work Brigade did not get paid on that day. I went there on Sunday. I think they were paid - I do not know - paid no more, no less.

They were off duty.

They were off duty on Sunday. So the question does not arise on the Work Brigade.

The Prime Minister did therefore admit that members of the Work Brigade attend his visits.

I think the Member for Cairnhill was misinformed. I have got the itinerary somewhere and I think the Member for Tampines was with me on Sunday. In the case of Tampines we did not even visit the Work Brigade Camp. We had so many places to go to and did not finish till about nine o'clock. So the Work Brigade did not come in at all. I will bear that in mind for my next visit, Mr Speaker, Sir. But then it will be to the Southern Islands and there again there is no Work Brigade. But when my next rural visit ---

Mr Speaker, it must be the tea that is having this effect on the Prime Minister. He said that all the expenses were borne by the public. Is the Prime Minister aware that before his visits, his agents go round the constituencies telling them, "You know, our great Prime Minister is coming. You must do something about it." With that kind of suggestive intimidation, what could they do? Yes, $30 and ---

Order. I think the Member for Cairnhill is now embarking on a debate. If he is dissatisfied with the reply. I think what he can do is to say that he will raise the matter on the adjournment at the first appropriate moment. I will not permit any further questions on that.

May I reply, Sir?

Order. Question No. 5.

asked the Prime Minister what disciplinary action has been taken arising from the Prime Minister's Conference at the Singapore Airport on 3rd February, 1963, and who was the Government officer involved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, an investigation was conducted and two officers from the Ministry of Culture responsible for the incorrect presentation of the facts arising out of the Prime Minister's Press conference on 3rd February have been reprimanded.

asked the Prime Minister how many receptions for the public have been held in Sri Tamasek since 2nd February, 1963; what is the total cost of these receptions, and against what vote is this cost charged.

Sir, according to my social diary, I have given two receptions at Sri Tamasek since the 2nd of February, 1963. One on the 16th February to the farmers who gave warm support for the Veterinary Services Extension Station at 9� m.s. Tampines Road, and the other on the 19th March in honour of the recipients of State honours. I do not consider it in good taste to the many people who accepted my hospitality to state publicly the cost per head expended.

State hospitality.

Indeed, Sir, I hope from time to time the Member for Anson would grace the occasion. These people have graciously accepted my hospitality in spite of the sparse and the frugal fare, and no point is served by publicly underlining this fact. If the hon. Member is sincerely interested in factual information, he can get the exact cost of these receptions and I shall supply him with the number of persons invited and present so that he can work it out per head from the representative of his Party on the Public Accounts Committee of the House. Payments are all made out of the Entertainment Expenses vote.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is it not a f-act that members of the public who were most helpful to the Prime Minister during his visits throughout the constituencies were invited to Sri Tamasek after his visits?

Order. That is only volunteering information. What is the supplementary question?

The point is this. The Prime Minister says there were only two receptions, but as far as we know there were more.

The question is - were there more?

The question as framed says: how many receptions have been held in Sri Tamasek since 2nd February? And my social diary shows two. He can check up with the sentries. If he wants, I will get a check properly made. I myself do not keep a note-book of these matters, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not make money out of receptions, nor do I spend money on them. Unlike some other satay parties where I know one political Party spent $15,000 just eating satay ---

Order. Surely that does not arise from the question itself. Question No. 7.

asked the Prime Minister if he will indicate when will the residents of 7� milestone to 11 milestone Punggol Road get their electricity supply.

Sir, the land referred to is a low-lying area which is flooded after heavy rain by a run out from 96 odd acres of land on the opposite side of Upper Serangoon Road between the 6� and 7 m.s. The run out converges into a culvert at the 6� m.s. Upper Serangoon Road from where it flows under the road into an earth drain which passes through Lot 97-2 --- Mr David Marshall rose ---

Is it a point of order?

If it please you. Mr Speaker, Sir, you asked for Question No. 7. I think we are getting the answer to Question No. 8.

I beg your pardon. Yes. It is all this ---

It must have been the tea!

Yes. Very potent tea, Mr Speaker, Sir. Punggol Road, in answer to Question No. 7, Sir, is 4 miles long, and parts of it are mangrove swamps and very sparsely populated. The Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee have a provisional scheme in hand to supply electricity to the more densely populated areas, houses in the vicinity of Jalan Buang Kok, and Punggol Road 9 milestone. A final decision on these points will be taken after the residents have made their views and preferences known when I visit their constituency.

(In Mandarin): Does the Prime Minister know that at the 11 milestone Yio Chu Kang Road the population compares less favourably with the population at the 9 milestone Punggol Road? In this area, there is a Malay school and other facilities. So the facilities do not compare less favourably with those at Yio Chu Kang 11 milestone.

Order. I do not think I quite get the last part of it. I suppose the question is: has the Prime Minister taken consideration of all those facts?

Sir, I must admit I have not as yet paid a formal visit to this constituency. It is part of Singapore. But I do receive reports from my officials, and, as I have said in my reply, I shall make a personal investigation into this matter before the plans are finalised. No doubt when I make my visit, the residents will make their views known to me much more cogently and forcefully that the Member for Punggol can do.

(In Mandarin): According to the Prime Minister's statement, does it mean that the Prime Minister must go there first before such facilities can be granted?

Not at all. Often the case is so obvious. The work proceeds and is completed without its ever being raised in this House. The pity of it all is that we get no thanks from the Members of the Opposition for installing lights, water, electricity, sanitation, drains, culverts and bridges in their constituencies. However, no doubt the residents of the various areas know of the work that has been going on, and credit will be given to the proper quarters, in due course. But when it is a borderline case, then, of course, one has to consider the preferences, and as I say, there is nothing like hearing from people who live iii the area themselves - the recipients of these various benefits - as to which particular project they wish to have proceeded with first.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the land at Lot 972 S.G. 32557 at 6� milestone Upper Serangoon Road is constantly flooded due to the present channelling of the main-road drains, and what action does he propose to take in the matter.

The land referred to is a low-lying area which is flooded after a heavy rain by a run-out from 96 odd acres of land on the opposite side of Upper Serangoon Road between the 6� and the 7 milestones. The run out converges into a culvert at the 6� milestone Upper Serangoon Road from where it flows under the road into an earth drain which passes through Lot 97-2 and empties into the swampland around Sungei Serangoon further east. Sungei Serangoon is further affected by tides and this aggravates flooding at high tide, The area affected is very extensive. No easy solution can be found until the area between the Tampines Road Canal and the sea to the mouth of Sungei Serangoon is surveyed by engineers to decide a proper alignment for a new canal to drain water away from the Tampines Road Canal to the sea. A survey was commenced in January and will be completed in about six months' time. Meanwhile, the shallow earth drain crossing this portion of the land which silts rapidly is being cleared and will continue to be cleared whenever necessary to alleviate the position. I hope to visit Punggol in the next few weeks and will see what more can be clone about this.

(In Mandarin): According to what the Prime Minister has said, does it mean that this drain can only be looked into after his visit to this place? Before his visit, if there is any flood, is the Government going to pay for the damage?

The Member for Choa Chu Kang did not listen to the last part of my answer. We are alleviating the position by clearing the shallow earth drain crossing the portion of the land which silts rapidly. This alleviates the situation, and if there is anything more that can be done, I will do so. Nothing is being left to flooding.

asked the Prime Minister what are the conditions and requirements for the allocation of house numbers.

Sir, a house number is allocated by the Deputy Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Property Tax Department) on production of an approved plan and certificate of fitness issued for the building concerned by the Chief Building Surveyor. In the case of a temporary structure, a house number is allocated on production of a temporary building permit issued by the Chief Building Surveyor. It is not necessary to await the Prime Minister's visit to get a house number.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, I understand that the position appears to be that if two houses are built at the same time, then they will be given the numbers, but that if there is one house between the two it will not receive any number. There is a rumour to the effect that this is a very unwise policy of the P.A.P. Government.

I am astounded, Mr Speaker, Sir, that Members on the other side, particularly the great revolutionary anti-colonialist heroes, have now been reduced to becoming purveyors of falsehoods and rumours outside.

Copying your Party.

Sir, if I take notice of the Member for Anson, perhaps we might enliven the proceedings in this Assembly. But I can assure him that, but for the fact that scrupulous care is maintained to see that everybody knows the real position from time to time, including gaols and the thickness of walls and windows and so on, there would not be the air of calm and confidence that there is in Singapore as to the reality of things. The Member for Moulmein has mentioned what he considers the curious fact of two houses getting a number each and a house in the middle not getting a number. As I have said, the conditions for getting a number, if it is private land, are the production of a plan with the owner's consent, an approved plan and a certificate of fitness issued for the building concerned by the Chief Building Surveyor. If two people on two different plots of land can produce certificates of fitness and approved plans, there is no reason why numbers should not be granted. Where in logic does it follow that if you have two "lawful" houses with numbers and you build an "unlawful" one in between, you should get a number? That is something which I do not understand. The Member for Moulmein, instead of just repeating and becoming a relaying post for malicious falsehoods could go around and explain - if he is sincere in his anxiety for this gentleman without the house number - that it has got nothing to do with coffee money to the relevant department. He himself ought to know that things have changed in the last three and a half years and everybody knows that no coffee money is required for house numbers. But what are required are a plan and a certificate of fitness. Produce them and you will get a house number. I assure the Member for Moulmein that my Department will give him every assistance in pointing out how to get such a plan approved and how to get a certificate of fitness from the Chief Building Surveyor. We shall render him any other assistance, either in language or surveying, or in any other of the things required to get house numbers.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister to state if the East Wharf Development project, begun in 1959 and due for completion according to the Development Plan by mid-1962, has now been completed, and whether he is satisfied that the facilities provided are adequate.

Mr Speaker, the East Wharf Development project consisting of four new berths has been completed and the berths have been in operation since 25th April. 1962. The facilities provided by these berths are on the most modern scale including four transit godowns, each of 100 feet clear span and each giving 45,000 square feet of covered floor area. There are large open storage and parking areas, road and rail facilities and oil and water bunkering together with other ancillary services provided at each berth.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that ships about to unload cargoes in Singapore still have to wait because of a lack of berthing space in that area?

The question being?

Is he aware ---

I have already intimated to Members that that is just volunteering, information, it must be followed up by a question. I suppose the obvious question is: does the Deputy Prime Minister intend doing anything about it?

In view of the reported lack of berthing space, will the Deputy Prime Minister do anything about increasing the facilities there?

The supplementary question asked by the Member for Tanglin is, of course, unrelated to the answer I have just given concerning the East Wharf Development project. However, he has volunteered the information that there are some ships which have to wait to be berthed. I have had no information that there is a long queue of ships outside the Singapore Harbour Board. Nevertheless, I would like to inform him that we have development plans to build another extra four new berths in the East Lagoon.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he will make a statement as to the present position of the proposed Common Market with the Federation, and whether the possibility considered of expanding the concept of the common market to all Malaysian territories and neighbouring nations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked to reply. The World Bank Mission is at present engaged in a study of it and will submit its recommendations to the respective Governments soon. The terms of reference of this Mission cover all Malaysian territories but do not include any other nation.

asked the Minister for Finance when will he present his Annual Estimates for the year 1963.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked to reply. As soon as the financial arrangements with the Federation Government have been settled, and in any case not later than June this year.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he is aware that the Federation Government has raised the rate of interest payable to contributors under the Federation Employees Provident Fund scheme from 2� per cent to 4 per cent, and whether he will consider introducing legislation to effect a similar increase in the rate of interest under the Singapore Central, Provident Fund scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as soon as the Government came to know of the Federation's move to raise the rate of interest payable to contributors of the Federation Employees Provident Fund from 2� per cent to 4 per cent, immediate steps were taken to direct the Central Provident Fund Board to look into the possibility of raising the interest rates in respect of Singapore. The Central Provident Fund Board has considered the matter and has recommended that the Board is in a position to pay a rate of interest of more than 2� per cent, but the Central Provident Fund Ordinance has to be amended so that this could be put into effect. At the same time, the Central Provident Fund Board was also considering other proposed amendments to the Ordinance and it was decided that the Ordinance should not be amended piecemeal but should take into consideration all other amendments to the Ordinance at one time. The proposed amending Bill to the Central Provident Fund Ordinance has already been drafted and it will be introduced early in this Session.

Mr Speaker, will the amending Ordinance make provision retrospectively for payment of the increased interest?

No.

Would the Minister consider, in fairness to the contributors and in view of the fact of the ability of the Board to make those payments and those payments being made by the Federation, that that provision should he made retrospective?

Order. That, of course, invites a debate, and I think the hon. Member for Anson will have the opportunity when the amending Bill comes before the House.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he is aware that house owners in the Federation who occupy their own houses are not required to pay income tax on the annual value of such houses; and whether he is prepared to give the same concession to owner-occupied houses in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Government already announced on 3rd April, 1963, that it will provide the same concession on the same basis, except that the limit of the net value of a house eligible for exemption should not exceed $3,000.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance please explain why the answer to this question was first given outside this Assembly over Radio Singapore and in the Press rather than at this sitting, thus making it appear that he was jumping the gun to beat the Assembly?

Before the Member filed his question, the Government had decided to announce this, but because of administrative formalities, it took some time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your ruling? When a question is asked in this House, and two days before the Assembly sits a member of the Government gave over Radio Singapore the answer. Could you please give that ruling?

I really do not know what ruling is asked for. But I am here as the guardian of the Standing Orders and order in this Assembly. The fact that the Minister or any other Member of the Assembly chooses to make a statement outside this Assembly before making a statement in this Assembly is, of course, his own desire. But it is something which Members ought to think very carefully about, because Members who take that course could be accused in this Assembly of being discourteous to this Assembly.

asked the Minister for Health and Law whether and when will a maternity home and children's clinic be built in Tampines Road.

The State Development Plans do not provide for the construction of maternity homes. After the Prime Minister's recent tour of Tam-pines and as a result of a request ma-dc by the people in the area, the Government now plans to build a small maternal and child welfare centre at the 9� m.s. Tampines Road in 1964.

Can the Minister indicate whether that will be in the first half or the second half of 1964?

After the elections.

That will have to depend on the gods, Mr Speaker, Sir!

asked the Minister for Health and Law when will the free mass X-ray campaign service operate in the Pasir Panjang Constituency.

At present we have only one survey unit, and attention has been concentrated on the urban areas and on the eastern and the north-eastern sectors of the rural areas where there is a higher population density. Pasir Panjang area will be reached after these areas have been surveyed.

asked the Minister for Culture whether "TV and Broadcasting", a periodical printed in Chinese, is a Government publication; whether Radio Singapore charges advertising fees for announcing its publication and inviting the insertion of advertisements in it; and whether the Chief Editor is a member of the staff of the Ministry of Culture and is paid any extra remuneration.

Sir, the "TV and Broadcasting" is a Government publication.

Question 17 raises several points. I do not know whether the Minister would like to answer them.

Yes. It is a Government publication, and therefore the question of whether Radio Singapore charges advertising fees is quite obvious. Being a Government publication, we do not charge ourselves advertising fees. The Chief Editor, being a member of the staff of the Ministry of Culture engaged in Police and Government publications, therefore receives no extra remuneration.

(In Mandarin): What is the cost of each issue?

Has the Minister got the information?

We do not know the cost. But as far as we could gather, it is worked in such a way that it costs the Government next to nothing.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will indicate when persons arrested on 2nd February, 1963 under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance were first allowed access to their lawyers in Singapore, and whether he has information in regard to similar access in the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Speaker, Sir, lawyers were allowed access to detainees immediately after the Statement of Grounds for the detention were served on them. To the best of my knowledge, a similar position obtains in the Federation. In any case after 31st August, 1963, all these matters will be under the charge of the Ministry of Interior, and all regulations and orders will be the same throughout Malaysia.

Quite apart from passing the buck after merger, if we can take the responsibility for our duties now, is the Minister not aware that in fact the-detainees were not given access to their counsel for more than a month, and would he explain why? And is he not aware of the fact that in the Federation they were given access immediately on request?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as Singapore is concerned, I have already answered just now that lawyers were allowed access to detainees immediately after the Statement of Grounds for the detention were served on them. And if he looks up the P.P.S.O., that works out to about a month.

Would the Minister indicate whether, in fact, the period of more than a month before allowing the detainees access to their lawyers was a radical departure from previous traditions when detainees were allowed immediate access to their lawyers? And whether it is not true that in the Federation they are given immediate access to their lawyers without waiting for grounds.

I am not aware.

Know nothing? Say nothing?

Order. I have allowed the Member for Anson to interject, but interjections of that nature during Question Time should not be made.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will consider ascertaining the conditions of detention in the Federation of Malaya of persons detained by the Singapore Government and transferred to the custody of the Federation of Malaya Government, and whether he will make a statement as to the treatment of detainees in the Federation and in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my answer will be given when we come to Question No. 22*. *Question 22 reads as follows: Mr David Marshall: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs, whether he will make a statement as to the policy, and the reasons therefor, governing the conditions of detention in Singapore of persons detained since 1st February, 1963.

Order. If the answer to Question 19 is included in the answer to Question 22, the Minister for Home Affairs can make his statement now, and inform the House that he is answering Questions 19 and 22 at the same time, if he chooses to do that now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall answer Questions 19 and 22 together. The Government will certainly consider ascertaining the conditions of detention in the Federation of Malaya of persons detained by the Singapore Government and transferred to the custody of the Federation of Malaya Government. The conditions of detention in Singapore are no different from those for detainees in previous years. The Member for Anson cannot be unaware that one of his clients gave unsolicited testimony to the kindness of his gaolers. In the circumstances, there is no cause for making a statement as requested by the Member for Anson.

Sir, what is this? I have no clients amongst the detainees.

Order. If the Member for Anson is rising on a point of order or on a point of elucidation, he can do so.

If I might, Mr Speaker, Sir.

On elucidation?

Yes, Sir. Who is this client he is referring to? I have no client amongst the detainees in Singapore; and the Minister knows it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although he might not have any client in Singapore, that does not mean that he has no client in the Federation or that he has had no client in previous arrests.

Order. I have asked Ministers, when they answer questions, to stick to them very strictly and answer them with pure statements of fact, and not bring in extraneous matters which might excite a debate, interjections, and so on. I ask Ministers to bear that in mind when answering the questions now on the Order Paper and all future Questions.

May I ask a supplementary question arising ---

Order. That has been answered, perhaps unsatisfactorily. The Member for Anson can pursue his question in some other way.

If it please you. Would the Minister indicate whether, in fact, at any previous time - whether under the Imperial Government or any previous Government any detainee has been in solitary confinement without access to newspapers and writing materials and without access to lavatories for more than 50 days?

Order. That topic, I think, is going to be touched upon under item 12 on the Order Paper - the motion standing in the names of the Members for Queenstown and Havelock. All those details will be touched upon then. I do not think they ought to be touched upon now during Question Time.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order. He did say that the conditions are the same as under the previous Government in answer to my Question 22. I am asking whether, in fact, he has any information that those conditions prevailed under previous Governments?

Those are details, as I say, which must be substantiated somehow and they do not arise during Question Time. Those details will come out when we debate item 12 on the Order Paper. All those details can be alleged, denied or admitted, just as the Minister deems fit. During Question Time, those details will excite a debate, and we can-riot have debates during Question Time. Question 20, Mr David Marshall.

Question 22, Sir,I thought Question 20 was incorporated now in Question 22.

No. We are now on Questions 19 and 22.

Therein I asked the reasons for the policy governing the conditions of detainees. Could we have a reply to that part of the Question?

If the Minister has a reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have mentioned just now that the conditions of detention in Singapore are no different from those of detention in previous years, and therefore there is no cause to make a statement.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether Government will publish a White Paper on the persons detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance since the 1st February, 1963.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Internal Security Council had issued two statements which appeared in the newspapers on the 3rd and 4th February regarding the security operation. Any further information or memoranda or White Paper regarding the arrests will have to come from the Internal Security Council.

Has this Government no point of view of its own in this matter, no information of its own that it can communicate to Members of this House?

Mr Speaker, Sir, all that is necessary to communicate to Members of this House and the public can be found in the two statements issued by the I.S.C.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many persons were detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance since 1st February, 1963, and how many of such persons were transferred to the custody of the Government of the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a total of 133 persons were arrested under Operation "Coldstore", of whom 17 are now being detained in the Federation of Malaya and 107 in Singapore. The other nine have been released.

We have dealt with Question No. 22*. Question No. 23 then. Mr David Marshall. * See footnote at cols. 65-6.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many persons detained since 1st February, 1963 have already been interrogated by the Special Branch.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all the persons detained have had statements taken from them. Because of the number of detainees and the availability of a limited number of skilled interrogators, it has been possible to interrogate only about one-third of the persons detained so far.

One-third? I am sorry, Sir. There is a little confusion. I understood the Minister to say that all of them have been interrogated. Is that inaccurate, Sir?

Perhaps the Minister would like to repeat the answer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all the persons detained have had statements taken from them.

Have had?

Statements only taken from them. But the actual number of persons who have been fully interrogated is only one-third.

Can I ask a supplementary question to that? Are the one-third whose interrogation is completed now allowed access to newspapers and books?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think since 28th March reading materials have been allowed to all detainees.

Newspapers?

No, the Petir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, reading materials as brought by the detainees' families.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs who is liable for the cost of the services of police personnel at places where there is a strike while business is carried on as usual.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the simple answer is that no charges are made for the services of police personnel who are required to take lawful measures for preserving the public peace during a strike. It is the duty of the Police Force at all times to preserve the public peace, and whenever it appears there may be a breach of the peace occurring at a place where there is a strike, police personnel are put on duty, if employees taking part in a strike will observe the rules of peaceful picketing, and if employers on the other hand will refrain from provoking action, I am sure all this diversion of police personnel from their normal duties will not be necessary.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs on each day between 11th and 13th March, 1963, how many radio patrol cars, riot-squad vans and armed policemen and policewomen were sent to ensure the carrying out of construction of a new road starting from Boon Teck Road, by-passing Potong Pa-sir and joining Serangoon Road.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the information asked for is as follows:- On 11th March, 1963, when it became apparent that trouble makers in the Toa Payoh area were inciting the people there to prevent the roadwork from being carried out, it was necessary to send a detachment of 15 men to the scene. In the course of the day, a radio patrol car and a divisional patrol car paid periodic visits to the scene. On 12th March, 1963, when the trouble-makers tried to inflame the people to violent action, it was necessary to send a detachment of police consisting of 23 men and to station in readiness near the scene one Reserve Unit troop consisting of 45 men. Four women police constables were also on the scene to deal with the women folk involved in the disturbances, and in the course of the day, visits were also paid by one radio patrol car and one divisional patrol car. On 13th March, 1963, as a precaution against the possible outbreak of trouble, a police detachment consisting of 23 men was sent to the scene in the morning together with five women police constables. In the course of the day, visits were paid by one radio patrol car and one divisional patrol car.

asked the the Minister for Labour (a) how many Community Centres have been completed and how many are still in the course of construction in the Sembawang constituency; (b) what is the total amount of money expended on these Community Centres: and (c) whether construction of similar type and number of Community Centres is being contemplated in the other rural constituencies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked to reply. Six rural community centres have been completed in the Sembawang Constituency. No other community centres are under construction. For the information of the Member, there are in addition two community centres, one completed in 1960 and the other in 1961. The total cost for the six rural community centres is $35,100. The answer to the last part of the question is yes. Construction of similar type of community centres is going on in other rural constituencies. Their number may be more in other rural constituencies depending on the density of the population.

(In Mandarin): To my knowledge, there is not one community centre up to now in Serangoon Garden Estate. I do not quite know when the Minister for Labour will be able to build one community centre in that area.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the People's Association have a Planning Committee to look after the interests of the whole of the island of Singapore. As has been announced, 250 community centres will be built during this short period. Therefore, I am sure the residents in Serangoon Gardens will not be neglected.

asked the Minister for Labour what action has been taken in regard to the Memorandum submitted to the Government by the Singapore Hairdressers Union asking the Government to introduce legislation to provide that the workers should work only 8 hours a day, and whether the Government intends to introduce such legislation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question raised is adequately covered by the existing legislation. May I refer the hon. Member to the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance which stipulates that a shop assistant "shall not be required under his contract of service to work more than eight hours in one day, nor for more than 44 hours in one week." It also provides that the shop assistant, with the consent of his employer, may work up to a maximum of 12 hours a day, and if he does so, he is entitled to overtime wages. It can be seen that within these provisions, a shop assistant may not work for more than eight hours a day if he does not wish to do so. If legislation is introduced stipulating that hairdressers are required to work only eight hours a day, it would be a retrograde step as it would deprive this class of workers from earning overtime wages and would be construed as discriminatory legislation. If the Singapore Hairdressers Union is concerned about hairdressers doing more than eight hours' work a day, it could take the matter up and reach a mutually satisfactory agreement with the employers concerned.

asked the Minister for Labour what is the reason for the delay in reaching a decision on the application for registration of the Singapore Industrial & Commercial Employees Union submitted to the Registrar of Trade Unions on 18th October, 1962.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the registration of the proposed Singapore Industrial and Commercial Employees Union was refused by the Registrar of Trade Unions on the 25th of March, 1963. The application was not disposed of earlier because the Registrar had to seek legal advice on certain points of law.

What are the grounds for refusal?

Mr Speaker, Sir, probably the Member for Cairnhill did not check up the letter with the applicant. It is stated in the reply to the applicant under section 14 (e) that the application was refused.

Was it necessary for the Registrar to refer to his legal adviser just to refuse an application under section 14 (e)?

That is another question. Dr Thio.

asked the Minister for Education to state the number of Primary One admissions in January 1963 to (i) Government English, Aided English and private English schools; (ii) Government Chinese, Aided Chinese and private Chinese schools; (iii) Government Malay, Aided Malay and private Malay schools; and (iv) Government Tamil, Aided Tamil and private Tamil schools.

The number of pupils admitted to Primary I classes in January 1963 was as follows:- Govt.- Govt. Aided Private Medium Schools Schools Schools Total (i) English 28,466 4,929 225 33,620 (ii) Chinese 1,766 17,070 223 19,059 (iii) Malay 4,640 Nil Nil 4,640 (iv) Tamil 29 245 Nil 274 Total 34,901 22,244 448 57,593

asked the Minister for Education what is the total number of Primary school pupils in (a) Malay Schools; (b) Chinese Schools; (c) English Schools; and (d) Tamil Schools in the years 1962 and 1963, respectively.

I take it, Sir, that what the Member for Serangoon Gardens is interested in is enrolment of pupils in Primary Schools of Government and Government-Aided Schools and not those in Primary Schools. Of course, I can supply the figures if he wishes, but I will confine my remarks to enrolment of pupils in Government and Government-Aided Primary Schools for the years 1962 and 1963:- 1962 1963 Malay medium schools 21,249 24,311 Chinese medium schools 132,632 130,995 English medium schools 163,669 177,440 Tamil medium schools 1,406 1,518 Total 318,956 334,264

asked the Minister for Education (a) how many students at the end of 1962 took the Government Primary School Leaving Examination or its equivalent in (i) Government English Schools, (ii) Aided English schools, (iii) Government Chinese schools, (iv) Aided Chinese schools, (v) Government Malay schools, (vi) Aided Malay schools, (vii) Government Tamil schools and (viii) Aided Tamil schools; (b) how many of them passed and were promoted to Secondary One classes in the different language-media schools: (c) how many failed; and (d) what arrangements were made for the failures.

The number of students who sat for the 1962 Government Primary School Leaving Examination was as follows:- Government English medium schools 21,045 Government-Aided English medium schools 5,071 Government Chinese medium Schools 709 Government-Aided Chinese medium schools 13,422 Government Malay medium Schools 2,567 Government-Aided Malay medium schools Nil Government Tamil medium Schools Nil Government-Aided Tamil medium schools 100 Grand Total 42,914 In answer to the second part of the question: 23,699 out of 42,914 or 55.2 per cent passed the 1962 Primary School Leaving Examination and all were eligible for promotion to Secondary I Classes this year in the following manner:- English medium 12,418 Chinese medium 9,646 Malay medium 1,572 Tamil medium 63 The number of pupils who failed the Primary School Leaving Examination was 19,215 or 44.8 per cent. To the last part of the question: the following arrangements were made for failures:- Firstly, those who were born in or after 1949, that is, under the age of fourteen this year are allowed to repeat Primary VI this year and to take the Primary School Leaving Examination at the end of this year. There are 11,862 pupils attending such Primary VI repeat classes. Secondly, those who were born in 1948 and 1947, that is, over the age of fourteen this year are eligible for entry to post-Primary I classes. There are 3,490 pupils attending post-Primary I classes this year. Lastly, those who were born in 1946 or earlier, that is, over -the age of seventeen this year have been superannuated. The number involved was 465.

asked the Minister for Education to state (a) the total number of candidates who took the Cambridge School Certificate Examination in Singapore in 1962, the total number of passes and the total number of failures; (b) the total number of candidates who took the Government Senior Middle Three Examination in 1962, the total number of passes and the total number of failures; and (c) how many of them could be taken into pre-university classes.

Sir, a total of 8,754 candidates sat for the 1962 Joint Examination of the Cambridge School Certificate and General Certificate of Education in Singapore. Of these 5,028 or 57 per cent passed, thus obtaining one or more certificates. The remaining 3,726 failed to obtain any certificate. As it is likely, Sir, that the Member for Tanglin is interested in the performance of school candidates from Government and Government-Aided Schools, the relevant figures are as follows:- Number who sat 6,764 Number who passed 4,179 or 62 per Cent (thus obtaining one or more certificates) Number who failed to obtain any certificate 2,585 To the second part of the question: the total number of candidates who sat for the last Government Senior Middle III Examination held in 1962 was 2,384. Of these, 898 passed and the failures were 1,486. In respect of school candidates from Government-Aided Schools only, there were 508 candidates, and of these 261 or 51 per cent passed. It should be stated, however, that all the candidates, without exception, were attempting this Examination for at least a second time. In reply to the third part of the question: Up to 31st March, 1963, 1,114 have been admitted to pre-University I Classes in the English stream. There are no pre-University Classes in the Chinese stream but Upper Secondary Classes. Admission to Upper Secondary I Classes in the Chinese medium is at present limited to those who have passed either the internal School Secondary Four or the Government Secondary Four Examination.

Will the Minister please state whether all those who have passed their Senior Middle III Examination and who ordinarily would be eligible for the Upper Secondary Classes or the equivalent of the pre-University First Year are able to find places?

I believe every candidate who wants to be admitted to the Upper Secondary I Classes in the Chinese stream has been found admission, provided he has passed the Government Secondary Four Examination or the School Secondary Four Examination; but for the time being we are not worried. Those who have already completed six years of secondary education under the old 3 : 3 system will join Upper Secondary Classes, because those who have passed the Government Senior Middle III Examination can either get admission to Nanyang University or the University of Singapore pre-University Classes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the Cambridge Senior School Certificate failures, we are told that Grade II passes are not allowed to repeat, whereas Grade III passes are allowed to take a repeat examination in order to enable them to get pre-University qualification to get admission to a University. Would the Minister consider that a fair arrangement, in view of the fact that the Grade II passes are penalised whereas the Grade III passes are given another chance?

Surely that is asking for an opinion. I do not know whether the Minister would like to answer that? But it is out of order as it is asking for an opinion.

asked the Minister for Education how many principals and teachers in Government and/or Government-aided schools had received notices terminating their services in 1962 and during the period 1st January, 1963 to 15th March, 1963.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1962, six Principals of Government-Aided Primary Schools had their services terminated as Principals for various reasons, such as misbehaviour, inefficiency or misuse of funds. They were, however, allowed to seek teaching appointments in other schools. Five have since been re-employed as teachers and the remaining one has probably decided to seek employment elsewhere. For the period 1st January, 1963, to 15th March, 1963, five Principals of Government-Aided Schools have had their services terminated also for various reasons; for example, detention by the Internal Security Council, failure to report the arrest of a teacher by the Internal Security Council after a lapse of eleven days, although the teacher concerned was actually living in the same premises as the Principal, and unsatisfactory state of school accounts, etc. For 1962, 502 teachers received notices of termination of service. The breakdown is as follows:- English Chinese Malay Tamil Total Government Schools 349 45 3 Nil 397 Government- Aided Schools 15 90 Nil Nil 105 Total 364 135 3 Nil 502 For the period 1st January, 1963, to 15th of March, 1963, 27 teachers received notices of termination:- English Chinese Malay Tamil Total Government Schools 17 Nil Nil Nil 17 Government Aided Schools 2 8 Nil Nil 10 Total 19 8 Nil Nil 27 The main grounds for termination of services of teachers may be classified broadly as follows:-

(In Mandarin): Sir, do the words "unsatisfactory service" mean that these teachers did not go to welcome the Prime Minister when he visited the rural areas?

Order. The question can be ruled out as being facetious.

(In Mandarin): Sir, may I ask the Minister this question? Did the Principals whose services were terminated receive one month's notice, or did they receive one month's pay in lieu of notice?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the normal rules of termination of service were complied with and adequate notice was given. Sometimes they persisted in hanging on, then probably they were told to leave the premises.

(In Mandarin): Sir, from what I know, among those whose services were terminated were those who are detained. Now, when these people are released, will the Minister allow them to continue with their teaching?

I can assure the Member for Bras Basah that when the matter does arise, I shall consider it.

asked the Minister for Education why were bursaries awarded to undergraduates of Nanyang University later than those awarded to students in the University of Singapore and the Singapore Polytechnic.

The reason why 1962 bursaries awarded to students of Nanyang University were later than those awarded to students of the University of Singapore and the Singapore Polytechnic was that the Selection Board for recommending awards to Nanyang University students sat much later than the Selection Boards for awards to students of the other two institutions. The delay arose as certain members were not available because of prior commitments. The Selection Board for Nanyang University bursaries was originally scheduled to interview applicants in August 1962, but this did not take place till October. Their report was received by the Ministry in November and awards were made in January this year.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it would appear from the Minister's answer that this Selection Board was discriminating against Nanyang University students when they sat later than scheduled.

I am surprised at the Member for Bras Basah in thinking that the P.A.P. Government, which gives equal treatment in education to all language streams, would allow discrimination. It is just that certain members of the Selection Board could not make it, especially the Chairman who had to attend a conference in Japan in August. We had to delay holding the Selection Board until his return. Rather than say you cannot go to the conference, you must have it out, because it is purely voluntary work. So I hope the Member for Bras Basah can understand the situation.

(In Mandarin): When I was in the P.A.P. I knew that the Government was not giving strictly equal treatment to the four language streams of education.

asked the Minister for Education whether there was any improvement in the enrolments in 1962 in the language classes, particularly in the National-language classes, run by the Adult Education Board as compared with 1961.

There was in general an improvement in the enrolment in literacy and language classes conducted by the Adult Education Board in 1962 as compared with 1961. For National Language Classes there was an approximate increase of 14 per cent in attendance over 1961. The breakdown is as follows:- Monthly average enrolment 1962 1961 Increase National Language 2,218 1,951 +267 Chinese 2,051 2,479 (-428) (Decrease) English 4,580 3,878 +702 Tamil 156 103 + 53 Total 8,939 8,415 +524

asked the Minister for National Development whether and how many Work Brigade members are sent each day to do sand-washing at Tanah Merah and Kaki Bukit; what is the daily expenditure thereon; and what is the sale price of the sand per lorry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Work Brigade members are sent daily to work the Sand Quarries on State Land at Tanah Merah Besar Road and Jalan Kaki Bukit (presumably the Member for Pasir Panjang is referring to the Sand Quarry at Jalan Damai, as the one at Kaki Bukit has been closed down); an average of 80 men are sent to Tanah Merah Besar and 40 men to Jalan Damai daily. The daily expenditure for sand-washing is:-

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what is the cost of the sand per lorry for 5 cubic yards and 4 cubic yards respectively?

Around $9 per load.

(In Mandarin): Does this $9 include transport cost?

I do not understand the question, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are dealing with production costs, and we do not have to transport the sand to people who want to buy it.

(In Mandarin): Sir, according to what I know, the transport cost is paid by the Housing Board, and not let out for contract.

The Member has got all his facts wrong.

asked the Minister for National Development how many operators have, since the Sand Quarries Ordinance came into force, applied for licences to carry out sand-washing projects; how many applications were approved and how many refused.

Since the coming into force of the Sand Quarries Ordinance, there were 89 applications for licences to operate sand quarries. Of this number, 41 applications were approved and issued with licences, four already approved but are awaiting site alterations to be completed before issued with licences, 30 were disapproved, and the remaining 14 are still under consideration.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many Work Brigade camps are there in the Sembawang Constituency and how many members are there in these camps; (b) how many other camps has the Work Brigade, and where are these camps; and (c) what is the total number of members in the Work Brigade.

There is only one camp in the Sembawang Constituency situated at the Malay Settlement Area, 96 Andrew's Avenue off 15 m.s. Sembawang Road, and the number of members in this camp is 204 on the 30th March, 1963. There are ten other camps and they are sited as follows:-

asked the Minister for National Development to state (a) how many housing units were built in 1960, 1961 and 1962, giving figures against each rent bracket; (b) the number of housing units of each rent bracket which have not been occupied for (i) one year and more, (ii) six months to one year, and (iii) three to six months; (c) how many housing units of each rent bracket were vacant as at 31st March, 1963.

Sir, (a) (i) 1,611 units were built in 1960 comprising:- 280 units at $25 per month, 156 units at $35 per month, 592 units at $55 per month, 160 units at $60 per month, 91 units at $68 per month, 40 units at $75 per month, and 292 units sold to Kampong Koo Chye fire victims and Malay families at Jalan Eunos. (ii) 7,262 units were built in 1961, comprising:- 2,278 units at $20 per month, 3,671 units at $40 per month, 1,249 units at $60 per month, 64 units at $90 per month. (iii) 12,164 units were built in 1962 comprising:- 3,105 units at $20 per month, 3,122 units at $40 per month, 5,892 units at $60 per month. (b) (i) The number of housing units which have not been occupied for one year and more are:- 54 units at $55 per month. Those which have not been occupied for six months to one year are:- 305 units at $40 per month, 274 units at $60 per month. Those which have not been occupied for three to six months are:- 2 units at $20 per month, 36 units at $40 per month, 554 units at $60 per month. (c) As at 31st March, 1963, 3,098 units were vacant:- 2 units at $20 per month, 1,001 units at $40 per month, 54 units at $55 per month, 2,041 units at $60 per month.

Sir, in view of the large numbers of houses left vacant, could the Minister say whether there have been difficulties in getting tenants to take up Housing Board houses?

Sir, I did not hear the question. Could the Member repeat it again?

Could the Minister say whether there have been difficulties in getting people to take up Housing Board houses?

According to what I understand, Sir, there is no such difficulty. I would like to explain partly why these flats have been vacant. In fact, in Queenstown, 974 units could not be let out earlier because of the delay in the completion of the water booster station which did not operate till the end of February 1963. 1,500 units were vacant as they were reserved for temporary occupation by the Federation of Malaya Police and the Army, and the Singapore Police. They have been transferred over for occupation and have been rented out as from the 1st April, 1963.

It is time to suspend. I will take the Chair again at 5.40 p.m. Order, order. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.10 p.m. until 5.40 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.40 p.m.

"to integrate certain functions of the City Council and the Rural Board with those of the Government of the State of Singapore and to provide for matters incidental thereto", presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 7th June, 1963, and to be printed.

"to amend the Planning Ordinance, 1959 (No. 12 of 1959)", presented by Dr Goh Keng Swee; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 7th June, 1963, and to be printed.

"to amend the Pensions Ordinance, 1956 (No. 22 of 1956)", presented by Dr Goh Keng Swee; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 7th June, 1963, and to be printed.

"to amend the Housing and Development Ordinance, 1959 (No. 11 of 1959)", presented by Dr Goh Keng Swee; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 7th June, 1963, and to be printed.

"to amend the Financial Procedure Ordinance, 1959 (No. 39 of 1959)", presented by Dr Goh Keng Swee; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 7th June, 1963, and to be printed.

"to constitute the Singapore Society of Accountants and to provide for the registration and control of Accountants", presented by Dr Goh Keng Swee; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 7th June, 1963, and to be printed.

"to amend the Rubber Estates Assessment Ordinance (Chapter 168 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Dr Goh Keng Swee; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 7th June, 1963, and to be printed.

"to amend the Post Office Ordinance (Chapter 105 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Dr Toh Chin Chye; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 7th June, 1963, and to be printed.

`to establish a corporation to he known as "The Port of Singapore Authority" and to provide for the transfer to, and for the vesting in, the corporation of the functions, assets and liabilities of the Singapore Harbour Board established under the provisions of the Ports Ordinance (Chapter 208 of the Revised Edition) and of certain functions, assets and liabilities, as the case may he, of the Government and of the Pilot Board appointed under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 207 of the Revised Edition) and of the Collector appointed under the Port Dues Ordinance, 1960 (No 22 of 1960), and for matters incidental thereto; and to repeal certain provisions of 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 Friday, 7th June, 1963, 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 Friday, 7th June, 1963, and to he printed.

"to amend the Hotels Ordinance, 1954 (No. 24 of 1954)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 7th June, 1963, and to be printed.

"to provide for the extension of time for the revision of the registers of electors for the year 1962 for the electoral divisions of the State of Singapore for the purposes of elections under the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance (Chapter 53 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Ong Pang Boon; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 7th June, 1963, and to be printed.

"to amend the Auctioneers' Licences Ordinance (Chapter 190 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Dr Toh Chin Chye; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 7th June, 1963, and to be printed.

Mr Speaker, can item 14 be taken after the completion of proceedings on item 15? The reason is that ---

Order. I think the easiest way is for the Deputy Prime Minister to introduce that Bill, and when I say, "Second Reading, what day?", he can say, "Immediately after item 15".

"to establish a corporation to be known as the Public Utilities Board and to provide for the transfer to the corporation of the functions, services, assets and liabilities of the City Council in respect of water, gas and electricity, and for matters incidental thereto, and to repeal the Electricity (Rural Area) Ordinance, 1951, and certain provisions of the Municipal Ordinance (Chapter 133 of the 1936 Edition) and of the Local Government Ordinance, 1957 (No. 24 of 1957)", presented by Dr Toh Chin Chye; read the First time; Second Reading after completion of the proceedings on item 15.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to provide for the raising of loans from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development by the Government of the State of Singapore and for matters connected therewith." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Loans (International Bank) Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

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

Yes, copies of the Bill are with the Clerk. Typed copies of the Bill distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Bill be read and proceeded with upon all the stages on a Certificate of Urgency. The Bill before the House is a short and fairly straightforward one.

Order. This is one of the Bills which require the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation. Will the Minister please signify?

I have the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that the Bill be proceeded with. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time" and be proceeded with upon all the stages on a Certificate of Urgency. The Bill before the House is a short and fairly straightforward one. It is modelled on Bills prepared for dependent territories, such as we are now today, which the World Bank requires before entering into any loan agreements. The Bill seeks to enable the Government to enter into one or more agreements with the World Bank for loans to finance capital projects undertaken by a Statutory Authority. The World Bank will lend only to member Governments or to non-member Governments or institutions if such loans were guaranteed by a member Government. It is quite normal for the World Bank to take one year or more to process a loan application. It has to satisfy itself that the loan granted is indeed to finance a capital project. Such a project must contribute towards the reconstruction or development of a country. It is also necessary to satisfy the Bank that such a project will be implemented and subsequently managed by a statutory authority that will be efficient and competent. The statutory authority running it will not only be able to provide for its proper supervision and management but will also be able to operate on a sound commercial basis to annex a return of profits not only to cover maintenance and loan repayments but also to provide for future expansion. The World Bank will also have to ensure that the loan is made to a country that is economically stable and that the guarantor country is in a sufficiently sound financial position to honour its pledge. Members will recall that the Government has been negotiating with the World Bank for a loan for the new Pasir Panjang Power Station. These negotiations have reached a stage when the World Bank is ready to sign the loan agreement; and indeed, it was only two days ago that the Singapore negotiating team returned from Washington after having completed their negotiations with the World Bank. The Bank has expressly required that before such a loan agreement could be signed and made effective, legislation must be enacted to provide for the establishment of a statutory authority - in this case the Public Utilities Board - to which the loan will be made. We must also have legislation to enable the Government to borrow from the World Bank and to ensure that certain of the requirements in regard to guarantee are sufficiently safeguarded. It is necessary for the Public Utilities Bill, therefore, to be passed, as well as the Loans (International Bank) Bill to be enacted on a Certificate of Urgency because of the impending establishment of Malaysia. The Prime Minister will today introduce the Public Utilities Bill, also on a Certificate of Urgency. The Singapore Government is not a member of the World Bank, and al, though it has been negotiating with the World Bank for a loan, one of the requirements was that a loan should be guaranteed by the United Kingdom Government. If, however, the signing of the loan agreement is delayed until very near to Malaysia, the United Kingdom Government may find it embarrassing to stand guarantee for this loan on the ground that it would be more proper for such a loan to be guaranteed by the Central Government of Malaysia after its formation. In this case, the World Bank may want to re-examine and reassess the whole situation all over again, and this may well mean that the efforts that have been put in over the last two years or so would be futile. It is therefore necessary now to take both the Loans (International Bank) Bill and the Public Utilities Bill through all stages on a Certificate of Urgency in order that the Singapore Government can enter into a loan agreement that has been negotiated with the World Bank, and to complete the signature of this agreement at the earliest possible date in order that the loan can be effective for the financing of the Pasir Panjang Power Station. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not rise to oppose the position where the Government seeks to get authority to borrow monies from the World Bank, hut I rise to say a few things on what I consider to be the inherent powers of the Legislative Assembly insofar as loans are concerned. Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Constitution, all public debts become statutory expenditure, and any statutory expenditure cannot be debated when the Estimates are presented to the House, and by virtue of the Constitution itself, any items of statutory expenditure are by themselves passed without debate in this Assembly. If that is the correct position - and I submit it is the correct position - what this Bill seeks to do then is this. Under clause 3 of the Bill it seeks to give to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara powers to borrow from the Bank such sum or sums as may be required by a statutory authority for the exercise of its functions. We all know, of course, that this is merely a constitutional way of saying that where the Cabinet thinks fit then the Government of Singapore may borrow from the World Bank. Then again, Mr Speaker, Sir, under clause 3 (6), it goes on to say: `If any of the provisions of the loan agreement are inconsistent or in conflict with any law in force in the State, the provisions of the loan agreement shall prevail.' Then again, on page 4 of the Bill, in clause 5: `All sums borrowed under the powers conferred by this Ordinance and all interest and other charges thereon shall he a charge upon and shall be payable out of the general revenues and assets of the State which are hereby appropriated to the purpose.' In other words, these loan monies will be charged against the Consolidated Fund in so far as repayments are concerned, and, as I have said before, once it becomes statutory expenditure, then the Assembly ceases to have any control or say over such expenditure. Then again, Mr Speaker, Sir, under clause 8: `Notwithstanding any written law, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara may exercise all such powers and authorities and do or cause to be done all such things as appear to him to be necessary for giving full and complete effect to the loan agreement.' In other words, what this Bill seeks to do is to give to the Government absolute powers of borrowing from the World Bank, and when the Government chooses to borrow from the World Bank, the Legislative Assembly becomes absolutely powerless. I wonder whether that is a good situation.

Mr Speaker, I rise on the same issue. I am in complete agreement with the principle of the Bill. I naturally support the powers sought for purposes of obtaining loans for our development plans, but I view with genuine alarm the provisions contained in the Bill which in fact - maybe not in intent - brush away at one stroke the entirety of the law of the State. It provides not only for a loan agreement to be made with the International Bank but it also provides for guarantees by the United Kingdom Government and any other government. Incidentally, Sir, it says - attention has been drawn to it by the previous speaker - "notwithstanding any written law to the contrary", anything that the Government may put in that agreement with the Bank and the guaranteeing State would be law. We would be completely abdicating all our powers, Sir, it seems to me, quite unnecessarily. I appreciate that the Minister has indicated that the Bill takes the form of enactments in other independent territories which "we have become", according to him, but whether we are independent or not is not the point. The point is, are there really any such provisions in any country? Is there any legislature which has permitted itself to pass a law whereby it abdicates its powers and puts them into the hands of a single dictator who may do what he pleases? I know, Sir, it will be urged, and no doubt properly urged, that it is not intended to abuse the powers that are given, for the Bank may wish to know without referring to our laws that the provisions of that agreement will be binding. Sir, if necessary, it could be said, "notwithstanding any laws to be made", so that you could not pass laws which prejudice an existing agreement; but to say "notwithstanding any law", wiping away seemingly your own constitution and any laws that are in existence, I find it very difficult to understand, Sir, and I feel that this requires further clarification. As you see, Sir, it causes me some anxiety, and I have tabled amendments before you for that purpose. I do hope that the Government will take these criticisms in the spirit in which they are being offered as being helpful and for purposes of proceeding constitutionally. I am not suggesting that they do in fact seek to obtain, through a Machiavellian manoeuvre, powers whereby they can then destroy all our laws, but in law, that is what is happening, even though that power may not be exercised.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the Minister for Finance giving his reasons for the Certificate of Urgency on this Bill I would like to point out that since the Government came to power, more than three years have elapsed, and they want this House to pass this Bill in a hurry in order to borrow money from the World Bank. If a loan from the World Bank is in the interests of the people of Singapore, then on principle we will not raise any objection. But in the context of the entire Bill, we can see that the Bill seeks to ignore and disregard the representatives of the people to raise questions on the justifiability of the loan. It is provided in the Bill that when the Yang di-Pertuan Negara thinks fit, that is, if the Government thinks fit, the Government may borrow money from the World Bank and enter into agreements thereunder before the amount of the loan is made public to the Members. It is also provided in this Bill that the Government can enter into this agreement first, and then within 30 days report to this House the contents of this agreement. But let us take this present Session of the Assembly. There has been a period of several months when we did not meet. If during this period when the Assembly was not in session the Government had borrowed some money from the World Bank, we would not have been able to know how much the Government had borrowed from the World Bank, and we would not have been able to know the contents of the agreement entered into. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that to get a loan of this nature we have to pay interest, and the interest has to be paid out of revenues of the Government collected from the people. The interest should be approved, in the first place, by this House before it can be paid by the Government to the party concerned. Since that is the position, Members of the House will have every right to understand, before the agreement is signed, what is to be incorporated therein, what will be the conditions to he attached to this loan by the World Bank, and what is the rate of interest. All such things must be made public to the Members of this House. This is very important. But in the Bill tabled by the Minister for Finance, all we can see from it is that until the Minister for Finance, or the Government of Singapore, has already signed an agreement with the World Bank or any other government, then we will be able to know; so by then it will be too late for us to raise any objection because a fait accompli has already been made, an agreement has already been signed, and we cannot do anything about it. Mr Speaker, Sir, the second point I would like to raise in connection with this Bill is that, according to the Minister for Finance, Singapore is not a member nation of the World Bank, and so to make a loan from the World Bank, we must have another nation to stand as guarantor before such a loan can be made available to us. I want to ask him if lie will assure this House whether the guarantor nation, i.e. the British Government, will in the meantime have any conditions attached to this guarantee when it is prepared to stand as guarantor. I would like him to tell this House the position regarding this matter. We would also like to know whether the guarantee made by this nation will be against the interests of the people of Singapore. Before our people make great sacrifices, the Minister for Finance has to consider such a nation carefully.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can understand the urgency of having such a Bill in order to enable the loan to be raised with the World Bank for the development projects which the Minister for Finance has in mind. Surely it would not be difficult for him to tell this House now what loan he has in mind and for which purpose this Bill is introduced, so that the Assembly will have an opportunity to know what the Bill is intended to effect and to what extent will it commit the Assembly. If the Minister, in his reply, can let us have some information as to the loans that he has more or less concluded but awaiting signature, the House can then pass judgment on the urgency of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the International Bank is competently legally advised. Its funds are from an international source, and when it enters into loan agreements with State Governments, it wants to ensure that the agreements into which it enters are not held to be void by Municipal courts on the grounds that the provisions of the loan agreements are inconsistent or in conflict with any Municipal law. It is only on these terms that the International Bank is willing to enter into loan agreements with State Governments and the sub-clause which has been challenged gives effect to this intention. The Bank will also not agree to granting any loan unless the Government seeking the loan has full power to implement all the terms of the agreement. I am advised, Mr Speaker, Sir, by the State Advocate-General that such clauses appear in all Municipal Bills providing for the raising of loans from the International blank and we are not in any way introducing new precedents in this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether I can speak on a point of clarification?

Too late. The Member may have his opportunity in Committee. Dr Goh, in reply?

Sir, I think my colleague, the Minister for Law, has dealt with the constitutional position in regard to certain clauses in the Bill. We have two lawyers on the Opposition Benches who, while they agree with the general purpose of the Bill, are in some doubt whether the absolute power to borrow from the World Bank is a good thing. Now, I think in all arguments regarding the merits or demerits of the clauses, one should remember that the World Bank is a pre-eminent international institution in this world and that it is extremely selective in regard to the loans that it makes to countries. I can assure the Member for Farrer Park that the tests that are required before the World Bank agrees to advance money to any country are extremely rigid and there is absolutely no danger at all that this will open the flood-gates of finance to the State of Singapore. If only that could be the case, if only the fears of the Member for Farrer Park are genuine, then nobody would he happier than I myself, but the position is that the procedures are strict, the criteria and standards set are extremely high. The Member for Choa Chu Kang has raised a number of points. I do not propose to reply to all of them because they do not seem to have any real relevance to the issues posed by the clauses in this Bill. For instance, he says that this Bill is defective because it enables the Government to enter into an agreement and commit the State before elected Members of this Assembly - before the people's representatives, in his own words - can pronounce judgment on whether the rate of interest is fair and just and whether the loan project is a good one. With respect, Mr Speaker, Sir, these are matters of administration and execution. They are not matters which could be properly debated in this House. The Member has further raised the point about the powers of the guarantor government - whether there is any risk that some sinister strings or conditions might not be attached to the powers of the guarantor. The powers of the guarantor government are laid out and specified in this Bill and they are quite clear-cut and precise. I now come to the Member for Cairn-hill. He asked what loans we have in mind. Actually he was not present when I was moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I did mention that negotiations have been completed for a loan to finance the Pasir Panjang Power Station.

How much?

I beg your pardon?

How much?

The loan comes to some U.S. $15 million, or just over Malayan $45 million. Before long, the World Bank will be sending a team to assess our water development projects on which they have in principle agreed to make a loan, and they will go through the usual routine of processing the application in great detail. These are the only two loans we have in mind to borrow from the World Bank. There may be occasions in future where we may even want to seek loans for other purposes, but that I think we can leave for the future.

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

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

Mr Speaker, if you will notice, the definition of "loan agreement" excludes the guarantee agreement that would he collateral thereto between the Bank and the guaranteeing country; that is to say, in future, the Central Government of Malaysia, and at the present the United Kingdom Government. The significance of that is to be found in clause 3 (7) which indicates that the loan agreement would he tabled before the House. I would enquire why the agreement should be divided into two - an agreement between us and the Bank, and an agreement between the Bank and the guaranteeing country - and why it is considered inappropriate that that guarantee document should not be made available to the Assembly. Whilst on the subject, Sir, I would enquire, if you think it appropriate, whether the Government would consider, for the purpose of meeting a legitimate anxiety on the part of the Opposition at the suggested unconstitutionality of the procedure here adopted and of rendering it constitutional, that the loan agreement should be such as has been approved beforehand by the Assembly. I am quite sure the Government has no fear that it would be refused any legitimate request for loans. In fact, I think it can sense the feeling of the House in the support it has already received. But what we feel anxious about, Sir, is the question of taking complete powers and then, without the knowledge of the people of Singapore, concluding agreements which may incorporate provisions of a grave character affecting the country. This is not a law for today only or for tomorrow, Sir. 6.30 p.m.

I cannot see how those remarks arise on clause 2. They might arise on clause 3. I certainly think they would arise under clause 3 (7), but certainly not under clause 2, would they?

You see, Sir, if you will look at the definition of "loan agreement", it refers to clause 3 (1) - in fact closely associated - but if you rule otherwise, Sir, I shall merely ask then my first question: would it be indicated why it is considered inappropriate that the document of guarantee should not be disclosed to this Assembly?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the loan agreement itself sets out the details of the terms and conditions of the loan. It sets out the rate of interest, the period of payment, the amounts by which it should be paid, and the general policy of the undertaking which has to make use of this money. To that extent, therefore, these are matters of public interest, and it is right and proper that they should be made public. As for the guarantee agreement between the Bank and Her Majesty's Government or any other guarantor Government, this is a matter completely between the Bank and the guarantor Government and does not really concern us.

Does the guarantor give certain undertakings?

The guarantor gives certain undertakings in case of default by the borrowing country. The matter really is something which concerns how the Bank can then get money from the guarantor Government. It is not a matter which concerns this Assembly at all.

Are we to understand that the Government envisages a guarantee document in which this State is not involved at all, because in the normal course, Sir, it is a three party affair - the borrower, the lender and the guarantor - and mutual undertakings? Are we to understand that here there will be a guarantee with no involvement on the part of this State vis-a-vis the guarantor?

The obligations insofar as the State of Singapore is concerned are with the World Bank and they will be contained in the loan agreement between us and the World Bank. The guarantor, for either reasons of charity or otherwise, undertakes certain liabilities in case the Singapore Government defaults. We are in no way obliged to the guarantor by the agreement between the guarantor and the World Bank, nor do we incur any obligations. There is no agreement between the guarantor and us, or any strings or conditions which the Member for Choa Chu Kang may have suggested in his speech. It so happens that the guarantor in this case feels that we are a safe security and that we have sufficient assets in any case if we default. There the position lies.

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

The Member for Anson has indicated that he is moving an amendment to sub-clause (6) in page 3. Does any other Member wish to move any amendments before sub-clause (6)? This is the opportunity.

In view of the statement made by the Minister, Sir, I should like to move an amendment to sub-clause (5) .

Sub-clause (5), yes. Will the Member indicate the amendment?

In page 3, line 15, after "shall", to insert "after approval by motion by the Legislative Assembly".

Perhaps the words to be inserted could simply be "after approval by the Legislative Assembly".

Yes, if it please you, Sir.

Please move then.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the light of the comments made in reply to the criticisms on the somewhat unconstitutional procedure sought whereby this Assembly should abdicate its powers and scrap its laws and put everything into the hands of the Government to do what it will, I now recognise, as I had suspected, that it is the Bank that seeks protection for the validity of its agreement and is not interested in investigating our laws to ascertain it. That is perfectly legitimate on the part of the Bank, and I think the constitutional position can be met in this State whereby both parties can be satisfied by seeing to it that this Assembly is informed beforehand of the provisions of the loan and has the opportunity to debate it openly. I do not think that there is really any grave obstacle to that. Fortunately, loans, unlike customs, taxes and income taxes, are not matters which need be kept terribly secret until they are finalised, and here no damage could possibly be done by advising the Legislative Assembly beforehand of the exact nature of the loan agreement which would be tabled as a document and which could be approved by a simple motion. Then the constitutional position would be met whereby we have taken the responsibility for the terms therein contained and therefore the words - "notwithstanding any written law to the contrary" or "in conflict with any law in force in the State" - those provisions are no longer unconstitutional because we have ourselves considered the provisions which might possibly be conceived as being contrary to any of our laws, and we are satisfied with them and we have approved them; not that we would approve any provision which is contrary to existing laws, Sir,It would at that stage then be obvious that these provisions are not so much provisions whereby our own laws are being set aside, but are provisions for satisfying the International Bank that in fact our laws have been complied with. That is the major constitutional distinction. It is a very simple procedure. All I seek is that instead of tabling the loan agreement under clause 7, which would then be deleted, you table the loan agreement before it is signed; you seek the approval of the Legislative Assembly and thereafter the provisions of clauses 6 and 8 will have effect. It might be suggested that there may be matters of urgency when the Assembly is not sitting. However, you have heard, Mr Speaker, as indicated, that the Bank takes about a year to process our request for a loan and if we can wait a year for such processing, we can wait a year and one month or maybe a year and two months, Sir, in order to obtain that loan. But I can say for myself, and I hope I can speak for the rest of the Members here, that where there is a matter of urgency requiring a substantial loan for our development purposes, the Cabinet should not hesitate to reconvene this House exclusively for that purpose. I do urge the Government to recognise that, as it stands, the provisions here go against the grain of the Rule of Law and that there is a very simple procedure to meet the needs of the Bank and to meet the spirit of the Rule of Law and that is to table the loan agreement in this House and obtain approval by a simple motion before execution thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted."

Sir, on the general observations made by the Member for Anson that some of these clauses really, go against the grain, I think he, as a lawyer, probably knows that it is quite invalid. In fact, it is very common for two parties to sign an agreement which provides that notwithstanding any provision of the law, they will do such and such a thing. For instance, the parties may say that they will send all their disputes to arbitration in a certain manner although the law provides that arbitration will be conducted in another manner. So to that extent, the Assembly itself as the supreme legislative authority in this State can decide in this instance that they will observe the conditions of the loan agreement even though it might not square with some minor laws or Municipal by-laws or local regulations that may be in force. I think my colleague, the Minister for Law, has made that clear. As regards the proposal that the loan agreement should be approved in the Assembly before it is signed on behalf of the Government, I think it is a pity that we are under some difficulty over this. First, the present programme is extremely tight. As I have said, the U.K. Government is prepared to extend its guarantee only within a matter of weeks from now: and if it comes too close to Malaysia, then they say it should he the Federation Government which should take on the guarantee. That means a delay of some considerable time because the Federation Treasury will want to go through the whole process all over again. The net result will be very damaging to our expansion plan. But that is a practical difficulty. There is one difficulty which will certainly stem from the World Bank philosophy itself. The World Bank has always wanted to make its operations independent of political considerations. In other words, it judges a country not by the colour of its Government but by the soundness of its currency, its economic institutions. The last thing that the World Bank would want to happen would be for the terms of the agreement to be the subject of a political debate in the Legislative Assembly. It can well happen that certain parties may take political advantage of some of the terms in the agreement as being unduly onerous or as being unduly difficult. But the terms of the World Bank are standard. They apply to all countries which want to borrow from the Bank, and variation is allowed only within very narrow limits. 6.45 p.m. In practice, of course, if the Assembly were to make any variations to the terms of the loan agreement, it could well mean that the whole proposal then would have to be abandoned. Now, one of my difficulties here is that this is the first time that we are negotiating a loan with the World Bank and it would be natural that Members may think they are being expected to support something which is quite unknown. I can sympathise with that sort of attitude. As against that, I put forward the argument that the World Bank is a respectable authority and further that the terms and conditions are fairly standard. In fact, the area for negotiations as we found out is extremely narrow and most of the discussions that took place in Washington were in the nature of discussing the future revenue, cost and future expansion programme of The Public Utilities Board. So far as the terms are concerned, as I said, they are pretty standard, and I do not think that much purpose would be served by requiring that the agreement be approved by the Legislative Assembly before signature.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a valuable Bill and I can but regret that I seem to be raising technical objections to it. But, Sir, the objections are of a very grave charactor that go to the root of the constitutional concept of the Rule of Law. The Minister has indicated that two parties can enter into an agreement, that despite an Arbitration Act, they will have a different kind of arbitration. But the fallacy there, Sir, is that it is two parties. In this case, it is not two parties who will be entering into agreement but one party with an agent of another party whose principal is unaware of the agreement because, in this case, the people of Singapore and their representatives would be unaware and would thus be surrendering completely their laws and their power-making laws into the hands of the agent who is in fact then told, "Irrespective of my wishes, go and do what you will." That is where the fallacy is and that is the constitutional danger of these provisions. They really are grave, Sir, when you ask the Assembly to say that despite any laws the Government can enter into any kind of financial agreement irrespective of the fact that that agreement is being entered into with an extremely responsible and respectable body. It has been suggested that this august Bank would not wish to be sullied by any debate in the Assembly in respect of the terms of this agreement. But the Government has itself provided in this Bill under sub-clause (7) of clause 3 that that agreement should be tabled and should be made public to this Assembly and to the people, and consequently there is nothing then in the law to prevent a full debate on the terms of that agreement and the conduct of the Government in entering into it. So why are you preventing this agreement from being made the subject of a debate? Finally, it is suggested that there are practical difficulties of an immediate character. I repeat, Sir, that it will be the duty of this Assembly - and I am sure it will consider it a duty which it would react to with alacrity - to attend when the agreement is ready, if for but a short while and as a matter of formality, to approve that loan agreement in order to enable the Government to execute it whenever it might be ready. On the other hand, if the Government is somewhat nervous in the context of other political animosities that exist, then I suggest that this Bill should be limited to six months - an unhappy alternative. I would rather see the Bill, to whose other features I have no objection, remain a permanent feature of our law, as it should be, and not a permanent breach of the rule of law.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, from the explanation given by the Minister for Finance, I cannot see why he cannot accept this amendment. His only reason is that the British Government has agreed to act as a guarantor - this was only a few weeks ago. If the time were to be after this, the British Government would not be willing to act as our guarantor. Another thing is the Minister has said that Singapore's delegates to negotiate with the World Bank have just returned and that all terms of the agreement have been reached. Therefore, I cannot see why the Government should not accept this amendment because the delegates can still go there to negotiate and reach agreement. At the same time, if in the next week or the next month the Government finds it necessary or very urgent to get a loan, then I am sure that Members of this House will be very willing to have another sitting convened to discuss the matter, say before the 7th of June. Mr Speaker, Sir, the loan by the Government from the World Bank will not be a very small sum; it will amount to several million dollars. According to the Minister, $45 million will be borrowed for the development of the Pasir Panjang Power Station. Now, this is a big sum. This sum, in the end, will have to be paid by the people of Singapore. Therefore, it is necessary for the Government to let this House know the amount and the conditions of the loan to get the Assembly's approval before going ahead with the loan. Without such an approval by this House, the Government will be giving the impression to the people that there might be some inside story - otherwise why can the Government not let the loan be approved by the Assembly first before the Minister goes and signs the agreement for the loan? I am of the opinion therefore that the Government should accept this amendment in order to enable the representatives of the people and the people themselves to know exactly the amount the Government is going to borrow and also the conditions to be embodied in the agreement for the loan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Assembly is a sovereign Legislature in that within its powers it can make laws for the peace, order and good government of the State, and those powers cannot under any circumstances be questioned. Sir, that is a proposition which no constitutional lawyer, except the Member for Anson who is well known for his eccentricities, would ever be prepared to challenge. This Legislature is competent to enact that the terms of an agreement entered into by the Government with the International Bank shall have the force of law, and if there is any conflict between the terms of the agreement and any Municipal law, the terms of the loan agreement shall prevail. The exercise of such a power does not in any way derogate from the authority of this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, I listened to the last speaker and I believe I understood him, which is more than he achieved, because I have at no time suggested that this Assembly is not competent or that these provisions were ultra vires except insofar as the agreement might be ultra vires the Constitution. I have not suggested that. I know that we are competent to denude ourselves of our powers and put them in the hands of the dictator. That is what I say goes against the grain of the rule of the law. But it is not on technicalities and I am sorry it is on technicalities the Minister has seen fit to try to reply and failed. It is the question of the spirit of respect for constitutional procedure and for this House - and I do appeal to this Government to recognise that it has a simple way out - whereby the legitimate requirements of the Bank can be met and the respect of this House, adequate respect, can be shown and for the Rule of Law.

When I raised the question, I was not wanting this House to sight a draft copy of the agreement before the loans were made, Sir. All I was interested in was the proposition that this Bill, on the face of it, seems to confer on the Government a power whereby they could commit the Ex-chequer of this country to loans without the knowledge of this Assembly, and I thought that was a thing wrong in principle and I still hold to it. From the title of the Bill and from the manner in which it has been drafted, it seems to me that the life of this Bill cannot go beyond the 31st of August. 1963. That seems to me to be the position. In other words, the life of this Bill is for five months. Five months is the possible life of this Bill, is it not?

It could be.

Up to 31st August? Could it go beyond that? That is the point. So far as I am concerned, all I am interested in is this. The Minister for Finance has told us that he has only two projects in mind on which he is going to the World Bank for a loan: one is the electricity project; and the other is the water project. I take it that the water project is the Johore River scheme and that the electric project is the extension to the Pasir Panjang Power Station. Insofar as the electricity extensions are concerned, the Minister has indicated that the loan will be to the extent of $45 million. On that score, Sir, I am satisfied. The terms of the agree-merit, the manner in which repayment is to be effected, that is a matter, I think, we must leave to the Minister to achieve. I am not interested in that. What I am interested on the water side is, how much money does the Minister hope to raise from the World Bank? If I am satisfied that those amounts are well within the paying capacity of this country, so far as I am concerned, I will support the Bill.

Two points were raised by the Member for Farrer Park. First, the life of the Bill. Well, the Bill will have validity after the 31st of August this year because after the 31st of August this year the Government that will be the guarantor Government will be the Central Government of the Federation of Malaya, and therefore this can go on because the British Government then will have no more responsibility to guarantee any loans asked by us. Now, as regards the water project. Perhaps I can mention that the World Bank will pay only the foreign exchange content of the total cost of the development project. For instance, the Power Station in Singapore will cost much more than $45 million. But $45 million represents the cost of equipment and services we have to import from abroad. In fact, this is really the payment of the foreign exchange counterpart of the cost of this development project. Now, so far as the power station goes, it is a very high percentage. 7.00 p.m. Unfortunately, for water it is a very low percentage because most of the work consists of earthworks, pipes and so on which are made locally. So I am afraid the amount of loan we can get from the World Bank for the water project will represent a very small proportion of the total cost. How much it is I do not know. That is a matter which their experts will come and work out. [Pause] I forgot to reply to some of the points raised by the Member for Anson. The Member for Anson seems to think that this is in some way unconstitutional and against the Rule of Law, that we are trying to close a deal with the World Bank without the Assembly giving its approval. I know of no independent country in the world which provides that a World Bank loan shall be subject to the approval of the legislature. What the Member for Anson is asking for the Member for Choa Chu Kang is something unique in legislative experience. Amendment negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, in page 3, to delete the whole of sub-clause (6). Mr Speaker, it is with regret that I find that I have not been understood in my efforts to attract the attention of this Government to the appropriate constitutional procedure in a constitutional spirit, and that is that before this Assembly can abdicate its powers in respect of any particular law it should know what that law is and, if only nominally, that agreement should be approved by it. I cannot, Sir, now that that provision has been defeated, in conscience, permit myself to agree to sub-clause (6) which permits a Minister to sign an agreement which supersedes all law. That is in flagrant breach of the Rule of Law of which their own leader was allegedly an exponent not so long ago in New Delhi. Our experience has been before and after Delhi that their words are never translated into acts. Actually you can always count on this Government to deprive the legislature of its powers and to channelise all powers into a single dictatorship. This is it. Whether it is utilised or not, in law, by passing sub-clause (6), we are abdicating our right to pass laws, because we would give them the right not only to ignore any existing law but to take precedence over any future law. I shall be voting against this clause and I regret to inform you that I will be calling for a Division.

Sir, I can understand the anxieties in the mind of the Member for Anson. But if we look at this legislation in the proper perspective, we may be able to have a better appreciation of the reason why such a clause is necessary. Sir, this is a law to enable the Government to borrow money from the International Bank, and the International Bank is not just a `business corporation where it will do its best to get the best terms possible out of borrowers. It is a bank of international standing meant to help develop countries which are in need of finance in regard to projects in which the International Bank itself has confidence that such development would be in the best interests of the economy of the country. So the Bank, before lending money to any government to help develop the country, will want to satisfy itself that the money is going to help the country in its development projects and not to help the government to remain longer in office, or to help the government to hold some more rallies around the rural areas to meet the people. This is for a definite development project meant for the economic uplift of the country. And. therefore, once the Bank has decided to lend a government large sums of money to help the country to raise its economic standard, surely I do not consider it wrong that the lender should want to see that there is sufficient protection that that money which has been loaned i well protected by law. I do not think that the World Bank will be wanting to demand from any borrowing government terms that are immoral or terms that are going to tie the government to the chariot wheel of any particular country. Therefore, why all the worry at all? What we want to know is, do we want this money to help develop the country? If we do, and if those are the terms on which the International Bank can only lend us the money, let us face it: let us accept the terms of the International Bank. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division, Sir. The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 32; Absent, 1. Ayes Noes Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing. Haji Jumat. Fung Yin Ching, Ahmad Jabri bin Miss. Mohammad Akib. Hoe Puay Choo, Buang bin Madam. Omar Junid. Lee Siew Choh. Byrne, K. M. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Chee Seng. Lin You Eng. Chan Choy Siong,Madam. Low Por Tuck. Chor Yeok Eng. Marshall, David. Goh Chew Chua. Ng Teng Kian. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Chang Sam. Kandaswamy, G. Ong Eng Guan. Lee Khoon Choy. Sheng Nam Chin. Lee Kuan Yew. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Teck Him. Tee Kim Leng. Lim Cheng Lock. Teo Hock Guan. Lim Yew Hock. Wong Soon Fong. Lingam, S. V. Mammen, John. Absent Mohd. Ali bin Koh, C. H. Alwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohammed Al-Haj. Yong Nyuk Lin. Amendment accordingly negatived. 7.15 p.m.

Sub-clause (7). May I draw the attention of the Minister to a procedural matter? The sub-clause suggests that a copy of the loan agreement shall be presented to the Legislative Assembly within 30 days of the conclusion of the loan agreement, or, if the Legislative Assembly does not sit within that time, the copy shall be presented to the Legislative Assembly within 15 days after the commencement of its next sitting. The position here is that a paper can be presented to the Assembly even when the Legislative Assembly is not sitting. It is only when the Assembly is dissolved that no papers can be presented.' So if the Minister will consider altering the last part of the sub-clause to read: "or if the Legislative Assembly has been dissolved, the copy shall be resented to the new Legislative Assembly within fifteen days after the commencement of its first session", that will meet the procedural position here.

Yes, you are right.

So will the Minister move, in line 29; to leave out from "Assembly" to the end of line 32 and there to insert "has been dissolved, the copy shall be presented to the new Legislative Assembly within fifteen days after the commencement of its first session." Will the Minister just move simpliciter?

I so move. Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 4 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 -

Sir, I move, In page 5, line 20, to leave out "Notwithstanding any written law". On the same principle as I have already indicated in respect of clause 3 (6), I find it repugnant to suggest that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara will be required to act contrary to laws which he himself has authorised, but in view of the tenor of the debate so far, I have nothing to add. Amendment negatived. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Public Utilities Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

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

The copies are with the Clerk. Typed copies of the Bill distributed to hon. Members.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I may add that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has given his recommendation in respect of this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill was introduced during the last Session of the Legislative Assembly. It was committed to Select Committee and reported by the Select Committee without amendment. However, the Assembly was prorogued before the Report could be adopted and the Bill read a Third time. The Bill contains nearly all the same provisions as the Bill introduced in the last Session except for two changes. The first is contained in clause 40 (2) which requires that a certificate be issued by the Minister as conclusive evidence of the transfer and the vesting in the Public Utilities Board of the water, gas and electricity undertakings of the City Council and their respective assets and liabilities should such evidence be required in a statutory form: for example, by the Registrar of Stocks in which the City Council has invested. This has been done at the request of and after consultation with the City Treasurer and is intended to provide a means to dispel any dispute that might arise over the identity or amount of the former City Council assets transferred to the Public Utilities Board. A similar provision to cover the assets to be transferred to Government is also included in clause 5 (3) of the Local Government Integration Bill which is not being proceeded with on a Certificate of Urgency because, unlike this Bill, it does not need to be so proceeded with. The second new proviso is clause 40 (2) which gives power to the Minister to direct any person to transfer to the service of the Public Utilities Board, to give such advice and to carry out such acts as may be required in relation to or arising out of the transfer to and the vesting in the Government of the assets and liabilities of the City Council and Rural Board. This provision has been put in at the request of the City Treasurer to enable that officer, who will become the Chief Financial Officer of the Public Utilities Board when formed, to complete the winding-up of the former City Council accounts, divide the assets and liabilities and transfer such to the Government and the Public Utilities Board respectively. The final City Council accounts were closed as at 31st December, 1960. Mr Speaker, Sir, I see from the notice of amendments on this Bill that the Member for Anson has proposed certain amendments.* May I say to him simply this? I will be quite happy to consider the merits of the amendments and I give an undertaking that after the amendments have been considered, if they are valid, we shall move an amending Bill in respect of those amendments. The reason why the Bill has been proceeded with on a Certificate of Urgency is that the World Bank will not lend unless we move the Bill in its present form, to which they have agreed. If I were to make any amendments, even though they may not affect the substance of the Bill insofar as they are concerned, it may lead to endless arguments with the World Bank Authority as to whether or not it has deprived them of their security on the loan. There are two conditions on which they give such a loan. One is that the public utilities are vested in a statutory corporation, which is sufficiently divested from Government control to a statutory body to ensure them certain guarantees as to the economic running of the corporation which will take into consideration the repayment of the loan. The other is the guarantee by a member nation. My colleague, the Minister for Finance, has explained the guarantee. All I would like to say on the first point is that whilst there may be merit in some of the amendments he has proposed, I think I will be put to unnecessary argument with the World Bank to show that, in fact, it has not materially altered the worthiness and guarantee of the independent statutory nature of the Public Utilities Board. I therefore ask the Member to consider this point, that we allow this Bill to go through in its present form and, after consideration by the S.A.G's Chambers in consultation with the World Bank, if there are any amendments which the Member wishes to press, we shall proceed on an amending Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 7.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I am startled by the courtesy of the Prime Minister and I trust he will not take that as a discourteous reply. I am indeed startled and I appreciate it. I would like to co-operate as much as I can. Can I have some indication, if you will permit, Sir? There is one matter of major gravity - I am prepared to concede the others - the question of ministerial interference which I have sought to amend in departmental affairs, particularly the danger of having the Minister responsible for salaries and emoluments, which would make it a political issue. The main value of having a public utility is that the trade unions can deal with a statutory body and not on a political basis. Those are some of the important points. But the major one is clause 20 which deprives the citizen of his right to sue the Board, and I feel quite certain that the intention was not there. But I am satisfied in my own mind, Sir. They have copied it from section 396 of the Municipal Ordinance, which was modified' in section 50 of the Local Government Ordinance, and now he has copied - just one copied from the other, Sir. They forgot that in the first Municipal Ordinance, they were dealing with human beings - Commissioners -using the word "them", whereas in this Bill they are using the word "Board", which is "it". Forgive me for being technical for the moment. I am satisfied that the gist of it is that neither the Board nor any of its members, nor any of its employees would be liable for any breach of contract or tort, or for negligence in respect of any duties bona fide executed by him. So that, Sir, if I am an employee of the Board and I go to test your meter and I ram your wall and I bring down all your furniture and I injure all your children, the Board is not liable, and a great many other eventualities of that character. I feel quite certain, Sir, that after the passage of the 1955 Act which repealed the Public Authorities Protection Ordinance, that that is not the intention and that it is, shall we say, inadvertent. I am not always attaching the worst possible connotation to the conduct of the Government. I trust that I am at times, if only at times, reasonable, Sir. Here this is a very grave inroad into the security and rights of the people of Singapore. If the Prime Minister will give me an assurance that an opportunity by way of an amending Bill will be given at the next sitting of this Assembly, I will be very happy to concede, in view of his urgent request that the amendments be not proceeded with today. And if I might have the further assurance, which I feel he would be prepared to give, that if there are any people deprived of, shall we say, legitimate rights in the interim period due to an inadvertent section which deprives them of those rights, then the amending Ordinance would be made retrospective.

No Member wishing to speak on the Second Reading? Mr Prime Minister, in reply.

I give the assurance, Sir,I would be loath to give an answer forthwith on the interpretation that has been given by the Member for Anson on this point. But I accept the point that if, in fact, it was not intended to deprive any member of the public of a remedy which would otherwise have been open to him as a result of the Public Authorities Protection Ordinance, then we shall make it retrospective.

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.-[The Prime Minister]. Bill considered in Committee.

7.35 p.m.

Unless any Member indicates that he wishes to move amendments or wishes to comment on any particular clause, I propose to take the Bill en bloc. Any particular clauses or parts of the Bill? No Member? In that case, I will take clauses 1 to 89 inclusive.

May I ask your guidance?

Certainly.

Having given notice of these amendments, and wishing to withdraw them in view of the assurance given and the particular difficulties indicated, what is the proper procedure, Sir?

It is just that the Member does not move.

I do not. Clauses 1 to 89 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

7.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to give additional powers to the Rural Board in respect of unauthorised buildings and for matters incidental thereto." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Rural Board (Unauthorised Buildings) Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available ?

Yes. They have been given to the Clerk. Typed copies of the Bill distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill he now read a Second time." As the Explanatory Statement puts it, the Local Government Ordinance provides for summary powers to deal with demolition or removal of unauthorised structures and for penalties for the sale or agreement to sell an unauthorised building. Unfortunately, this only applies to the City Council area. The Bill seeks to provide for similar powers to deal with unauthorised structures in the areas administered by the Rural Board. Sir, we are extremely concerned with the spate of unauthorised structures that are being built in the rural areas in utter disregard of structural and health requirements, and even fire safety requirements. The difficulty is that to go by the ordinary processes of the law would take anywhere between three and six months, by which time somebody would already have been swindled into buying the house, gone into occupation, and there is all the unpleasantness and the unhappiness of having to evict him from what is an unlawful structure. These provisions are purely transitional. It re-enacts sections 170 and 170A of the Local Government Ordinance so that the powers contained in these two sections could be extended to the rural areas. The Bill will not be required any longer when the Local Government Integration Bill, the First Reading for which notice has been given, has been introduced and becomes law. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, in connection with the Rural Board (Unauthorised Buildings) Bill introduced by the Government, which will extend its powers to the rural areas, the time indeed is reached when proper control is required over unauthorised structures. We have supported the steps to look after the interest of the public. Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, because the power will be extended to the Southern Islands - the Southern Islands comes under the Rural Board - I ask the authorities concerned to implement this Bill in such a manner as to give due consideration to the conditions prevailing in the areas concerned. In the application of these -by-laws, no mercy should be shown to those people who put up unauthorised structures solely for the purpose of profiteering at the, expense of the innocent victims. But due consideration should be given to those victimised. What I mean is that, firstly, the reason why such victims commit this offence is that they are in the dark about the existing regulations. Also, because they are hard pressed with certain conditions. For instance, a family which is increasing will require more floor space. Under such conditions, how car' they strictly follow the regulations - regulations which they cannot understand and which they break intentionally or otherwise? I would ask that the officers implementing these by-laws should make the people understand these regulations and not intimidate or threaten them. I know of an instance where a resident in the Islands extended his dwelling house without complying with the approved plan. When this came to the notice of the officer concerned, the house owner was informed that his house must be reconstructed to conform to the approved plan, failing which action would be taken to demolish the house. I think this method of implementing the rules or regulations amounts to intimidation or threatening the people who do not know the rules and regulations. On such matters, Mr Speaker, the officers concerned must use their discretion and enforce rules that should be understood by the people.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, about this Bill relating to unauthorised buildings in the rural areas, as has been explained by my colleague the Member for the Southern Islands, we cannot deny that proper control is necessary. I am aware that this Bill is to be introduced on a Certificate of Urgency. Therefore, I must take this opportunity to tell this House how these rules should be enforced on the defaulters. What is the meaning of the word "unauthorised" in the real sense of the word in relation to dwelling houses? Does it mean an unauthorised dwelling built without a permit on other people's land, and built without regard to lire hazards and health considerations? In my constituency, Mr Speaker, from my experience from the time of the previous Government up to the present Government, it is difficult for people to build houses, and those houses that were built were illegally built. Can we apply the term "unauthorised" to these houses, or can we allocate them house numbers? Mr Speaker, most of the people in my constituency at this moment have bought sites from lessees, and they have paid for these sites with money - from $600 to $2,000 - as "gratuity". What concerns me, Mr Speaker, is that the intention of these people is to build houses, but the lessees cannot sign any documents for the purpose of obtaining permits from the Building Surveyor's Department. The lessees are not concerned, and so the victims are the ordinary people who have been cheated. So I appeal to the authorities, through the Government, to consider this aspect of the matter. I have personally experienced it, and I think it has been brought to the notice of the Minister for National Development that the Government, as a Government, can consider the position of the victims. These victims not only paid a "gratuity" or coffee money but they also paid other expenses as well. So I hope the authorities will give serious consideration to this matter. It is because these people have become the victims of unscrupulous people.

Mr Speaker, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Member of the Southern Islands and the Member for Kampong Kembangan. I think the purpose of this Bill is to make sure that the innocent victim does not suffer. If we can smack down an illegal building fast enough before the contractor or the illegal building operator has had a chance to sell it to the poor victim, the chances are that only the illegal building operator who can afford to suffer will bear the loss of having his wood and nails torn asunder. I must admit, after listening to the Member for Kampong Kembangan and the Member for the Southern Islands, that, in fact, it is an indictment against our society that many of these victims, in buying these illegal houses are consciously taking a risk. Vaguely they know that something is not quite all right, because the contractor usually wants them to move into occupation in the middle of the night. Usually they do move in the middle of the night because building operations are conducted in darkness and wherever possible on the following morning there is already a family in occupation. I give this assurance to the Member for the Southern Islands, that where a family is already in occupation of these houses, then of course humanitarian considerations apply. And in the administration of this Bill, we shall have to consider the question of human feelings involved in having to evict physically a person from a building on which he has probably spent his life savings. However, I am happy to report that in the city areas, where similar provisions have applied, partly because of the promptness of the Chief Building Surveyor's Department and partly because of the large number of flats which have been built, such operations are no longer profitable, and I hope similar provisions --- 8.00 p.m.

Order. Moment of interruption.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m. to Monday, 8th April, 1963.