Hansard, 1963-06-15

Order for Second and Third Readings read. 2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that this Bill be proceeded with. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Main Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the year 1963 have been considered and approved by the Assembly as Command Paper 14 of 1963. It is now necessary to give legislative approval to the expenditure of the sums shown in these Estimates, and the Appropriation Bill tow before Members is intended so to provide. Under section 97 (1) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, an Appropriation Bill containing, under appropriate heads of expenditure, sums of money which are required for the several services of the Government shall be introduced to the Assembly. The Appropriation Bill sets out all the amounts approved by the Assembly in the Estimates of Expenditure and arranged under the heads of expenditure shown on pares 35 and 36 of Command Paper 14 of 1963. Once the Appropriation Bill has been approved, I will be empowered to issue warrants authorising expenditure up to the amount under each head in the Appropriation Bill to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the course of the debate on the Budget Estimates, some surprising facts and statements of principle have come out. Yesterday the Minister for Culture claimed that once the People's Action Party was elected, its policy became national policy and therefore the Party in power could spend money as it liked for propaganda purposes using government machinery. Sir,I think that concept of democracy is not really parliamentary democracy but totalitarian democracy. Let mc explain, Sir. They were elected on the basis of 54 per cent of the votes. They have the right, as the majority Party in control of the Government, to pass on their views for the acceptance and obedience of the people. But they have no right to say that they therefore claim to represent 100 per cent of the people. If that is the policy accepted by the nation, in that case, there would have to be a national coalition. Then only you could say that those are the views of the nation and then you could implement it on behalf of the nation. But when it is only a majority Party in control, they can say they are doing it on behalf of the nation and on behalf of the people as a majority Party. But they cannot on that basis over-ride the rights of the Opposition, because if they do, then, I think, the concept has been wrongly described as parliamentary democracy. It should really be described as a totalitarian democracy. Sir, it was for this reason that we said the Government machinery for propaganda like television and radio should be used in such a way that there could be a division. People could say, well, this is being done by the Party in power for the Government. That is all right. But when they are doing it in the interests of the Party preparing for an election, the people are not deceived. There has been confusion here. When I asked the Prime Minister whether he was going round as the Prime Minister or the Secretary-General of the People's Action Party, he said that he considered it right to use the opportunity to attack another political Party. Sir,I think that principle is not the principle that could be applied to parliamentary democracy. Another thing that came out is this. We are not defending the rights of the United People's Party. But we have heard in this Chamber the possible cancellation of the symbol of the United People's Party ---

Order. We are now on the Appropriation Bill and Standing Order 88, paragraph (2) says: `the debate., shall be confined to the general principles of Government policy and administration as indicated in the Bill.' That, of course, means as indicated in the contents of the Bill, which, in fact, repeats the contents of the Estimates. It must be on general lines and not on particular lines.

Sir, I am talking in reference to the item in the Estimates involving expenditure for elections, and so on. In the course of the debate, Sir, the principle was interpreted in such a way that we on the Opposition side feel that it would be wrong for the Government to get the vote, to get an election on the basis of fair play to be done in such a way that a symbol that has been recognised all these months is in danger of being cancelled.

Order. That is a matter of detail which has been and should have been debated and was debated in the Estimates. It is a matter of detail. Let us go on general principles.

The other point is this. We are voting money for the Government to spend for the remaining half of the year. We hope this will not be their aim: of increasing the surplus in the Government Treasury at the end of the year. We hope that is quite clear and that the Government will make sure that the money will be spent, because if at the end of the year again they report a big surplus, then we think there has been under-expenditure at the expense of the people's welfare or that too much money has been extracted from the people which would mean that there should be more relief or that there should have been more money spent. For instance, Sir, in the Education Ministry, time and again the Minister has said that he could not do this or do that because there was no money in the Treasury and ---

I never said that.

--- there must be strict economy; a deficit was being faced. The result is that the schools are understaffed, whereas if they could spend more money there would be more employment. Therefore, Sir, we trust that knowing there are big reserves, the Government would use the chance to engage more teachers and provide more employment. Sir, money is an important weapon and the Party in power during election time has an advantage. We only hope that the money will be used fairly for the people without unfairness to the other Parties during and before an election. 2.41 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the 1963 Budget is a part of the Four-Year Plan and dove-tails into the P.A.P.'s Four-Year Economic Plan for the betterment of Singapore. But when we come to the Appropriation Bill today, we are being asked to vote for a further supply of $373 million. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is little doubt in the minds of the people that the P.A.P. Government is making full use of public funds for party purposes. By denying it, the Government has made matters worse by creating more doubts in the minds of the people. The Prime Minister believes that by propaganda alone his Government can deceive us. No, Sir. There must be something to "propaganda" about, and for that, the Government has little to advertise. Making empty Press statements, hurling abuses and cynical remarks at Opposition Members could not help the P.A.P. very much. Last-minute dressings by any government could not help to save that government from collapse. It is now widely known that elections are coming as prophesied by our Party organ, Bersatu, more than two weeks ago. If the Singapore Government can have its way, elections may be held in July, anyhow before 31st August, 1963. After that date elections to the Federal States will come under the control of the Federation Elections Commission. Sir, last-minute dressings as what the P.A.P. Government is doing now in its rural visits, its so-called rural development programme, are nothing but to capture the votes in exactly the same way as the Lim Yew Hock Government did during its last months of office. The people cannot be deceived by all these electioneering stunts. The people now do not believe what the P.A.P. Government says. See what happens to the Four-Year Plan. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope you will pardon me if I dwell a little bit more in detail on the Four-Year Plan. Because the Four-Year Plan is the most ---

Order. If the hon. Member goes into detail into this Four-Year Development Plan, then he will be in danger of going out of order because we are not dealing with the Development Estimates. We are dealing now with the Appropriation Bill which takes in the Ordinary Estimates for 1963. There is nothing to prevent him, of course, from just touching on the Development Plan.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I will only dwell on the Four-Year Plan as it affects the 1963 Budget. You see. Sir, the 1963 Budget is only part and parcel of the Four-Year Plan. And unless I gloss over it, I will not go into cents. I will go into tens of millions of dollars of development projects. Unless I touch on the Development Plan, I am unable to explain or to give my views on the Appropriation Bill today. The Four-Year Plan is the most important document ever prepared and submitted by the P.A.P. to the Assembly and to the people. The people knew it was a bluff. But that is another matter. Having promised the people, it is its bounden duty to carry out its election promise. The Four-Year Plan promises us a radical transformation in our economy, a new life to the people, a ray of hope to many of the unemployed. The Government said that it is an attainable plan. Then why was the Four-Year Plan not accomplished? What went wrong? Where are the scapegoats? Mr Speaker, Sir, I will just dwell on the few important projects of the Four-Year Plan. When I pass through it, I am basing it on things which I know, as I could not get any information from elsewhere. In other countries when the Government has a plan, what it does is to submit regular progress reports to the people on details of targets under-fulfilled and over-fulfilled. That is what I was doing when I was in the City Council. The P.A.P. Four-Year Plan gives us a new vision of a new Singapore, albeit it was a false and deceptive vision. $871 million was to be used to achieve the target. By the end of 1963 $650 million should have been spent. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will only comment on the major item of the plan. We can knock out $270 million earmarked for 1964 because it will not be spent, for two reasons. Firstly, the P.A.P. Government, even if it wants to, cannot last till 1964. One obvious reason is that more chaps will follow the example of the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, and more so after 31st August when the P.A.P. has no more control of the Special Branch and the C.I.D. Again, once Malaysia is pushed through, the PAP, which is neither Left nor Right but capable of placing the Communists and the British at the same time - and, Mr Speaker, Sir,I was told an iguana has two tongues - will be scratched out from the political arena despite their great ambition of a free middle school education system which will be used as a propaganda weapon 10 win support in the Federation and the Borneo territories through their new proposed powerful short-wave radio transmitters. Of course, Sir, a P.A.P. Prime Minister of Malaysia is only a conceited fancy - a dream. The P.A.P should be happy if in the next elections they are returned with just a few seats to keep the P.A.P. flag flying. Sir, the second reason why the money earmarked under the Four-Year Plan for 1964 would not be spent is that the P.A.P. Government has, I believe, stopped all new construction projects. The Four-Year Plan groups various development projects under various headings. First of all, their scheme of land and agricultural developments. Four thousand acres of swamp land are to be reclaimed costing $4 million. Sir, as far as I know, this project has been a complete failure.

Completed already!

Mr Speaker, Sir, only a small Sungei Poyang project. $11.8 million is to be spent on alleviating flood problem in four areas, namely, Geylang, Sungei Ulu Pandan and the Singapore River, Bukit Timah and Bedok. As far as I know, none of the projects has been started and completed. By 1963 the Government promise to build $20 million worth of rural roads, bridges, markets, amenities, electricity and water, drainage and other rural development. I do not know how much has been spent, but I think it is only a small fraction. Then their scheme for industrial development. The Economic Development Board has been set up to take the place of the Labour Front's Industrial Promotion Board, The difference is only in the change of names. Time and energy was wasted to draft and pass the legislation of the new Board. When the P.A.P. want to do something, they always want a new name so that others or predecessors cannot share any credit. This inability to think and act big has cost them a heavy price. The people are only interested in seeing new factories coming up, which means more jobs. The P.A.P. can set up 100 Economic Development Boards with fat salaries for sycophants and time-servers, but what for? What benefit do the people get? The Government intends to spend nearly $140 million by the end of 1963. which this Budget covers, on the various industrial projects. But, Sir, if you go to Jurong - and this is after four years of P.A.P. bungling - where are the factories? The P.A.P. used to condemn the. Labour Front Government for inefficiency, but I think the present P.A.P. Government is worse. Can the P.A.P. boast that there are less people unemployed now than in 1959? Mr Speaker, Sir, $100 million has been earmarked by 1963, by the end of this Budget, for the expansion of our water supply, power stations and gas works. $100 million! The P.A.P. grandiose scheme of building five projects to augment our water supply has been a complete flop. The Minister for Finance wants to use me as a scapegoat. He puts the blame on me, I was Minister in charge of water supply for only three months, and I was told that the Prime Minister wants to take over the City Council. He thinks he can run it better. He has four years to himself. Why should he blame me? He has four full years with a Deputy Secretary, with special duties, to assist him. And, Sir, this Four-Year Plan was presented to the people in 1961 when I was no more in the Government.,when the Prime Minister had more than one and a half years of experience in running the Water Department, and when he knew that the Johore water agreement had not yet been signed. But based on all this knowledge, we are promised in the Four-Year Plan the Johore River Scheme and four other projects. None has been completed. Mr Speaker, Sir, $55 million has been earmarked by the end of 1963 for the extension of electricity. I think the amount spent is very little. There has also been little expansion in the gas works where nearly $9 million has been earmarked. Under the main heading of economic development, under the $92 million ---

On a point of order.

Point of order? Yes.

These are all the details of the Development Estimates, and I say this is completely out of order.

I have been watching the speech very carefully. At the moment, the Member for Hong Lim has touched on the fringe of the Development Plan. I have indicated that the debate must go on general principles. These items can only be mentioned in passing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, another $92 million has been earmarked for the development of transport and communications. There will be major improvements in the Singapore River costing $7.7 million. We are promised this. What has happened? Nothing. Nearly $21 million for roads ---

On a point of order.

Point of order.

He is not touching on the principles of the Ordinary Estimates, but he is going into the details of the performance of the Four-Year Plan and the Development Estimates. I say that if any Member wants to do that, if he intends to bring up these extraneous matters, he should give due notice to the House so that the Government can come fully prepared to answer all his allegations which are completely baseless.

I think I had better draw the attention of the Minister and `Members to the Standing Orders again: `The debate shall be confined to the general principles of Government policy and administration.' It is very difficult, I must admit, to draw a line somewhere, and perhaps the Member for Hong Lim is now touching on the fringe of what he alleges are failures in the Government administration. I am watching him very carefully. I cannot say he is completely out of order yet.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I assure you of my best co-operation. I have read the, relevant Standing Orders and I am doing my best to confine myself to the Standing Orders. Nearly $21 million for roads. How much has been spent? It is only a small fraction. $13 million for drains and bridges. Little has been done. The rest of the $92 million on wharf development, telecommunications, post office and telephone facilities. With the P.A.P. not boasting about their achievements in all those fields, we can safely assume that the answer is no. Sir, $11 million has been earmarked for district hospitals and other hospital facilities. I think not much has been done. The Government promised ---

Order. I think that possibly the Minister for Finance is more correct than I thought he was. If the Member for Hong Lim carried on in this strain, then we will have to go right back to the debate on the Development Estimates which has been held and on the Ordinary Estimates. An allegation that $11 million has not been spent, just like that, has been mentioned, 1 think, when we debated the Development Estimates and the Estimates for 1963. If I were to allow that in this debate, we would have every Minister standing up and possibly refuting the vague allegations which have been made. I think from now on we must confine ourselves to the general principles and not details.

Mr Speaker. Sir, there are two items in the Four-Year Plan which were successfully completed. They are housing and community centres. On housing, it was successful because I gave the policy on 21st February, 1959. I prepared the organisation and gave the plan. On community centres it is because they are necessary substitutes for P.A.P. branches and P.A.P. cultural and educational ---

Order. That is not general policy. Now we are going on to the community centres. We have dealt with community centres ad nauseam when we debated the 1963 Estimates. Let us have general principles of what the plans were of the Government in so far us the welfare of the people is concerned, and so on and so forth.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have seen after four years of performance by the P.A.P. Government that they do not have the interest of the people at heart Because of the way the P.A.P. Government have been deceiving the people, their twists and turns, we have no more confidence in them any more. The Four-Year Plan was, only another electioneering device. History has proved that it is nothing but a piece of cunning propaganda. Mr Speaker, Sir, as we come to the last limb of the P.A.P. Government, we want to ask, what other ruses can the P.A.P. Government think of to keep themselves in power? They want so many millions of dollars from us; giving more money to the Harbour Board workers at the last minute after four long years of waiting with a view to ---

Order. That is not general policy. That is a matter of detail. And if there was a grievance, the hon. Member for Hong Lim should have brought it up when we dealt with the Estimates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no development project. Nothing the P.A.P. is doing now can save it from destruction. Even getting police informers, pimps and gangsters to make statements on political rivals and detaining them under section 55, locking up political opponents under the P.P.S.O. ---

Order. Again the hon. Member is touching on details. Those were grievances which were aired in the Committee of Supply. That is the place to air grievances in detail, not in an open meeting when we are debating the Appropriation Bill dealing with general principles.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this Budget has not been well prepared. On some items, I think what the Government requires is a bigger vote. For instance, community centres, the Ministry of Culture, entertainment expenses of the Prime Minister. We do not require so big votes in some others because the Government is unable to spend them. It will also be another surplus. Therefore, this Budget has not been very well prepared. It is too late now for the P.A.P. to do anything. A further meeting with the "Plen" might help. But, Sir, could the Plen trust them any more? That, of course, will be left to history. 3.00 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, this year is a year of the Confusing Musical Orchestra performing for the last time. This Budget for 1963, I think, is the last one of the P.A.P. There will not any more be a 1964 Budget prepared by the P.AP. Taking this Appropriation Bill as a whole, we can see that in respect of social services, the vote asked for Is decreasing, and that public assistance given by the Social Welfare Department is also decreasing.

Order. That again is a grievance which should have been aired in Committee of Supply. If the vote was not sufficient, it should have been criticised on that ground. It is a detail which must be debated in Supply. We are now on the Appropriation Bill which deals with general principles. If the hon. Member thinks that generally the policy of the Government is wrong, in relation to the poor, then he can say so. But he cannot go into the figures and say that the Government has not supplied sufficient money for that purpose.

(In Mandarin): All that I wish to say is that the Budget of the Government for this year is more concerned with the political future of the P.A.P. rather than the livelihood of the poor people. The whole Budget, therefore, is only prepared for the future of the P.A.P. and not for the future of the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, the economic policy of the Government has been a matter which the Government is always boasting about. The Government says that it is trying to create more and more employment opportunities, carrying out development plans and industrial projects. But we say that although the Jurong industrial project is being carried out. from the present performance of the Government, one will get the impression that the Government itself is not quite confident about this project.

Order. The hon. Member is going into details. The general policy of industrialisation can be debated but not in specific detail, The Member had the opportunity at the appropriate time - when we debated the Development Estimates and the Main Estimates. That was the time to debate details. Now we are on general principles - the general policy of industrialisation.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Minister for Finance talked about his financial surpluses every day, but we see that the Government is not investing its surpluses in the Jurong project. Instead it is making use of these surpluses for investment abroad. From this we can see that the Government itself has no confidence in the Jurong project. In 1963, what do the people of Singapore get? I can say with certainty that what they should have paid by way of taxes has been collected, but what they should have enjoyed by way of privileges has been decreasing from time to time. The number of opportunities for employment is decreasing as more and more pupils leave school year by year. But the Government is unable to solve all these problems in 1963, and is unable to create more employment opportunities in 1963. Mr Speaker, if at all the Minister for Finance wants to bring the livelihood of the people of Singapore to a higher level of security and stability, then he should have paid more attention in this Budget to the creation of more employment opportunities than to extending the propaganda of the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, the reorganisation of the various Government departments was supposed to have taken place sometime during the last four years, but during the course of this period it has not been done with any satisfaction. That is why in this Budget before us, there are many, many points which are confusing and ambiguous. In 1959 ---

Order. I hope the hon. Member will not go further on that track, because if there was confusion in the Budget, it should have been cleared, or at least the Member should have tried to clear that confusion in the Committee of Supply. We are now in open meeting debating the Appropriation Bill, and I must have a debate on some general principles. This business of wandering over the whole of the administration will not do with the Appropriation Bill. There must be some specific policy of the Government chosen and debated to the point.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I hope the Government will keep its promise and fulfil it in the course of this year, and also to carry out its merger proposals. Mr Speaker, no matter what the Government tries to do to cover up or to pretend, we can see from the Budget for this year that the people will bury them at the right time.

Dr Goh, in reply. 3.08 p.m.

Sir, I do not propose to reply to the last speaker because I think what he says reflects the great dreams of an untutored, uncultured, ill-educated, and immature mind. But I think the Member for Tanglin and the Member for Hong Lim deserve some reply. Sir, at the beginning of the proceedings of the financial Estimates, I had great hopes when the Member for Tanglin was going on from one phase of understanding to a higher phase of understanding. He acknowledged the Government is now on the right track. He thought we had changed. But we thought we were on the right track all the time, that he had advanced in political knowledge to get the truth. Now I am afraid he has somewhat reverted. Retrogression has set in in a matter of a few days. Mr Speaker, Sir ---

Too many late nights.

--- possibly as a result of undue strain. His main point is this, if I got him right and I am trying to get him right: he objected to our policy, particularly to the monies that are allocated to the Ministry of Culture, because he says that it is wrong of the Minister for Culture to claim that what he is propagating through the mass media is national policy. He still maintains that the propaganda that is carried out by the Minister for Culture is propaganda in the interests of the Party. He does not accept that if a Government is elected to a particular policy and during its term of office it tries to get the policy understood and accepted on a larger scale of the electorate; he says that is still not national policy. I have a feeling that if I were to try to debate this point at length, we should really be quibbling over the meaning of words - what is "national", what is "Party", what is "in the interests of the Party", and so on and so forth. But I thought that my colleague, the Minister for Culture, did make it clear that there are certain basic and fundamental objectives on which we were elected: (1) merger with the Federation of Malaya. I think even the Member for Tanglin will accept that reunification with the Federation of Malaya is a national policy, in the sense that all Parties accept that - there are differences of opinion on the details of merger - but certainly that will be accepted. Then, Sir, we stated that it is our objective to improve the living conditions of our population, particularly the working class as far as the restricted economic situation allows. We build houses, schools, roads, and other services for them. And I think it is quite legitimate that the achievements of the Government in this respect - fulfilment of its election promises - should be given publicity. Whether we call it "national" or he calls it "Party", we can differ as to the tag we put on it, but I think he will accept it as legitimate. So apart from these two objectives, the third, of course, is the great objective of nation building - getting people of different races, different religions, different cultures to see eye to eye with one another, to give and take and to work towards an integrated Malayan or Malaysian culture of the future; I think that he would accept as legitimate, and is not in the interests of either the P.A.P. or the S.P.A. or the Barisan Sosialis. As far as I can see, these are the three important classes of propaganda emanating from the Ministry of Culture. Apart from these, I think there is hardly any other. I will show you. These three categories would have exhausted all the activities. Therefore, to say that we were using the instruments of State for the interests of the Party, I somehow feel that it is an uncharitable interpretation, quite unworthy of the Member for Tanglin in his now progressive frame of mind. I am sure he will agree with me. However, he says no, Sir, but obviously I have not exhausted ---

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Yes, certainly.

What I was trying to stress, Sir, was not the objecting. The objecting is "national", where we all Parties agree supplying jobs to the people and so on. But the way it is done and the "how" it is done - the use of community centres and so on - is for party purposes, Sir. That I say is wrong.

Sir, the community centres are for the use of the people in the area. We give them certain amenities.

Controlled by the P.A.P.

Order. I hope the Minister will not be tempted to go into a debate in detail. At the moment, the Minister is quite correct. We are on general policy. Let us not deviate and go into detail in spite of the temptation afforded by the Member for Tanglin.

I think we have flogged this particular horse to death in the Committee of Estimates. Sir, the Member for Hong Lim raced on to a detailed recital of the performance of the Four-Year Plan. Obviously, the object is not to inform the House of the truth but to get as much of his scripts in the newspapers before he is hauled up under Standing Orders to disparage and denigrate the performance of the Government. He says that we have little to show in our four years of office. Sir, is he a man in his right senses, or is he a man not in his right senses? Every month now, between ---

On a point of order, Sir. Mr Speaker. Sir,I can assure you that I am in my right senses. I remember in the Commission of Inquiry he got his medical superintendent ---

Order. I take it that the hon. Member is rising on a point of order because he alleges that the phrases used by the Minister for Finance are offensive. If that is so, then I ask the Minister to withdraw those phrases alleging that the Member for Hong Lim is out of his mind.

It is not at all intended to be offensive, Mr Speaker, Sir, because I am really puzzled that any man in possession of his rational faculties can come to the same conclusion of the Member for Hong Lim. Therefore ---

Order. My duty here as Speaker is to see that nothing offensive is said. Offence has been taken, and I ask the Minister to withdraw those expressions which have caused offence. Let us get on with the debate.

Then I must withdraw. The Member for Hong Lim on this occasion has shown a delicacy of skin which is not ---

Order. A withdrawal must not be embellished and must not be conditional.

Now, Sir. 1,200 houses a month is no mean performance. Jurong is pressing on. But the hon. Member says that he has not seen factories there. That is an obvious untruth. We are very familiar with untruths whenever we have to deal with what the Member for Hong Lim says. The power station is carrying on: the loans are in the pocket: the airport runway is being extended: the airport terminal building will he completed in a few months' time; one school is being completed every three weeks; T.V. is now an established service in Singapore, and a second channel will be set up soon - all this to the great consternation indignation and demoralisation of the Barisan Opposition. So to say we have little to show is obviously a point unworthy of consideration. Now the second untruth, he says, is that the Economic Development Board is exactly the same as the Industrial Promotion Board, and that the only difference is that a new Ordinance has been passed by this Assembly, but that except for the parts of the Ordinance and the difference in name, it is exactly the same. Sir, in my Budget statement, I went to great lengths to explain that this is now a new and powerful agency of the Government to promote industrial growth, that it has now no less than six international experts in various lines as well as more than 30 local experts. The results of their endeavours are becoming more and more apparent day by day. As I have said, the work of the Economic Development Board is showing results which are apparent day by day. In fact, now when a new factory or a major industrial venture is established, it no longer hits the headlines. For instance, in the Malay Mail of two days ago, there was a small paragraph tucked somewhere to say that an oil refinery was to be set up in Jurong. On another page, there was another small item to say that a new pipe factory was to be set up in Jurong and that the first polyvineal chloride pipe factory in Singapore was to be set up this year with a 30-ton output. Then there was a reference to five more secondary technical schools to be set up. The Opposition Members have maintained that there has been no improvement in the economic situation. In fact, some of them say there has been a deterioration. For example, at page 10 of the Malay Mail dated 13th June - two days ago - we have the views of an international expert - one of the United Nations experts - who was here in 1960 and who has come back here again. I think the views of an international expert - completely disinterested, unbiased in Singapore carry more weight than the views of certain Members of the Opposition. He said that Singapore's economic position had shown considerable improvement since his first visit to the State in 1960. And he said. "Today, I see that employment is going up." Now there are other references in the newspaper, and if you will allow me some time to get to the right page, I think it will he here. Well, I have not got the actual date. I think it might be here. Anyway. I am not going to waste the time of the House in going through the papers because the items are all tucked away, as I have said in odd corners. But I remember distinctly that on the day I delivered my Budget speech, there was a reference to no less than six industrial projects that are due to go up in Singapore this year. One was the oil refinery, there were three major factories to be established by a group of industrialists from Formosa - a plywood factory, a chemical plant and a plastics plant; three factories which will give employment to 900 persons. There were also references to some other industrial ventures. Sir, all these are the direct results of the efforts of the Economic Development Board, and to dismiss their activities as being of no account either shows a state of mind that refuses to acknowledge the truth, or betrays a colossal ignorance of what is really going on in the State today of the enormous progress that we have made in the last 18 months.

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

Third Reading. Mr Minister.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.27 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the purpose of this Bill is to transfer the power to issue licences for auctioneers, appraisers and house agents from the Commissioner of Lands to the Comptroller of Property Tax. At present, such licences are still being issued by the Commissioner of Lands although the Valuation Section, formerly under the Land Office, was transferred to the Property Tax Division of the Inland Revenue Department of the Ministry of Finance with effect from 1st January, 1961. In practice, licences are only issued on the recommendation of the Government Valuer who weighs the applicant's experience and qualifications before tendering advice. Owing to the transfer of the Valuers to the Property Tax Division of the Inland Revenue Department, it is neither necessary nor proper for the Commissioner of Lands to continue to issue these licences. Such licences should henceforth be issued by the Comptroller of Property Tax. This Bill will enable this to be done by amending section 17 of the Auctioneers' Licences Ordinance so that the Comptroller of Property Tax may be appointed Licensing Officer for the purposes of this Ordinance. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj] Bill considered in Committee; reported, without amendment: read a Third time and passed.

3.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister, namely, That this Assembly in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance (Chapter 246) approves the reclamation by the Government of the two portions of the foreshore and sea-bed containing the respective areas of approximately 180 acres and 34 acres adjoining lots 96-107, 96-64. 68, 67-2, 114-2, 96-118, 93-1, 94-11, 131, 94-14, 193, Crown lands and Crown Reserves and lots 97, 98-1, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 and 107 being land at Jurong Industrial Area and Pulau Samulun, more particularly delineated by green lines and marked (1) and (2) on the plan which is deposited at the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, under section 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance, no reclamation can be made without the sanction of the Legislative Assembly. This motion seeks the necessary sanction to enable the Economic Development Board to reclaim two portions of the foreshore and sea-bed to the south of the Jurong Industrial Area. The areas to be reclaimed are clearly shown on the plan now lying in the Assembly Library which the Prime Minister has deposited with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly. Surplus earth from the industrial area will be used to fill the foreshore and sea-bed. The reclaimed land will be utilised for both harbour and industrial development. In doing this, the Economic Development Board will act as agent for the Government, and on completion of reclamation, the land will be declared State land and held in trust for the Board. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly in accordance with sect on 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance (Chapter 246) approves the reclamation by the Government of the two portions of the foreshore and sea-bed containing the respective areas of approximately 180 acres and 34 acres adjoining lots 96-107, 96-64, 68, 67-2, 114-2, 96-118, 93-1, 94-11, 131, 94-14, 193, Crown lands and Crown Reserves and lots 97, 98-1, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 and 107 being land at Jurong Industrial Area and Pulau Samulun, more particularly delineated by green lines and marked (1) and (2) on the plan which is deposited at the Land Office, Singapore. 3.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation to proceed with the motion standing in my name*. * The motion reads as follows:- That this Assembly, noting the Report of the Commission on Assembly Staff as contained in Paper Misc 1 of 1963, accepts the recommendations of the Commission as contained in Part IX thereof and resolves in accordance with such recommendations. Members of the House will be aware from the Report which has been submitted that a Commission consisting of you, Mr Speaker, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Health, the Minister for National Development, and the Chairman of the P.S.C., was appointed to study the terms of service of the Assembly Staff. This Commission has met and has made certain recommendations as contained in this Report. Generally, the Commission is of the opinion that the terms of service of members of the Assembly Staff should be related to those which are equally applicable to their counterparts in the Government service. I am happy to say that accord has been reached on the salary scales of the Clerk, the Clerk-Assistant, the Interpreters, the Serjeantat-Arms, and that other terms of service have also been carefully looked into. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we were, in addition to being asked to consider the revision of the salary scales of the Assembly Staff, also asked to consider a proposal that the four topmost posts of the Assembly service should be removed from the civil service, and he placed in a closed Assembly Service. The main reason for this proposal is the desirability of placing such posts outside the control of the Executive Government to avoid any possibility of their being brought under the political control of the Executive Government in order to maintain the independence and dignity of the Assembly in accord with similar arrangements in the English House of Commons. Sir, in the U.K. there is not the equivalent of an independent Public Service Commission which is outside political control and entrusted with the duty of recruiting, promoting, transferring and exercising discipline generally over the civil service there. There the Civil Service Commission only recruits to the civil service and has no control over promotions, transfers or discipline. Promotion to the top posts in the civil service in the United Kingdom depends on recommendations from the Permanent Head of the Treasury, but such recommendations first receive ministerial approval before they are implemented. As the kind of service which officers appointed to serve the House of Commons renders is entirely different from that rendered by the rest of the civil service in the United Kingdom, and as promotions to the topmost civil service posts there depend on ministerial approval, there was therefore good reason for placing these appointments in a closed service outside the ordinary civil service; but conditions here, Sir, are not similar. In Singapore we have the Public Service Commission which is outside political control, exercising authority over recruitments, transfers, promotions and discipline in the civil service. Under section 46 (2) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, the appointment of the Clerk is made by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara acting in his discretion but after consultation with the Speaker and the Public Service Commission; and the recruitment and promotion of other staff of the Assembly are made by the Public Service Commission. They are also not eligible for promotion or transfer to any other appointment in the public service without the consent of the Speaker. Sir, these provisions in themselves ensure that there is no possibility of any of the Assembly staff being brought under the control of the Executive Government. While we pay due regard to the dignity and authority of this Assembly, we are at the same time realists, and are able to recognise that there is a great deal of difference between our Assembly and the United Kingdom House of Commons, which has developed in the course of time to be a world forum. It is true that the Clerk of the House of Commons enjoys the same salary as the Permanent Secretary of a large United Kingdom Ministry, but it does not follow that because this is so, the Clerk of our Assembly who has control of a staff of only 41 and serves an Assembly of 51 Members should receive emoluments of a local Permanent Secretary who has control of a staff of many Divisions with a number of Deputy Heads and a total staff amounting to a few thousands ---

Order. I do not know what the Minister is doing, whether he is arguing against the Report or for the Report. He was a member of the Commission and all this argument could have been advanced before the Commission. We are now either to accept or to reject the recommendations of this Commission. As a member of the Commission, he has not agreed to this closed service principle. So there it is. If any other Member disagrees with that, then of course the Minister gets up and says how that other Member is wrong.

With due respect, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the point that was discussed in the Commission, and I am only pointing out the reasons why we have in a way departed from the practices of the United Kingdom in considering the revision of the salary scales of these posts. I stand by the recommendations of this Commission, Mr Speaker, Sir.

But those recommendations have so far not been challenged. Once they are challenged, then the Minister gets up and justifies it. The proper parliamentary practice is that the Minister, as a member of the Commission, has put forward this Report. The Assembly is asked to accept the Report, and unless and until that Report is challenged there is no reason at all why the Minister should justify that Report.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I would take this opportunity, in view of the difference in the salary scales, to explain what were the matters that were uppermost in our minds at the time when we were debating these recommendations. But I do stand by the recommendations in the Report.

I also wish to make another point, because if the Minister pursues that line, then, of course, the whole debate which took place in the Commission should be aired. I, as Speaker, of course, cannot take part in this debate, and on certain points I think we did differ until we reached accord, so that I do not think the Minister is following good parliamentary practice if he now urges something which he has in fact already accepted, unless and until, as I have said, somebody challenges that decision.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I bow to your ruling. All that I had proposed to do is to draw the attention of the House to matters that were uppermost in our minds at the time they were under consideration.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, noting the Report of the Commission on Assembly Staff as contained in Paper Misc. 1 of 1963, accepts the recommendations of the Commission as contained in Part IX thereof and resolves in accordance with such recommendations.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, you will recall that this Bill was first introduced in the Third Session of this Assembly and was referred to Select Committee by a resolution of the Assembly on 27th June, 1962. The Select Committee considered representations received and recommended a number of amendments to the Bill. These amendments are all incorporated in the Bill now before the House. I do not propose to take up the valuable time of hon. Members by explaining at length the principle behind this legislation. The details of the Bill are fully explained in the Explanatory Statement attached to the Bill. Very briefly, it seeks to provide a statutory body to register and regulate the conduct of all accountants in Singapore - those in practice as well as those in employment. Registration is necessary in order to protect the public from untrained and inexperienced, persons. A controlling body representative of the accountancy profession is required to maintain the standards of accounting skill and the integrity of the profession. I will now refer to the recommendations of the Select Committee which, are incorporated in the Bill. Much anxious thought was given to the matter of unqualified accountants who are now in public practice. The Bill in' its original form would have put au of them out of business. It is, however, not the intention of the Bill to deprive any person of his livelihood. So the Select Committee reached a reasonable solution in the initial stage of legislation, which is to bring such unqualified persons into the ambit of the Bill. The most suitable nomenclature to adopt for these persons is "licensed accountants". Some people are unhappy over this name which has been taken after much thought and without any intention of being derogatory to anybody. It is thus provided in clause 6 for these accountants who were in the public service on 27th April, 1962, to be once and for all registered as, licensed accountants to enable them to carry on any practice in which they were engaged before this legislation takes effect. Further, provision is made for licensed accountants to be promoted to public accountants - i.e. fully qualified accountants - if they are examined by the Council of the Society and found to be fit for registration as such. The original provisions of the Bill do not allow the rules of the First Council to be discussed by the Assembly. Since these are of fundamental importance and affect the interest of the profession, it appears desirable that the rules made by the First Council should not come into force until they are presented, debated and approved by the Assembly. It is now provided in clause 12 that such rules made by the First Council on matters like qualifications for persons to be admitted members, the manner of admission, fees payable and other matters should come to the Assembly for approval. In order to remove any doubts in the minds of some accountants that they may have to go through a lengthy and perhaps tiresome process of application for registration as a public accountant, clause 24 (5) provides that those who are now authorised under the Companies Ordinance as auditors generally will automatically be registered as public accountants. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. Sir, owing to the curtailment of time on the Budget debate, I had not much time to give a close study to this Bill, but I have done so since last night and have found that there are one or two clauses here that may require amendment. I am already out of time in so far as notice is concerned, but when the Bill is in Committee, I shall try to explain to the Minister where I think an amendment is necessary, and if that is accepted, I will seek the assent of this House for such an amendment to be moved.

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. 3.52 p.m.

Will the Member for Cairnhill indicate the clauses on which he wishes to speak?

Clauses 1 and 12; clause 17 for information and clarification and clause 24 for some explanation.

On clause 1, does the hon. Member wish to move an amendment?

I would like to explain and see whether my explanation is accepted by the Government.

The procedural difficulty is this. Once I call clause 1, that is the time amendments should be proposed. Even if the amendments are withdrawn, it does not matter. An amendment, when proposed, enables the House to debate the suggested amendment. If I propose that the clause stand part of the Bill, then it is too late to make any amendment.

I see the difficulty. But I would perhaps ask you to appreciate my difficulty. As I am not a legal man, I might have some difficulty in phrasing the amendment, but if I were to give it in a rough form, perhaps it could be done. Clause 1 -

Clause 1 then - amendment to be proposed?

What I want to point out under clause 1 and try to show that an amendment is necessary is the appointed day. According to clause 1 the appointed day is to be fixed by the Minister. This Bill is in several Parts - Part I up to Part V. If the appointed day is to refer to all the Parts, therefore, Part V will come into operation, and no person, unless he is registered under the Ordinance, can practise as a public accountant. But if no appointed day is given, it is fixed. Until the legislation is completed, the Society and the Council cannot legally function. So I do submit that an amendment is necessary here to the extent that certain Parts of the Ordinance shall come into force on such days as the Minister may by notification in the Gazette appoint. What I want to point out is that Parts II to IV can come into operation immediately, but Part V will have to wait until the Society has functioned for some time and until all the registrable accountants have been duly registered, otherwise no accountant can operate in Singapore.

The Member for Cairnhill then seeks leave to move an amendment perhaps at the end of clause 1 to add: `The Minister may appoint different days for the coming into operation of different Parts or clauses of this Ordinance.'?

That is correct. May I elucidate?

Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be moved?

No, Sir.

No. There is an objection to the amendment being moved to start off with. There is an objection?

Yes.

The amendment cannot be moved. Question proposed, "That clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

Can I not ask for an explanation on clause 1?

Yes, on the clause itself.

Can the Minister please explain, in the light of clause 37 which says: `After the appointed day a person who is not registered as a public accountant under this Ordinance .shall not practise ...'. So once the appointed day is fixed- and it has to be fixed for the law to come into operation for the Society to exist and for the members of the Council to be appointed by the Minister-all the accountants will not be allowed to practise legally. It will be an offence under clause 37 of this law.

Sir, I do not think there is any difficulty about this at all, because all the known accountants, that is, the qualified accountants, are listed in the Companies Ordinance and action has been taken through the various departments to get the unqualified accountants. In so far as the unqualified accountants are concerned, of course, some time may elapse before they are brought within the ambit of this law. But for the public accountants, there should not be any difficulty at all.

The point is this, Mr Speaker. Sir. There must be an appointed day for bringing the Ordinance into force: `After the appointed day a person who is not registered as a public accountant under this Ordinance shall not practise as a public accountant, auditor or tao consultant;'. You have got to bring the Ordinance into force as from an appointed day, and after that appointed day, if one is not registered as a public accountant, then one cannot practise as an accountant.

That is quite true, but when is the appointed day? The appointed day will have to be brought in immediately for Part IV, otherwise the Society cannot legally function. The Minister will have no power to appoint members to the Council.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may make a very simple point? All Ordinances are brought into force on the day they receive the assent of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, if there is no other appointed day. Where an Ordinance does not have a specific provision providing for a day on which it is to be brought into operation, the Ordinance comes into force from the day that it receives the assent of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. That is one thing - the day on which the Ordinance is brought into force. Now registration can take place before that or after that, but the registration is effective only after the day when the Ordinance is brought into force.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. 4.00 p.m. Clause 12 -

Sir, I have to seek your indulgence again. I would not know how to move an amendment unless I know the point of view that I want to present to this House is accepted. Under clause 12, it means that under clause 9 when this law comes into operation, the Minister has the power to appoint members to the Council which shall run the Society in accordance with the law. Then under clause 8, there are certain powers given to the Society for the framing of rules. Under clause 12, the Council shall only have certain powers, but not all the powers. The Council under clause 12 shall, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 8 of this Bill, frame rules in respect of certain paragraphs -

Order. If the hon. Member wishes to raise those points by way of an amendment, he must indicate what the amendment is. Otherwise I will propose the Question. The Question is, "That clause 12 stand part of the Bill." This refers to the first Council of the Society.

Sir, there are certain rules which must be approved by the Legislative Assembly. They can make other rules. But it is not required that there should be an Assembly approval with regard to the other rules that they make.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 13 to 16 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 17 -

Is the Member for Cairnhill moving an amendment?

No. Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 18 to 23 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 24 -

Is there an amendment?

No, Sir. Question proposed, "That clause 24 stand part of the Bill."

Under clause 24, no person shall be registered by the Council as a member of the Society if he is not of good character or reputation. I find it difficult to appreciate how character and good reputation can be assessed. If he is not registered, he cannot practise. Whereas under clause 30, sub-clause (2) , where a man is already a member, if he is found to be of not good character or reputation, he can be suspended. But then he has a right of appeal even to the Court. But here a man, before he becomes a member, can just be knocked out on the ground that he is not of good character or reputation, and there is no redress. Perhaps the Minister can explain that there is some redress.

It must be left to the good sense of the Council to see that admissions to the Society are made in a proper manner, it is usual to provide that people who have previous convictions for dishonesty are not admitted to the rolls of a Society like this.

I agree, Sir. What I want to point out is that in the case of a member who is suspended on the same ground, he has redress. But for a man who wants to be a member, if he is knocked out on that ground, he has no redress, and then he cannot practise in spite of all the qualifications he has got. There must be some way of getting some redress.

The reason why it is required that the first Constitution of the Society be approved by this Assembly, `that is to say, the rules made under clause 8 of the Bill - you will note that under clause 8 (1) (b), rules may be made governing the admission of members. I would suggest that it may be possible to insert that the Assembly should see that any possible safeguard could be introduced when the Council itself breaks the rules. So far as the general provisions of the Bill are concerned, it is obviously necessary that before accountants are registered, they should satisfy the registration body, namely, the Council, that he is of good character and reputation.

May I also inform hon. Members that that particular clause appeared in the original Bill which went to Select Committee in June 1962 and I chaired the Select Committee? I do not think there was any objection raised to that particular clause, was there? Some hon. Members: No.

We had accountants before us who gave evidence.

Anyway, the Legislative Assembly will be able to scrutinise the rules providing for admission to the Society.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 25 to 50 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

There are certain amendments to be made to marginal titles of clauses 36, 37, 38 and 39. They will be done as a matter of course. Bill reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.12 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sections 3 (1) and 4 (1) of the Rubber Estates Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 168) prescribes the levy of assessment on rubber estates of 100 acres or more, and on estates of less than 100 acres respectively. The proviso to subsection (1) of these two sections of the principal Ordinance prescribes the payment to the Comptroller of an additional rate of $8.75 per quarter per acre in respect of those rubber estates in which no rubber trees are tapped or in which rubber trees are not tapped to the satisfaction of the Comptroller. The levy of a tax as provided under the provisos to sections 3 (1) and 4 (1) of the Ordinance was imposed to discourage the alienation of land for rubber, and as a measure to deter an owner of a rubber estate from evading tax by tapping trees once or twice a quarter in order to pay the rate for the rubber produced which would be small. It was not intended that this rate should be in addition to the rates imposed under the other subsections (3) and (4) of the Ordinance. The object of the Bill now before the House is to amend the principal Ordinance so that the additional rate of $8.75 per acre should be levied in lieu of, and not in addition to, the rates prescribed in sections 3 (1) and 4 (1) of the principal Ordinance. It was not the intention that this rate should be additional to those prescribed in sections 3 (1) and 4 (1) . The functions of the Minister prescribed under section 3 (3) of the principal Ordinance are now conferred upon the Comptroller of income Tax. The Bill also empowers the Minister, instead of the Comptroller of Income Tax, to prescribe the rate of assessment levied under subsection (2) of section 4 in respect of rubber estates of less than 100 acres. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second timer 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; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, in recent years, the Postal Services Department has experienced constant embarrassment in the number of unpaid money orders which lie in its accounting records because of the inability or unwillingness of remitters or payees to claim payment. Many of the undisposed money orders relate to disputes between landlord and tenant in the payment of rent. Section 54 (2) of the Post Office Ordinance (Cap. 105) provides two conditions to be fulfilled before an unpaid money order may be credited to revenue : -

Mr Speaker, Sir, while sympathising with the Postmaster-General in his difficulties and his inability to dispose of these embarrassing amounts, there seems to be a point of principle involved in this, which, if not determined properly, might lead to adverse property results. Sir, the position is this. If I owe Mr X $250, I take a money order out and I send it to him. Under the present regulations, there is imposed on the Post Office an obligation to search out the remitter. It is only when the remitter cannot be found that the one-year period begins to operate [Interruption]. Yes, if within one year from the date of issue no claim is made by such payee or the remitter. If the remitter can be found, the obligation is to give it to the remitter, it cannot go into the State coffers. So that the obligation at the moment now is on the State, where a money order is not paid, to look in the first instance for the payee; and if the payee cannot be found, then to look for the remitter. If he cannot be found, then it goes into the State coffers. There is a switch now. The State is now saying, "I am going to divest myself of this responsibility, to look either for the payee or the remitter." They do not want to take any responsibility in this matter at all. They also say that if, within one year from the date of such order, nothing is done, then the Postmaster-General may in any case, where the claim is made after one year but not later than three years from the date of issue, pay the amount to the payee or remitter. If it is not claimed within three years, under no circumstances will either the payee or the remitter get the money. We have recently had an amendment to the Limitations Ordinance which said this: that where previously you could only pursue a debt for three years, now you can pursue it for six years. So if I, a debtor, pay my creditor through a money order, after three years I lose my money, but my creditor can still pursue me. That, I think, is not fair. It is not right at all. Because after all, the State has agreed to act as my agent to convey this money to my creditor, and they get a commission for this. It is not a free service. Therefore, I think, to put the matter completely beyond objection, the period of three years, it seems to me, should be extended. Otherwise, the present obligation of the Government to search out either the payee or the remitter should be maintained.

Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister brought out one very interesting point in connection with the payment of rent. Payment of rent is made by money orders. The Postmaster knows the remitter, the Postmaster can trace the payee. But then the Postmaster cannot force either the remitter or the payee to go and claim the money. That is why in order to obviate that dilemma, this amendment is being passed. I would rather see, if an amendment is necessary, that where you can trace the remitter or the payee, a time limit be given to him. If he does not take it, then it is forfeited. Will the Postmaster go and tell the remitter, "If you do not take out this money, you are going to lose it"? That is not written into the amendment. Is it the intention that the Postmaster, knowing who the remitter or the payee is, will give a notice, saying, "You either come and take your money within a year, or your money is forfeited."

Sir, I do not think it is the intention of the Postmaster-General to profit out of this amendment to the Post Office Ordinance. It is quite obviously a heavy burden on the Postmaster-General that he should have accumulated in his safe a very large number of unclaimed money orders. I am quite sure that the Post Office will, through administrative action, seek to find out who the remitter is and who the payee is. With regard to the point raised by the Member for Farrer Park about application of this Ordinance vis-a-vis the Limitations Ordinance, I have been informed by the Legal Department that by virtue of section 3 of the Limitations Ordinance, it is there provided that where the period of limitation is prescribed by any other written law, the provisions of the Limitations Ordinance shall not apply to such action. Therefore, the period of limitation prescribed by this proposed amendment will apply to the recovery of money payable on a money order. In any case, Sir, I would like to add that it is desirable we should have uniform legislation with regard to pan-Malaysian or pan-Malayan Departments. I have already pointed out that such legislation is already in force in the Federation of Malaya, and after 31st August when our Post Office will come under the control of the Central Government, I have no doubt that the Post Office here will have to follow similar legislation. So I think it may be as well that this House approves this amendment to the Post Office Ordinance.

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 Toh Chin Chye]. Bill considered in Committee. 4.27 p.m.

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

Sir, I think the Deputy Prime Minister has given the House an assurance that through an administrative process though not a legal obligation, the Postmaster-General will, before he exercises his powers under this Ordinance, see to it that neither the payee nor the remitter can be found. That is one aspect of the problem which is solved by administrative action. But the point I raised, and which the Minister seems not to have understood on the limitation period of three years, is this: where there is a debt owing, then the creditor can sue the debtor within six years from the time the debt becomes due. That is the present limitation law, as I understand it. Therefore, if the debtor sends to the creditor a money order through the Post Office, and the creditor does not receive it for some reason or other - he might have gone away - then this three-year period has lapsed, then neither the creditor nor the debtor can go against the Post Office, because the Post Office is protected by this section. But the poor old debtor is not protected from the creditor, because the creditor has not received his money. The debtor has sent the money, the Government has acquired the money, and will not part with it after three years, and the poor old debtor can still be sued by the creditor.

Serve him right!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would say, "Do not settle your bills through the Post Office." I think it is very unfair indeed that the Postmaster, with all his responsibilities, should also be asked to mediate between creditor and debtor. In fact, I would say this gives the lawyers an increase in their business. May they prosper!

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Financial Procedure Ordinance, 1959, No. 39 of 1959, has been in operation for the last four years. This Bill seeks to make certain amendments which appear necessary in the light of the last four years' experience. Subsection (3) of section 7 of the principal Ordinance is amended to enable the investment of monies standing to the credit of the State and stocks, funds and securities authorised for the time being in the United Kingdom for the investment of trust funds. The provision of subsection (2) of section 12 of the principal Ordinance has given rise to an accounting difficulty, insofar as it requires that the repayment of loans received under the local Treasury Bills Ordinance to be made from the Consolidated Revenue Account where the money received as loans are credited to the Consolidated Loan Account, with the result that the credits remain uncleared in the Consolidated Loan Account. Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 12 of the principal Ordinance so that such repayments can be charged to the Consolidated Loan Account. Another difficulty encountered in the operation of the principal Ordinance stems from the requirement that the refunds of taxes over-collected have been treated as expenditure by providing votes under different departmental Heads of Expenditure. This tends to give a magnified picture of the running cost of the department concerned. Clause 4 of the Bill amends the principal Ordinance so as to enable such refunds to be charged on the Consolidated Fund. Section 19 of the principal Ordinance, which concerns the procedures for surcharge, empowers the Minister to surcharge a person in the event of deficiency or irregularity in the management of Singapore Government Funds. Since certain Singapore Departments are responsible for the administration of funds other than those of the Singapore Government, as in the case, for instance, of Pan-Malayan Departments, it is desirable to amend section 19 of the Ordinance as proposed in clause 5 of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 4.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the extension of time for the revision of the registers of electors for the year 1962. As the House is aware, under the provisions of subsection (1) of section 15 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, the Registration Officer shall in each year complete a revision of the registers of electors on or before the 15th day of September or such later date in that year as the Minister may appoint for the purpose by notification published in the Gazette. However, the revision of the 1962 registers of electors was not completed last year as required by the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance for two main reasons. Firstly, to prevent confusion among the electorate during the year of the national referendum and, secondly, to enable the electors who did not vote at the national referendum to get their names restored in the 1962 registers of electors. If the national referendum for which the 1961 electoral registers were used had been held during the period of publication of the 1962 List B and the submission of claims and objections and adjudications in connection with the 1962 revision of the registers, there were bound to be doubts and misunderstanding in the minds of a large proportion of electors as to their entitlement to vote or their places of voting at the national referendum. Again, if the 1962 revised registers were certified and published in 1962, those who failed to vote at the national referendum on September 1st, 1962, would not be able to get their names restored in the 1962 registers of electors, since the preparation and publication of lists of non-voters could only be completed towards the end of January 1963. They would have to wait until the revision of the 1963 registers to get their names restored to the registers. As the House is now aware, the various procedural steps with regard to the public inspection of Lists A and B, the submissions of claims and objections and the adjudication of claims and objections as well as the publication of the lists of non-voters have already been completed. The certification and publication of the registers of electors for 1962 will be made before 30th June. Sir, I beg to move. 4.37 p.m.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel unable to support this Bill for reasons which I will now give to the House. The reasons given by the Minister for Home Affairs that the 1962 registers were not able to be completed in time was because of the Referendum and the desire of the Government to see that those who had not voted in the Referendum to have their names inserted in the 1962 registers. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Referendum was held on the 1st September, 1962. Under section 15, subsection (1) , the obligation on the Registration Officer is as follows: `The Registration Officer shall in each year following the year 1958 complete a revision of the registers on or before the 15th day of September or such later date in that year as the Minister may appoint for the purpose by notification published in the Gazette.' If the Government were sincere in its desire to see that those who had not voted in the Referendum should have their names registered, the procedure should have been such that the defaulting voters would be enabled to get their names on to the 1962 registers. The Minister could quite easily have extended the date after the 15th of September to some time before the 31st December for certification. As far as I can remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, nothing was done for the compilation of the 1962 registers until after the lapse of the year 1962 and sometime in February 1963. That is the factual position. Nothing was done. Nothing was done before December, and the Minister had plenty of time from the 1st of September to the 31st December, 1962. The total time for the compilation of the electoral register required under the Ordinance, I think, is about two to three months. Within two months the certification can take place, having regard to the time limits set by the various sections in the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. I rather think, at least the most charitable construction that one can put on this matter, is that either the Minister forgot about the 1962 registers or his officials, who should have reminded him of it, forgot to remind him of it. That is about the most charitable construction that I can put on this matter, because it is certainly a lapse. A statutory obligation imposed on the Registration Officer has not been complied with. He is in dereliction of his duty and if the Registration Officer does not give a satisfactory explanation to the Minister, I think he should be up for severe disciplinary action. The Minister now seeks to rectify the position by this Bill, and he has told the House, in the most categorical terms, that the registers will be ready before the 30th June this year. That is, in about fifteen days' time. But Mr Deputy Speaker, you will notice that the provisions of the Bill are these: `Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of section 15 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance the revision of the registers of electors for the year 1962 shall be completed on or before the 30th day of June, 1963'. As promised by the Minister in this House. But here again, in case either he forgets or his Registration Officer forgets, he wants to be on the safe side, he puts in a clause "or such later date in the year as the Minister may appoint for the purpose by notification published in the Gazette." So what the Minister is now asking the House to do is to give him complete carte blanche so that he can extend the date right up to the 31st December, 1963, and yet be within the provisions of the law. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is one difficulty which I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister in charge of this Bill and the Minister for Law. Under this Ordinance, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the whole of the registration process must be completed within the year of registration. What the Minister wants to do now, what the Minister is asking the House to do rather, is to extend the time to the 30th June in order to enable the 1962 registers to be completed. I understand that steps have already been taken by the Registration Officer sometime towards the end of February this year to start the compilation of the 1962 registers. To my mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all those steps which he has now taken are ultra vires, null and void, of no legal effect, so that all the claims and objections which have been registered, all the tentative registers which he has put up (Lists A and B) are illegal and have no effect. That is the present position. All that the Minister is asking the House to do is to extend the time for the certification of the registers. The certification of the registers on the steps now taken, to my mind, will be an illegality without the sanction of the law. I do not see how, even if this Assembly passes the Bill in the form in which it is framed, any certification resulting from the steps already taken by the Registration Officer can make these registers valid. That is my view which I put forward to this House. If the Minister carried this Bill through, it could well be that somebody could contest the validity of these registers, and elections held on the 1962 registers might well be null and void and of no effect. I would ask the Minister whether he has taken the advice of the State Advocate-General on the present position on this specific proposition - that steps already having been taken to compile the registers (which steps are illegal at the moment) and the Bill drafted in the way that it is without further provisions to cover the illegal steps already taken by the Registration Officer, whether this Bill would, in law, enable a proper valid legal register for 1962 to be completed. The last point I wish to raise is this. The 1963 registers must be compiled. I wonder whether the Registration Officer is doing anything about that. If he is, in fact, going to bring out the 1963 registers before the 15th of September, 1963, he should be taking steps now which, in fact, he has not done. Is the Minister then going to extend the date for the 1963 Registers to beyond the 15th of September? If the Minister is going to keep to the statutory date provided in section 15, then the first steps should have been taken by the Registration Officer by now. But they, in fact, have not been taken. 4.47 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are now only three matters which will stop the people of Singapore from having a new government and which will restore the confidence of this country. They are, firstly, the Elections Office, secondly, the Police, and thirdly, the Ministry of Culture.

Order. The Member is completely out of order in straying away from the Bill. We are debating the Second Reading of the Bill introduced by the Minister for Home Affairs, i.e. the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to explain this Bill in greater detail so that the people can better understand this amending Bill. I believe that if there has been no interference by the P.A.P. Government and the civil service is allowed to take its own course, today's amending Bill is not necessary. We could have had the 1962 Registers by 15th September, 1962. Now, as the Member for Farrer Park has said, the Election Officer would be busy not with the 1962 Registers, but the 1963 registers. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the 1963 Registers should have been almost ready by now. All these are tricks of the P.A.P. Government to have a snap election, giving us as short a notice as possible. For instance, in clause 3, what is the necessity of this date "30th day of June, 1963"? We are told that the register "shall be completed on or before the 30th day of June, 1963", in other words, another two weeks. It is a "shall" assurance given by the Government in this amending Bill, but there is an a1ternative "or". The "or" is "or such later date in the year as the Minister may appoint for the purpose by notification published in the Gazette". In other words, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government is still not sure; when it changes its mind it can defer the 1962 Registers to, as the Member for Farrer Park has said, the 31st of December, 1962, at 12 midnight. This is another scheme by the P.A.P. Government to hoodwink the people and to try to stage a comeback by dishonest means. 4.49 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, this amending Bill, the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Bill, has raised many queries. It coincides with the manner in which the Government enforces the provisions of the Bill. We have had many reasons given by the Government, one of them being that it cannot be implemented because of this and that. We are prepared to accept the arguments advanced by the Government if it does not mean losing confidence in the present Government. This is a very important Bill, as it means upholding a democratic government. Let not the Government exploit its tenure of office by indulging in unhealthy practices. As has been pointed out by the Member for Farrer Park, the year 1962 has passed and we are now in the middle of 1963, and we are still faced with problems. It is the duty of 1hz Government to have the registers prepared, or to take steps for the preparation of the electoral registers for 1963. Over six months have passed and many events have taken place and constituents have changed their places of abode - and in the year 1964 we shall be faced with another general election under our Constitution. If the preparation of the 1963 registers is linked up with the 1964 registers, and if the 1963 electoral registers are not ready, then it may be that when elections are due, a motion may be moved for the purpose of using the 1962 electoral registers. Therefore, it is proper that this question of registers of electors, as has been said by the Member for Tanglin, be put under the jurisdiction of an independent commission. I think it is a good move, so that there will be no grounds for suspicion. For instance, in the past we heard allegations that certain political Parties had caused some voters to be transferred from one constituency to another. It was done with such secrecy that it was impossible for this allegation to be proved. But the time has now come for matters relating to elections to be put under the control of an independent commission, as has been done in the Federation of Malaya. This independent commission will he free from control, pressure or influence of the Government. I would like the Minister in charge to declare his stand and further clarify the points raised by Opposition Members. 4.51 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is another case of Government trying to rig the elections. They legally rigged the Referendum Bill the last time, and now they hope to rig tie elections. I will explain to you, Sir. Why do they seek the passing of this Bill? The Member for Farrer Park has already pointed out that the whole thing is illegal, and I am sure the Minister himself knows that it is illegal. But they still persist in it. Why? You see, when the National Referendum was held on 1st September, 1962, the registers for that referendum were based on the registers for 1961. If you will remember, Sir, at that time a lot of people complained of their names being not in the electoral registers. Offhand, I can recall that those who had not voted in the Hong Lim by-election had not got their names restored in the 1961 electoral registers. Then there were those who did not vote in Anson and had their names deleted from the 1961 registers. Then those who did not vote in the General Elections in 1959 and have not as yet got their names restored to the registers, and those who had come of age and having reached 21 years of age, were already citizens.

Will the Member take some time on this subject?

A little while more. These people had applied for their names to be inserted in the electoral registers, but their names had not been inserted in the electoral registers. If you will remember, Sir, the Referendum was held on the 1st of September, whereas by the 15th of September if only the Government had extended the date for another two weeks, those who had come of age and would have been certified by the 15th of September, 1962 would have become voters. I list all this to tell you that the total number who should have voted in the referendum but had not been given the vote, exceeded many tens of thousands. Every year about 60,000 babies are born. Let us go back 20 years and assume that the figure is just half that, 30,000 say. Therefore, in 1962 at least 30,000 names would have been added to the registers if only the Government had allowed those names to be inserted in the 1962 electoral registers. Added to that, you have 1,000 voters in Hong Lim, another 1,000 voters in Anson, plus more than 20,000 voters who did not vote in 1959. The total number that did not have a chance to vote in the referendum therefore exceeded 60,000. It might even be 100,000. This Referendum on the 1st of September, according to the P.A.P., was favourable to them and, therefore, they think that if they wanted to hold an election in future, they would prefer to have the election based on those same registers. But now they are forced to include the 1962 lot of people who have come of age, that is age 21, and automatically becoming voters by the 15th of February. 1962, and who should have been certified by 15th September, 1962, as electoral voters. The figure is fairly high. These citizens are young men. The P.A.P. today is very afraid of young men because all the young people of Singapore, especially those who come from Chinese schools, are very much against the P.A.P. Therefore, if a new batch of would be voters of 1963 could be excluded from the electoral registers, then, of course, it would be more advantageous to the P.A.P. That is the very reason why we are asked to allow the Government to fix a date as and when the P.A.P. likes for the certification of the electoral registers. They want to exclude the 1963 lot of new citizens and voters who constitute a very big number. This number together with the new voters of 1962 can easily knock the P.A.P. out. The P.A.P. would prefer not to give this large number of young men their opportunity to vote in the forthcoming elections. Sir, we do not trust the P.A.P. at all. They rigged the referendum and they hope to rig a future election. That is why they have refused to agree to the proposals from the Opposition - that there should be a neutral commission to look after the elections. We oppose this new rigging of the Bill.

I suspend this sitting until 5.35 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I stressed the need for an independent Elections Commission for Singapore. Today, Sir, this Bill has confirmed that need. If we had had an independent Elections Commission, the electoral registers for 1961 would have been ready in time, because nobody would have told them that they must slow down for this or that event. And if they had seen the need for a slowing down, they would have approached the Government to have some Bill here so that it could be done legally. Sir, all of a sudden the Party in power decides that it wants to speed up the thing. And they have put forward a Bill to legalise the completion of the Registers of Electors on or before the 30th day of June. Not only that, Sir, they give to themselves even wider powers. If they see fit, they can extend the date to the end of this year, or such later date in the year as the Minister may appoint. They are asking really for very wide powers. An independent Elections Commission would make sure that the conditions for an election should be fair to all parties concerned. But here, I am sorry to say, the Party in power want to make sure that they win and to make sure also that they win with handicaps given to themselves. Sir, what is the significance of the "30th day of June"? We used to think that the former Mayor of Singapore, the present Member for Hong Lim, was exaggerating when he said that he had a great deal to do with the training of men of the P.A.P. top cadre. Now, Sir, we must give him credit for having been able to see that the Federal elections, instead of, as had been expected before, being held after 31st August, 1963, may be rushed through very much earlier, after this magic date of 30th June, 1963. This, of course, is to make sure that all the other Parties are caught by surprise. Why the long postponement of the by-election for Sembawang? Now why the sudden rush? That is why we say, Sir, the Party in power are so keen on their winning a victory that at times national interests become secondary. I am sure if they say they have no intention of playing any trickery, why cannot they say they agree to an independent officer being the Supervisor of Elections so that there can be no suspicion that they are going to indulge in anything that would be improper? Sir, we feel that this Bill is unnecessary, that the registers for 1963 can be completed according to the present Ordinance by 15th September, 1963, and if this Bill is not necessary, then why push it through at this time? 5.38 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government have been boasting that they are the champions of parliamentary democracy. But the amendment moved by the Minister for Home Affairs has disclosed their face, and has exposed them as trying to destroy parliamentary democracy. The amendment, although it consists of three short clauses, nevertheless has greatly affected parliamentary democracy, and its content. The explanation of the Minister for Home Affairs cannot cover up their intention of trying to play party politics and cannot cover up their wrong doings. According to the Elections Ordinance, the 1962 Registers of Electors should have been completed by the 15th September. But the Government has wasted a lot of time without being able to complete the revision and printing of the Registers of Electors. Does this mean that the vote in the 1961 Estimates for the revision has been reduced, or is it because the staff of that Department has been reduced, so that this job has not been completed? In the 1961 as well as the 1962 Budgets, we can see that the expenditure for the Elections Office for each year is the same. How is it that this Office has not been able to complete its work of revising the 1962 Registers of Electors? The Minister a little while ago has said that it is because of the National Referendum. On this Referendum the Government spent about $400,000. Therefore, this cannot be a good reason for not having been able to complete the revision of the Registers. From the facts we can see clearly that the inability to complete the work is not due to the inefficiency of the Elections Office but to the fact that the whole P.A.P. Government intend to delay this work in order to take advantage of it to benefit themselves in the future elections. Mr Speaker, in the beginning of 1963 I visited the Elections Commissioner on three occasions regarding the revision of registers of voters. He told me that the work was about to complete and that on completion the Government would notify the public. At that time, I told him that according to the Elections Ordinance every political Party has a right to receive a set of copies of the Registers of Voters for the 51 constituencies. On 18th March, on behalf of the Barisan Sosialis, I wrote a letter to the Elections Commissioner requesting him to send us quickly the whole set of the 1962 registers of voters. After two weeks, I received a very short reply from him saying that the present registers had not been completed and that on completion of this work he would be sending to the Barisan Sosialis a complete set of the registers of voters for the 51 constituencies. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are very concerned about the printing of the registers of voters, because the existence of parliamentary democracy depends on the registers of voters. It is the backbone of parliamentary democracy. Without them, it is impossible to elect the 51 Members of this House. In other words, it will mean the collapse of parliamentary democracy. Let us see what the P.A.P. is doing today. The Minister for Home Affairs has now come to this House to legalise their illegal act. The intention of the Government is very obvious. The Government is trying to exclude those who should be included in the Registers by the 15th of February, 1963. By this amendment of the Government, we can see clearly that for the 1964 general elections the registers will not be based on the 1963 registers but on the registers for 1962. What is the difference? The difference is this: in 1963, there will be at least 40,000 new citizens of Singapore who will have the right to vote in 1964 and to be included in the registers for 1964, but after this amending Bill is passed by the Government, these 40 000 odd citizens will be deprived of their voting rights. Why is the Government afraid of an increase in the number of voters? If the Government is really sincere in protecting parliamentary democracy, it should allow more citizens to exercise their rights and duties to cast their votes. But the Government is now intentionally depriving them of their legal rights. Mr Speaker, these citizens of 1963 who should have the right to vote were born in 1941 or 1942. These are young men who have just left school. According to the Labour Department Annual Report and according to the census of population. We can see clearly that the youths who have left school are all unemployed. In 1959 during the general elections, these youths pinned high hopes on the P.A.P. to solve their unemployment problem. But from this amending bill of the Government, we can see that, in fact, the Government is unable to solve their unemployment problem. That is why these people are not contented with the P.A.P. I am sure that in the 1964 general elections these people will not vote for the P.A.P. Therefore, in order to reduce the strength of forces against it, the Government is now seeking to pass this amending Bill in order to deprive these people of their voting rights. This is the first reason to explain why the Government is now trying to introduce this amending Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's past actions are causing the people much anxiety, worry, and doubt. If the Government wants this House to pass this Bill, then, undoubtedly, it will be telling the people that the system of parliamentary democracy is, in fact, intended for the interest and purpose of the Party in power and not for the interest and welfare of the people. This will only give the impression to the people that in the future general elections the Government will be able to transfer a group of pro-P.A.P. people to certain constituencies in order to elect certain Members. That is obviously the Government's intention. If the Government's intention to introduce this Bill is not based on these two motives, then I believe it would not have introduced this Bill into this House today. I believe that the staff in the Elections Office are very efficient. But the Government is now trying to put the blame on them for not having completed the registers earlier. If the Government wants to push through this Bill on the strength of its majority, it will only show the people of Singapore that it is destroying parliamentary democracy. 5.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are against this Bill, and my colleagues have explained the reasons why we are against it. They are not on political grounds but on legal grounds. Sir, the Minister, in moving the Bill, drew attention to section 15 (1) of the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. He did say that the date of the revision could be extended beyond 15th September if the Minister so appoints. But he was rather quiet, deliberately so; he did not tell us why he did not so appoint when he considered that the revision of the electoral registers by the 15th September was not suitable or was not in the interest of the electorate. Perhaps he overlooked it, or perhaps his officers in the Elections Office overlooked it. We do not like to be uncharitable and say that perhaps this is a deliberate political manoeuvre, but the Government, of course, cannot avoid criticism even on that ground. Now, the Minister says that it was because of the Referendum on 1st September and of the desire of the Government not to confuse the electorate and because those electors who did not vote at the referendum could have their names deleted, that the revision did not take place in accordance with the law. If it had been his intention not to bring confusion into the minds of the electorate in that the electors who did not vote at the referendum could have their names deleted from the revision, surely he could have appointed a date in 1962 for the revision. The Referendum took place on 1st September. He could have chosen 31st December, 1962, as the date so appointed by the Minister under the law. He was silent, and no doubt he will explain now why he was silent. Sir, there is this opposition on political grounds because of the by-election that should have taken place in Sembawang. The late Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim died in August 1962, and while the referendum meetings were going on, this by-election was also the topic of the day. So when the Prime Minister was questioned as to when the by-election in Sembawang would be held, he said, "Oh, after the revision of the electoral registers." Even that answer was given .a few days back to a question by the Member for Anson: When would the Government hold the by-election in Sembawang? "Oh, after the revision of the electoral registers." When they knew that there could not be any legal revision until this amending Bill is approved by the Assembly, surely the Prime Minister could have said - and if there had been no intention to play a political game in this thing, "Sorry, it could have been held as early as March, but because the revision of the electoral registers is all wrong in accordance with the law, we cannot do it and that is why we have tabled an amending Bill. We will have the thing adjusted, and as soon as that is adjusted, we can hold a by-election." But now, boldly he said, "Until the revision of the electoral registers" when he knew that the revision of the electoral registers could not be legal until this amending Bill is passed. Sir, even making the referendum as an excuse for the delay in the revision of the 1962 registers is rather weak. If the Elections Office or the Registration Officer had taken due note of the law and had properly discharged his duty, he would have set in operation as early as June 1962 the revision of the 1962 registers in order to get them ready by the 15th of September. At that time, no doubt there was a lot of hot exchanges of harsh words on merger, but because the Elections Office was tied to ministerial control, that is why the Elections Office too got confused. That is why I would like to bring up again the fact that it is desirable that an independent Elections Commission should be set up. I do not urge this on the ground that what had been done before was wrong and that elections had been rigged and all sorts of other unfair criticism. Elections have been done in the best manner. No possibility of rigging, everything was clean and honest. But the fact that the Elections Officer or the Office comes under the control of the Executive Government makes people wonder as to the honesty of that particular department. Therefore. I would urge upon the Government to give serious consideration to setting up an independent Elections Commission. If this Elections Office had been an independent commission, it would have done its duty soberly and without taking into its calculation the exchange of political warfare. It would have just carried on its work - June, all right. They would have started the thing going without worrying whether the Barisan had been trying to shoot down the P.A.P. or the P.A.P. wanted another three months to shoot down the Barisan. All that would not have taken place. Sir, a very important point brought up by my colleague, the Member for Farrer Park, is this. Under the law, the 1963 revision will have to be completed by the 15th of September, or at the latest by the 31st of December, if the Minister so appoints. But if it is the intention of the Elections Office - I do not say the Government - to have the 1963 revision completed by the 15th of September, that Office would have to begin work right now. And if it has to begin work right now, what is the value of legalising this 1962 revision? It will be just a waste of time, a waste of effort, and will cause a lot of heartburn. Forget this one. Leave it. In fact, if the criticism is levelled at the Government that in this way they need not have to hold the by-election in Sembawang, they could hold it on the 1961 electoral registers. If there had been no revision in 1962, all right, let us use the 1961 registers. If there had been accusations levelled that the Government is doing this now, in order to say, "Well, we want to have the Sembawang by-election quickly; therefore, we must have it by the 30th June," go ahead, we can have a by-election in July. "Without this, there could be no by-election." I say they still can. You can use the 1961 electoral registers. Let us not waste time. Let us not waste money. Let the Elections Office go ahead with the 1963 revision because of the imminent general elections in 1964. There should be no further delay in the 1963 revision. I do not know. I hope the Government will give serious thought to this very important issue. Do not press on with something that might turn out to be a legal problem, as pointed out by the Member for Farrer Park. Let us say we have the by-election in Sembawang based on these 1962 electoral registers. What is to prevent any candidate who lost in the by-election to file a petition on the ground that the 1962 electoral registers are illegal and not in accordance with the law? I would urge upon the Government to reconsider its stand on this issue.

Mr Ong Pang Boon, in reply? 6.08 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a temporary provisions Bill seeking the Assembly's approval to extend the time for the revision of the registers of electors which should have been completed in 1962. This Bill was drafted and vetted by the State Advocate-General, and so far as I can see, the legal aspect of it would have been taken care of by the State Advocate-General's Department. Mr Speaker, Sir, the 1962 registers could have been completed in 1962 but for the two reasons I mentioned earlier when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill. Firstly, it is to avoid confusion. Because it is not possible for the 1962 registers to be completed and certified in time for the national referendum, and so the 1961 registers will have to be used. If we were to exhibit Lists A and B for public inspection round about the time of the referendum, it would give rise to confusion on polling day, because many of the persons eligible to become voters in 1962 would feel that they were entitled to vote during the referendum, and they would go to the polling stations, and that would create a lot of difficulties for the polling staff. Therefore, in order not to confuse the people, we decided that the inspection of these Lists A and B should be held after the referendum. The second reason is that we want to give those who did not vote in the Referendum a chance to have their names restored in the 1962 registers. If we proceeded with the certification of the 1962 registers after the Referendum, then those non-voters would not have a chance to have their names restored in the registers, because the next revision would be in 1963. It is for these two reasons that we decided that the best thing was to defer the revision of the registers until early 1963 when the list of non-voters could be compiled and exhibited for public inspection, allowing a reasonable period for the non-voters to apply for restoration of their names in the registers. The lists of non-voters were completed only towards the end of January. So it was exhibited for inspection together with List A and List B. It is provided in the Amendment Bill that the registers of electors for the year 1962 shall be completed on or before the 30th day of June or such later date in the year. But I have already indicated to the House just now that the 1962 electoral registers will be certified before 30th June, and I can give an undertaking to the Opposition that the 1962 registers, in fact, will be certified before June 1962.

June 1962?

I am sorry. June 1963. Just now the Member for Cairnhill said, why waste all the time and effort on the 1962 registers when we should proceed with 1963? 1 wish to inform the Member for Cairnhill that time and effort has already been wasted. They are all ready and waiting for this Bill to be approved before certification. As for the revision of the 1963 electoral registers, I wish to inform the House that work has already been set in motion. In fact, revision of the 1963 registers is being carried out now, because normally revision of registers in any particular year would have to take place from about the month of March onwards. Mr Speaker, Sir, with Malaysia, except for the first election to the Central Parliament, future elections to the Central Parliament will come under the Federal Elections Commission. As far as State election is concerned, it is provided in the White Paper that it will be a State Government matter. With our existing machinery of elections and the manner in which elections are carried out, there is no possibility of any rigging of elections. So I do not see that it is necessary to have an independent commission for elections. Just now the Member for Queenstown mentioned that many of the non-voters in the 1959 elections, the Hong Lim by-election and the Referendum - many of the non-voters in these elections - have not had their names restored in the registers. Now, if the non-voters refused to take any step to have their names restored in the electoral registers, what could the Government do? It is their right, and they should take some interest in looking after their rights and their own interest. The Member for Choa Chu Kang just now argued that the Government should withdraw this Bill as otherwise the Government would be guilty of destroying democracy. I just fail to see how the withdrawal of this Bill would destroy democracy. Does it mean that by excluding those voters who would be eligible to have their names entered in the 1962 registers democracy will be preserved or strengthened? If the Government were to withdraw this Bill, it would mean that those who are eligible to have their names entered in the 1962 electoral registers would be deprived of their right as voters. The Member for Queenstown has said that he has no confidence in the elections conducted by the Government, and that he believes that elections were rigged. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have no doubt that the Member for Queenstown and his colleagues do not believe in elections. If they had a chance, should they be in a position to capture power, not only would there be no elections, but there would be no parliamentary democracy. In place of that, what we would have is dictatorship of the minority. Naturally we have no doubt that they have no confidence in any election. 6.20 p.m. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Division. The House divided: Ayes 23; Noes, 20; Paired, 2; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. Buang bin Omar Junid Ahmad Jabri bin Byrne, K. M. Mohammad Akib Chan Chee Seng Bani, S. T. Chan Choy Siong, Fung Ying Ching Madam Miss Chor Yeok Eng Lee Siew Choh Goh Chew Chua Leong Keng Seng Goh Keng Swee Lim Yew Hock Lee Khoon Choy Lin You Eng Lee Teck Him Low Por Tuck Lim Cheng Lock Mohd. Ali bin Alwi Lingam, S. V. Ng Teng Kian Mammen, John Ong Chang Sam Mohd. Ariff bin Ong Eng Guan Suradi Rajah, A. P. M. Ismail Rahim Seow Peck Leng Ong Pang Boon Mrs Rajaratnam, S Sheng Nam Chin Ramaswamy, S Tan Cheng Tong Sohorah binte Tee Kim Leng Ahmat, Madam Toe Hock Guan Tan Kia Gan Thio Chan Bee Toh Chin Chye Wong Soon Fong Wee Toon Boon Yaacob bin Absent. Mohamed Al-Haj Chan sun Wing Yong Nyuk Lin Hoe Puay Choo, Madam Paired Kandasamy, G Abdul Hamid bin Koh, C. H. Haji Jumat Marshall, David Lee Kuan Yew Question accordingly agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Ong Pang Boon] Bill considered in Committee. 6.23 p.m.

I propose to take all three clauses en bloc unless there is any Member who wishes to say anything further.

I would like to speak on clause 3, just to seek an assurance. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 - Question proposed, "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, could the Minister give a categorical assurance that the 1963 revision will be completed on or before 15th September, 1963?

We will try our level best. As we all know, the 1962 registers had been delayed, but nevertheless we will make sure that the staff in the Elections Department work as hard as they can.

Overtime.

Overtime. Incidentally, the Minister for Finance has just informed me that he is trying to get an electronic machine for this work. I think that with the arrival of the machine, work on revising the electoral registers will be speeded up.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 6.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill he now read a Second time." Sir, the purpose of the Bill is straightforward in that the Bill seeks to introduce two new sections to enlarge the powers of the special investigators under the existing Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, 1960. The first provision seeks to give senior special investigators or special investigators in the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau powers given to police officers under sections 119 and 120 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 132). Under these sections, a police officer making a police investigation may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the State who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case under investigation. Where any such person fails to attend as required, the Magistrate may issue a warrant to secure his attendance. The police officer may also examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case under investigation and shall reduce in writing any statement made by the person so examined; and such person shall be bound to state truly the facts and circumstances of the case with which he was acquainted concerning the case, save only that he may decline to make, with regard to any fact or circumstance, a statement which has a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. At present, owing to the lack of sufficient experienced civilian senior special investigators or special investigators, a number of police officers have been seconded to the Corrupt Practices investigation Bureau as senior special investigators or special investigators, and in the course of their duties with the Bureau, they have been able to conduct investigations by making use of the powers under sections 119 and 120 of the Criminal Procedure Code which they possess as police officers. The secondment of police officers to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, however, is intended to be a temporary measure, since the intention is that eventually the Bureau will be staffed entirely by civilian officers. There are, at the moment, ten civilian special investigators employed in the Bureau. These special investigators undergo the same training as cadet police inspectors and are required to pass the same prescribed examinations, but because of the fact that they are not police officers, they do not have the powers of their police colleagues under sections 119 and 120 of the Criminal Procedure Code when carrying out investigation work. In order, therefore, to enable them to carry out their duties more effectively and deal with offences more expeditiously, it is considered necessary that these civilian special investigators should be given similar powers to those possessed by police officers in the course of investigations. At the same time, the opportunity has been taken to remedy a weakness in section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance. This section provides that whenever it appears to any magistrate or to the Director of C.P.I.B. upon information and after such inquiry as he thinks necessary, that there is reasonable cause to believe that in any place there is any document containing evidence of the commission of an offence relating to corruption, the magistrate or the Director may empower a police officer or an investigator of the Bureau to enter such place by force, if necessary, and there to search for, seize and detain any such document. It has been found by experience that, for the purpose of investigations by the Bureau, it is necessary for this provision to be extended to cover also any article or property involved in the commission of an offence relating to corruption, under either the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance or sections 161 to 165 or sections 213 to 215 of the Penal Code, and the Bill accordingly includes an amendment to this effect. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 6.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I have the recommendation of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to proceed with this Bill. In 1957, the Commission of Inquiry into the Port of Singapore, whose report was presented in Sessional Paper No. S 10 of 1957, made a number of recommendations among which were that a single authority should be set up to be responsible for the whole port area. Members are aware that at the moment the administration of Singapore harbour is divided between the Singapore Harbour Board and the Master Attendant. It is recommended in this Report, now better known as the Millbourn Report, that the Port Authority should take over the functions, staff and premises of the present Singapore Harbour Board together with certain functions performed by the Marine Department and the P.W.D. Marine Section. The Commission also recommended hat the docks and ship repair organisation of the present Singapore Harbour Board should be separated from the new Authority and become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Port Authority. These recommendations have been considered carefully and it is now proposed that some of the recommendations be adopted for the establishment of the Port Authority. The duties of the Authority will be to provide and maintain adequate and efficient services in Singapore and to promote the use, improvement and development of the port. The officers of the Authority will be responsible for the regulation and control of navigation within the limits of the port and the provision of pilotage services. As soon as is practicable, the Authority will be required to form a private limited company to be known as the "Singapore Drydocks and Engineering Company, Limited", the shares of which will be held by the Authority and the company will take over as a going concern all the dockyard undertakings which I have earlier referred to. It will be the responsibility of this Drydock and Engineering Company to develop and extend the business of the dockyard. Adequate safeguards have been incorporated in the Bill to protect the terms and conditions of service of all the present employees in the Harbour Board and in the Government who will be transferred to the service of the Authority. The Authority will collect and retain port dues and pilotage dues and will expand these on the maintenance and improvement of the services and facilities of the port. No change has been made to either port dues or pilotage dues. The Explanatory Statement to the Bill gives full details of the operation and machinery of the Authority's workings. The circumstances under which the Authority will accept full responsibility as bailee for cargo, and also that the Authority shall not be liable for loss or damage to any sea or river wall, dock or wharf or other property as a result of any dredging which may be carried out by the Authority so Icing as such dredging is confined to limits and levels prescribed by the Authority with the approval of the Minister, are all provided for in the Bill. Apart from the points I have just mentioned, the Bill is mainly a re-enactment of the provisions of the present Ports Ordinance and certain sections of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 6.43 p.m.

The Port of Singapore Authority Ordinance, as the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated, was initiated in 1957 when the Commission was appointed by the previous Government under the chairmanship of Sir Eric Millbourn. The majority of the recommendations in that Report, particularly those pertaining to the labour situation in the Harbour Board, were not acceptable by the trade unions in the whole of Singapore, and subsequently, in 1960, a Commission of Inquiry into the system of contract labour was appointed under the chairmanship of Dr Charles Gamba. That Report also made specific remarks regarding the Singapore Harbour Board and also the formation of the Port of Singapore Authority. This formation of the Port of Singapore Authority will be a great advantage in improving the port facilities and also in making improvements of the port's workings. It also includes the roads which are not under the present Singapore Harbour Board. The Singapore rivers are also included. That is a very good start. We will support it. But certain points - I believe this Bill will be going to Select Committee - will have to he looked into. In this Bill, Government employees can be seconded to the Harbour Board or the Port Authority. In that particular clause, it does not define clearly what type of employees are going to be transferred or seconded to the service of the Port of Singapore Authority. If they are technical staff or staff which cannot get in the present Singapore Harbour Board, it is worthwhile. But if the Port Authority considers that certain employees from the Government service are to be seconded to the Port of Singapore Authority, then what may happen is this. These employees so seconded may be placed above the existing employees of the Harbour Board and they may be deprived of their chances of promotion or going up. If the Port of Singapore Authority is going to be a statutory body, and if Government employees can be seconded into the Port of Singapore Authority, what we may want is this. We should try to bring the Harbour Board employees' conditions of service and pay in line with Government employees, and then it will be in the departmental way of transfer and secondment. The Select Committee can look into this matter. The second part I want to mention here is in so far as the present Harbour Board is only responsible for the areas controlled by the Harbour Board, and the "Port of Singapore Authority" extends its function into the Roads. On that particular aspect, we have made recommendations. May I quote, Mr Speaker, Sir, from Paper Cmd. 6 of 1960 - Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the System of Contract Labour in Singapore. `As we all know, there are malpractices, victimisation, abuse and also irregularities in the employment of labour in the Roads. Everybody knows it. With a view to clearing that, this Commission was appointed and submissions were made with specific references to that effect. In page 68, paragraph 7 (b) Drafting Committee: "if the Government accepts the recommendations of this Commission, it should immediately appoint a Drafting Committee of its own representatives, interested parties and experts to draw up appropriate legislation on the lines of the Commission's recommendations."' The recommendations are these, Sir. This is the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the System of Contract Labour in Singapore, Paper Cmd. 6 of 1960. The recommendations are these, Sir. They are on page vii - Summary of Recommendations. This is specifically regarding the Harbour Board. `(1) Establishment of a Port of Singapore Authority. (a) We recommend that there should be established a single Port of Singapore Authority. (b) It should have two Labour Departments: (i) the Dock Labour Department; and (ii) the Stevedoring Labour Department (Roads).' When the Port of Singapore Authority is established, the persons working in the Roads will come under the Port of Singapore Authority. If the Port of Singapore Authority is going to be a mere clearing agent for steamers, what may happen is that the same system will prevail there - the contract labour system - and there will be exploitation of workers, avoiding payment under the various Ordinances, irregularity of work and so on. With that intention, this recommendation has been specifically made, and, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, certain parts of the Millbourn Report have been included in it. But from the workers' point of view, the important aspect of it has not been included. That is one point, Sir. Under the First Schedule on page 57 - "The Emergency Powers of the General Manager of the new Port of Singapore Authority." It seems to me that the powers given to this new General Manager are too high and they need to be looked into. May I go on to page 49, paragraph 119? This is powers of arrest. Any Police Officer or any employee of the Authority authorised in writing by the General Manager generally, or in any particular place may arrest any person committing within his view, or who, he has reason to believe, has committed an offence punishable under this Ordinance, and so on, if the Port Authority or the General Manager were to give in writing a warrant of arrest. Actually you cannot expect them to give that power to an ordinary daily-rated employee or a monthly-rated employee. Naturally, the power of arrest will be vested in officers. We have an efficient Police Force in the Singapore Harbour Board which has looked after the Port very well and they are doing their duty very well. According to this, we have the Police Force who have the powers to arrest anybody. Also the Port Authority is giving Authorisation Letters to its employees that may include Police personnel of officer grade and also civilian employees who have the power to arrest anybody. In other words, an employee - when I say an employee, I mean a daily-rated employee or a monthly-rated employee - will have to be very careful because, on one side, the Police have the powers to arrest, then also there are officers who are authorised by the Port of Singapore Authority, the Chairman or the General Manager, in writing. I think that is very unfair to the workers in the Singapore Harbour Board. In 1957, Sir Eric Millbourn recommended the setting up of a Port of Singapore Authority, and subsequently Dr Gamba recommended also on the same lines, particularly on the part of labour. The intention, at that time and now is, by setting up this Port Authority, one thing we must do is to improve the Port facilities so that more ships will come to Singapore, and by improving that, there will be more employment in the Port of Singapore Authority. Now, Sir, if you want more efficient work, then by merely - if you will go through the provisions of Schedule No. 2, on page 58, paragraph 3 - "Powers of the Authority" --- `To provide services within the limits of the port and the approaches to the port ---

The purpose of this Bill is to bring into existence the Singapore Port Authority. It is not so much the purpose of this Bill to go into details of the terms of employment of employees of the Singapore Port Authority. The terms of employment of any statutory body must necessarily come under the Labour Ordinance. I do not believe they should come under the Ordinance which governs the existence of the Authority. Those employees in Government service who probably may be transferred to the Port Authority perform functions quite distinct from those employees in the Harbour Board. There is no danger that there will be an overlapping or repetition of services on their transfer. The final terms of transfer, of course, must be discussed with the unions, but I do not think it will be correct to include them in the Bill, which only seeks to define the limits within which the Port Authority will have jurisdiction, and will formally bring into existence this Port Authority. I am quite sure that in Select Committee we will be able to consider all petitions or memoranda which will be submitted for consideration, and I am quite sure that interested parties will have no hesitation in studying this Bill and giving us their recommendations, and the Select Committee will act accordingly. However, all I would like to say here is that this Bill seeks to bring this Port Authority into being and does not seek to interfere or spell out the conditions of service of employees in the Port Authority. As I have stated previously, conditions of service between employers and employees are best governed by the Labour Ordinance. It would be invidious indeed if we have different statutory bodies having in their respective enactments terms and conditions of their employees. In fact, it is not possible to do so because terms and conditions vary from time to time according to the economic conditions of the country. I have only this to say, Mr Speaker.

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

I understand the Deputy Prime Minister wishes to move a Business motion.

Yes.

7.01 p.m. Resolved, "That the proceedings on items 12 to 18 inclusive in the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye]

Order for Second Reading read. 7.02 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I have previously mentioned that certain functions relating to the control of shipping within the Port will be transferred from the Marine Department to the Port of Singapore Authority upon its formation, and therefore consequential amendments are necessary to the Merchant Shipping Ordinance. These are contained in the Bill now before the House. Full details are contained in the Explanatory Statement of the Bill, and it will be seen that the majority of these amendments are of a consequential nature. Incidentally, I may add that the Bill also seeks to repeal the section which constitutes the Seamen's Lodging Houses Licensing Authority, and my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, will be presenting the necessary consequential amendments to the Hotels Ordinance.

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

Is this Bill to be sent to a Select Committee?

Yes.

Please move.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Order for Second Reading read. 7.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As has already been explained by the Deputy Prime Minister in moving the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Bill, 1963, the purpose of this Bill is tp make a consequential amendment to the Hotels Ordinance, 1954, which will transfer the functions of the Seamen's Lodging Houses Licensing Authority under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance to the Hotels Licensing Board under the Hotels Ordinance. As the Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Bill has been referred to Select Committee, I intend to do likewise with this Bill by referring it also to a Select Committee. Mr Speaker, Sir, at present there are five seamen's lodging houses licensed by the Seamen's Lodging Houses Licensing Authority, and these lodging houses cater for transient seamen, i.e. seamen who have signed off ships in Singapore and who are waiting for repatriation to their country of origin or seamen who have come from outside Singapore and are awaiting the arrival of the ship they are to join. Quite apart from the fact that the existence of a separate authority to license only five premises which were not warranted, it is felt that there is no reason why premises to be used by seamen should be of a lower standard than that of the lowest standard hotel at present licensed under the Hotels Ordinance. It has been ascertained that there should be no undue difficulty in connection with the five seamen lodging houses being brought up to the minimum standards required under the Hotels Ordinance. However, if for any reason the five seamen lodging houses should be unable to come up to these living standards, it would be possible for seamen to be given accommodation at the Asian Seamen's Club which provides good accommodation and wholesome food at reasonable rates. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 7.08 p.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that the Bill be proceeded with. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, you will recall that the integration of the City Council into the Central Government was a major administrative reform undertaken by the P.A.P. Government. The physical integration of the City Council, other than the three trading departments, has been in progress since 1st January, 1961, by means of the Financial Integration Ordinance. By means of the Public Utilities Ordinance, 1963, which was passed at the last sitting, the three trading departments were incorporated into a Public Utilities Board which was appointed with effect from 1st May this year. These major administrative reforms are in accordance with the pledge of the Party to bring about smoother and more efficient public service to serve the people of the State. In the process, duplication of functions which previously had existed has been removed, and it is expected that in the long run economies would be effected and efficiency raised. Sir, the Bill before the House is complementary to the Public Utilities Ordinance, already mentioned, and provides for the transfer to the Government with retrospective effect from 1st January, 1961, of all assets as well as liabilities and employees of the City Council and the Rural Board other than those transferred to the Public Utilities Board. This transfer and integration is spelt out in Part I of the Bill. It also enacts in Parts II to VII and IX all provisions of the Local Government Ordinance, 1957, relating to streets, sewerage, public health, etc. - matters which hitherto have been within the jurisdiction of the City Council and the Rural Board - and vests the various statutory powers in Government officers. Part VIII, which establishes District Offices and gives certain powers to District Officers, is the only new provision in the Bill. The principal function of District Officers is to ensure the adequacy of various services provided in the districts to receive representations, and generally to act as liaison officers in the districts with respect to matters coming within their jurisdiction. The enactment of this Bill will formally complete the Government's policy of integrating Local Authorities into a central administration. Since the Explanatory Statement gives the objectives and reasons for the Bill, I shall confine my remarks to the personnel and finance aspects of the Bill and to some of those changes which have been made to the Bill since it lay on this Table. The Select Committee deliberating upon the original Bill reported back with two amendments - one to clause 2 and the other one to clause 12 - as found in columns 543 and 544 in the Select Committee's published Report No. 10 of 20th September, 1962. The Bill provides that all employees of the City Council who are not transferred to the Public Utilities Board shall be transferred to the service of the Government at the same rate of pay or as near as may be the same conditions of service as those on which they were employed by the City Council. Upon the coming into operation of this Ordinance, these employees will become civil servants and will be legally governed by Government regulations and by the Constitution. But it is our intention, in so far as salaries are concerned, that all serving officers on the permanent establishment of the City Council shall be allowed, if they so choose, to retain their existing salaries and salary scales on their transfer to the Government service. With regard to other terms and conditions of service, it is hoped, in consultation with the Staff Unions concerned, to bring about a set of conditions of service that would be acceptable and which would be patterned on the terms and conditions now applicable to Government civil servants. It is expected that in the process certain minor adjustments and changes may be necessary. As a result of representation from Staff Unions to the Select Committee, a Board of Inquiry has been set up by the Minister for Labour under section 70 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance under the chairmanship of Mr Eu Cheow Chye. This Board of Inquiry held its first session on 1st February, 1963, and to date has held 14 sessions. The Bill also provides that persons transferred from the City Council who are already members of the Municipal Provident Fund will continue in membership of that Fund. In addition, such persons who are eligible for membership of the Fund at the time of transfer to the Government service will retain that eligibility if they so choose. Officers of the City Council who are not members of the Municipal Provident Fund nor are eligible for membership thereof will be governed by the Pensions and Central Provident Fund Ordinances in every respect as they are applicable to Government servants. Persons appointed after the coming into force of this Bill will, of course, be governed by the Pensions Ordinance and the Central Provident Fund Ordinance. The management of the Municipal Provident Fund will be transferred to the Government together with all its assets and liabilities, and the accounts thereof will be kept by the Accountant-General. The assets and liabilities connected with the public loans of the City Council, including the sinking fund for these loans, are to be transferred to the Public Utilities Board under the Public Utilities Ordinance, but the Government will contribute to the Board in respect of those portions of outstanding public loans which were used to buy assets to be transferred to the Government under this Ordinance. Sir, there have been both in Select Committee and as a result of subsequent deliberations by the Government itself various changes and amendments to the original draft. I do not propose to deal with these amendments here in extenso because it is my intention that this Bill should be once again committed to Select Committee for consideration. You will recollect, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when the original Bill was committed to Select Committee, one of the curious things that happened was the almost complete absence of representations from the public to the Select Committee. I do hope that on this second occasion members of the public, persons, organisations and associations, who will be affected by the provisions of this Bill, will make their views felt before the Select Committee. Sir, this Bill will involve the Government in extra financial expenditure in the payment of salaries and operational expenses in various City Council departments integrated with those of the Government. These expenses were formerly chargeable to the Municipal Consolidated Fund and the Municipal Provident Fund. These amounts cannot at present be fully ascertained but will be dependent on the services to be provided and improvement works to be carried out by the Government under the Ordinance. However, this extra financial expenditure is, in reality, not so, for in previous years these services had been borne by the City Council and the Rural Board. It is the Government's hope that when the administrative machinery of integration is fully implemented there should be, over a period, overall savings to Government, in that additional costs from duplication of functions and services would have been reduced, if not eliminated. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Select Committee?

Sir, I beg to move, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and five other Members to he nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Did the Minister say "five"?

Yes, five.

May I suggest seven Members? There has been difficulty in getting a quorum.

Yes, seven Members. That will be in order.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. 7.21 p.m.

There is one point that arises out of that resolution; The Report of the previous Select Committee on the Local Government Integration Bill and four other Bills may come in useful for the incoming Select Committee. If the Minister thinks that that is so, then it is necessary for him to move a motion to refer this Report to the new Select Committee. The motion can be moved now without notice. The motion would be, That the Report of the Select Committee on the Public Utilities, Local Government Integration, Planning (Amendment), Pensions (Amendment), and Housing and Development (Amendment) Bills presented to the Assembly in the previous Session and contained in Paper L.A. 20 of 1962 be referred to the Select Committee on the Local Government Integration Bill. If that is so, then perhaps the Minister can just move simpliciter.

Sir, I so move simpliciter.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Report of the Select Committee on the Public Utilities, Local Government Integration, Planning (Amendment), Pensions (Amendment), and Housing and Development (Amendment) Bills presented to the Assembly in the previous Session and contained in Paper L.A. 20 of 1962 be referred to the Select Committee on the Local Government Integration Bill.

Order for Second Reading read. 7.23 p.m.

Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that the Bill be proceeded with, and I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to amend the Planning Ordinance, 1959, on account of the integration of the City Council with the Government and is solely concerned with staffing. Members will recall that on the abolition of the Singapore Improvement Trust in February 1960, about 89 employees of the Trust were transferred to the Planning Department in the Singapore Government and the remainder to the Housing and Development Board. The employees of the Trust who were transferred to the Planning Department were members of the staff engaged in the planning functions of the Trust. Their terms and conditions of service, including their superannuation, were governed by the same rules as applied to employees of the City Council. It has been the intention that the staff of the Trust, transferred to the Planning Department, and the employees of the City Council who will not be transferred to the Government as a consequence of the integration, should enjoy the same terms and conditions of transfer and superannuation. In order that these former employees of the Trust would also enjoy similar superannuation benefits as those applicable to employees of the City Council who are about to be transferred to the Government as a result of integration, it is necessary to amend the Planning Ordinance to provide for identical provisions with those contained in the Local Government Integration Bill. The extension of the benefits of the Government's pension scheme to former Trust employees in the Planning Department will involve the Government in some small expenditure. In a few cases these persons will find that the benefits of the Government's Pensions Scheme are greater than those to which they were entitled in their previous employment with the Trust. May I mention here, Sir, that these persons will find-as a result of their own calculations which may not be mathematically and objectively correct, but it is a fact that when people do make decisions on these matters-that the attraction of larger sums of immediate payment weighs more heavily upon them than continuous payment of smaller prospective sums over a longer period. So when I say that they will find the benefits greater than the Government Pensions Scheme I am not at all stating that that is the actuarial position but the position as these persons themselves assess. It is, therefore, most probable that in these few cases they would choose the benefits of the Government's Pension Scheme. The exact cost cannot be ascertained until their final retirement, but in all probability there will only be a few cases, and it is unlikely that the additional cost will be very large. Sir, I beg to move,

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Dr Goh Keng Swee rose ---

Committal to Select Committee?

No. Committee stage.

Committee stage now? I was under the impression that this has some connection with the Local Government Integration Bill. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to take this Bill to Committee now or refer it to the Select Committee which has been appointed in connection with the Local Government Integration Bill. There is no note on the Order Paper that the intention was to take this matter through Committee stage, but, of course, there is nothing to prevent the Minister from changing his mind.

Sir, my inclination is not to refer this Bill and other related Bills to Select Committee, because you will recollect that the Planning (Amendment) Bill, the Pensions (Amendment) Bill and the Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill relate solely to certain staffing and pension matters. These points had been fully and satisfactorily dealt with in the previous Select Committee whose recommendations have been accepted and embodied in this Bill. Therefore, I think no advantage would be gained by referring these three Bills to Select Committee. It is of some advantage for the Government to get on with the implementation of the provisions of this amending Bill. And, as I have said, these matters had been referred to Select Committee and the representors, i.e. The unions who made representations in that Select Committee, had received satisfaction. I therefore move that -

The other reason why I mention this matter is that there is no indication on the Order Paper that these three Bills are to be taken through Committee Stage and Third Reading. But, as I have said, there is nothing to prevent the Minister from changing his mind. Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir.

Please move.

Sir, I move, "That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill."

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill. Bill considered in Committee. 7.31 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, Sir, I merely want to point out a difficulty suffered by some officers in case the Minister has not realised it. I know this is nothing new that the Minister has invented. This comes from the old Ordinance. But it does say here in paragraph (d) (ii): `except upon the condition that he shall first pay to the Government the total amount paid by the Government and any of the authorities mentioned in Part II of the said schedule to any of the said funds....' which means ---

Can I have the clause? We are on the Planning (Amendment) Bill.

I have the wrong Bill!

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 7.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the Pensions Ordinance, 1956, to provide for the pensions and other retirement benefits of persons transferred to the service of the Government from the City Council, the Singapore Improvement Trust and the Tan Tock Seng's Hospital. The superannuation schemes to which they belonged prior to the transfer generally allowed them to continue membership in their respective schemes. They could also count on their service before transfer as service reckonable for pension on their eventual retirement. As matters stand, such a person would be eligible on his retirement to benefits on his own superannuation scheme as well as retirement benefits under the Government Pensions Scheme. This is clearly contrary to the principle of superannuation. It is, therefore, necessary for provision to be made to enable employees transferred from the City Council, the Trust and the Tan Tock Seng's Hospital to choose to receive benefits either from their own previous superannuation schemes or those under the Government pensions scheme. There is also the aspect of death benefits. The Government pensions scheme requires payment of at least one year's salary in the form of a death gratuity to dependants of a deceased officer. On their transfer to the service of the Government, employees of the City Council, the Trust and the Tan Tock Seng's Hospital become Government officers, and their dependants would be entitled to a death gratuity of one year's salary should they die in harness. The existing provisions for the payment of a death gratuity do not take into consideration death benefits to which a transferred person may be eligible under his own superannuation scheme. If this situation is allowed to continue, then transferred persons would be better off than Government servants who only have the pensions scheme to rely on for benefits. For this reason, provision Ms been made in the Bill for the quantum of death gratuity payable under the Government pensions scheme to be reduced to the extent of contributions paid to the superannuation scheme to which a transferred person belonged by his previous employ in Government. Sir, I beg to move.

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

7.35 p.m.

There are four clauses - clauses 1 to 4. Which clause does the Member for Mountbatten wish to speak on? Clause 2? Mrs Seow Peck Leng indicated assent. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 - Question proposed, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, this is merely to point out an anomaly which will exist. This clause requires an officer to pay Government's share of whatever Government has paid into the Central Provident Fund before he gets his gratuity and pension. What I want to point out is this. Especially in the case of women, this would affect them more, because women retire at an earlier age. Now, Miss A and Miss B are working. Miss B has been in Government service for 20 years. Miss A has been in the City Council or a similar organisation for 20 years and has been paying to a certain fund, the C.P.F. or whatever retiring benefits fund it is. This would also apply to women in regard to the transition into the equal pay scheme. That is why I felt that this phrase here is so broad that it is necessary to bring it up. In that case, the one who has done 20 years' service where she has paid towards another fund, but not the pensionable one and has become pensionable in the last 10 years of the service, when she retires, she will have to pay back Government's share of that fund, let us say, for argument's sake, the C.P.F. If she has contributed $20,000, Government has contributed $20,000 and when she retires she has to make good Government's $20,000 before she can become pensionable, before she can get her gratuity and her pension. The $40,000 is frozen until she is 55. She can draw it. Not only is her own $20,000 which has been paid frozen until she is 55, but Out of her gratuity that she gets, she has to pay Government's share of $20,000 and freeze that money if she retires at 45. She has the double sum of money frozen till she is 55. That is why I felt that since this clause of having to pay back the Government's share before one can become pensionable or draw a gratuity will affect not only this but also other schemes where there is a transition from a temporary or from a gratuity scheme to a pensionable scheme, I thought I would draw Government's attention to the anomaly that will be discriminating against those people entering the pensionable scheme at a later stage of their service.

I think the Member for Mountbatten was really raising a point connected with equal pay for women. So far as these persons are concerned, they have their choice. If they think opting into Government scheme is disadvantageous, they stay on the previous scheme. I think I have got the point, which is this. Let us say, we take Miss A. Because she is married or for other reasons, she has been contributing to the Central Provident Fund, say for 10 years. Then the benevolent P.A.P. Government comes in and introduces equal pay. So she goes on to the permanent establishment and qualifies for pension. Then the Member for Mountbatten says when she retires, the Government's contribution for these 10 years has got to be refunded to the Government. I mean that is fair enough because we are giving her, in this instance, credit for 10 years' service in the Government. If she does not want to refund to the Government, she can, but she will lose 10 years' service. On a simple calculation, the gain to the officer will be so tremendous that I cannot imagine anyone not agreeing to this proposal to opt fully into the Government Pensions Scheme. Apparently the Member for Mountbatten thinks that I misunderstood her. If so, I am willing to give her a hearing.

No, Mr Speaker, it does not apply to equal pay alone. In this too, as the Minister has said, the officer has the option. He can choose. But it is Hobson's choice. They want the pension because it is a better scheme. I am not talking about paying back. Yes, they do not want Government's share and their share and the pension. Nobody would expect that. But the fact that if she has to pay back Government's share into the C.P.F. - she does not draw it. She has to wait till 10 years or whatever it is, until she reaches the age of 55, before she can draw it. And if she retires at 45, she has to wait for ten years to get her previous contribution plus Government's contribution, which she has to refund. Instead of getting her own money back when she retires, she has to add on to what she has already paid another sum equivalent to what she has already paid on retirement. So instead of getting money on her retirement she pays out money on her retirement!

Sir, I am advised by my colleague, the Minister for Health and Law, that where a woman officer retires at the age of 45, the Central Provident Fund will be willing to pay the accumulated contribution. That is what I have been advised.

Sir, if this is a new regulation, I do not know. But I can assure the Minister that when I retired I was faced with that difficulty. So I felt that no women in future who retire should be faced with the same difficulty. I was lucky enough that after two years or after so many years, I applied to say that there was no likelihood of my going hack to work, and they did give me special concession. But in ordinary cases a woman will have to wait till 55 years.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 7.41 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the Housing and Development Ordinance, 1959, so as to bring about uniformity of provisions relating to superannuation of staff between that Ordinance and the Public Utilities Ordinance. The latter contains provisions for the appointment of trustees in respect of moneys payable on the death of an employee of the Board out of any superannuation scheme to which he belonged. There is also provision in the Public Utilities Ordinance for the safeguarding of benefits under the Municipal Provident Fund of employees of the Singapore Improvement Trust who have been transferred to the Housing and Development Board. In moving the Second Reading of the Planning (Amendment) Bill, I have explained the necessity for parallel provisions in legislation relating to superannuation and terms and conditions of service of employees of the Trust who have been transferred to the Housing and Development Board and the Planning Department, and of the City Council employees who will be transferred to the Government. That explanation holds good here. If I may reiterate, it is that Trust employees were on terms and conditions of service, including superannuation, identical with those of City Council employees. It will not be equitable, therefore, to provide varying terms and conditions of service and superannuation on their transfer to the Housing and Development Board and the Planning Department. Sir, I beg to move.

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

7.43 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion* was supposed to have been debated in April - two months ago.

Will the Member move the motion?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That this House expresses no confidence in the People's Action Party Government for its pro-colonial policies.* *The same motion also stood in the name of Mr Low Por Tuck. I said that this motion was supposed to have been debated two months ago. But because the P.A.P. feared exposure and defeat, unjustifiable excuses were put forth to guillotine the debate. The debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech was cut down to one and a half days, and my two motions on the February arrests and on the inhuman and barbaric treatment of detainees, matters of national importance, Sir, were not given an opportunity for a full and frank debate. After an all-night debate, hardly anything of my six-hour speech appeared in the newspapers the following morning. This, of course, is what the P.A.P. had wanted and had planned. Sir, this delay, like the guillotine motions of the past, is a clear case of abuse of power of the Government, cutting short our Assembly debates on matters of national importance in order to allow the Prime Minister to go and play golf. This is the parliamentary democracy that we have. Fascist dictatorship in fact. Sir, heavy sacrifices in blood and toil in the past have brought to the people but limited gains in our struggle for our freedom. But even these limited gains are now in danger of being taken away from us by the P.A.P. which today is playing a most reactionary role - all for the benefit of the P.A.P.'s colonial masters in Britain. The P.A.P. Ministers today regard British troops as troops of their own. They forget that British troops are here not to protect the people of this region but British vested interests. And the Special Branch similarly looks after only imperial vested interests. Yet the P.A.P. now relies more and more on the Special Branch to rule the country. Agents provocateurs are employed to create incidents so as to allow the Government an opportunity to crush political opponents. There is a complete denial of the very fundamental freedoms of the people. Last night I mentioned to you that when our legal adviser, Mr T. T. Rajah, and I were arrested by the P.A.P., we were denied the basic rights of all individuals who are placed in similar circumstances. Even the vilest criminal accused of the most horrible crime, when arrested, is allowed the basic right to contact his lawyer and inform his family or next-of-kin. But this right is not for us in the Barisan Sosialis today. The P.A.P. treats us worse than the worst of criminals. On that particular occasion we were denied the use of the telephone to inform our legal adviser and our families until well past midnight.

Order. It is just for clarification. The motion is, That this House expresses no confidence in the People's Action Party Government for its pro-colonial policies. I take it that the Member for Queens-town is alleging that bad treatment of prisoners detained is pro-colonial policy?

No, Sir. But as an introduction I wish to inform the House that this is the type of democracy and freedom of the individual that we have in Singapore today. This is the direct result of the pro-colonial policy of the P.A.P. Government. Democracy is dead and it has been killed by the pro-colonial P.A.P.

Yet you can talk here!

The Prime Minister has said that the one-man-one vote system is a tragedy in the context of Singapore. To us, Sir, the one-man-one-vote system is our only hope against Fascist dictatorship. At least with this system the voice of the people can still find, expression periodically against Fascist dictatorship. But, of course, to the Prime Minister it is a tragedy. Why? Because he cannot do away with it and immediately become a dictator in Singapore. Sir, in order to gain mass support, the Prime Minister has postured as a Leftist and a democrat, and therefore as an anti-colonialist. But he has been unmasked and he now openly adopts all the colonialist and imperialist tactics in order to impose a Fascist dictatorship on the people. Since the last Confidence motion in this House in July 1962, much has happened in Singapore which clearly shows that under the P.A.P. Government there is a rapid strangulation and death of democracy in Singapore. You will remember the passing of the National Referendum Bill which was designed to deny the people of Singapore their democratic right of dissent. The injustice and dishonesty of the undemocratic Bill so aroused the antagonism of the people in Singapore that protests against the Bill came from political Parties, trade unions, journalists, universities, cultural and other civic organisations, and progressive individuals. Then came the unprecedented scare propaganda campaign of the P.A.P. Government in which the people of Singapore were compelled by threats and intimidation of loss of citizenship and other civic rights, into voting for the P.A.P. White Paper merger proposals in the referendum. This has given the British and the P.A.P. Governments a chance to deceive the outside world with the untruth that there is majority support for Malaysia in Singapore. Then came rapid developments in the Borneo territories with vehement opposition to the neo-colonialist Malaysia erupting into the Brunei uprising and guerilla warfare today in the jungles of Brunei, Sarawak, and even Sabah. In Singapore, in spite of attempts to crush the Barisan Sosialis and to intimidate those who support the Barisan Sosialis, opposition to Malaysia still grows with more and more people rallying round the Barisan Sosialis in opposition to the imperialist Malaysia, a Malaysia that is designed to prolong and perpetuate colonial domination over all of us in South-East Asia. And because of the fear and growing strength and influence of socialist and progressive forces in the region, the colonialists, their agents and their stooges, have extended repressive actions to arrests and detention without charge or trial of anti-colonial stalwarts in the Federation, in Sarawak and recently in Singapore. Today the whole of Singapore, Malaya, South-East Asia, and the world have condemned the cruel, barbaric and inhuman treatment of detainees by the imperialist stooges in the P.A.P. There can be no shadow of doubt as to the true nature of the P.A.P. Government today. Their Ministers no longer pretend to be anti-colonial. They openly support and promote pro-colonial schemes and plots to enslave the people.

7.59 p.m. They take pride and even responsibility in asking for more troops to suppress the people. They plan not to help the masses but to serve their colonial masters. They think for their colonial masters and they make excuses for their colonial masters. They take pride in being stooges and puppets of their imperial masters, and they hope thus to salvage their own personal political future. The P.A.P. Ministers have clean forgotten their election pledges to the people. They spout only pro-colonial and pro-imperialist mouthings these days, and the policies of the P.A.P. are indistinguishable from the policies of the S.P.A. That is why the S.P.A. today supports the P.A.P. The Member for Cairnhill and his colleagues prop up the Prime Minister and his other Ministers in office today because the Prime Minister follows a pro-colonial policy, lithe Barisan Sosialis were in the position of the P.A.P. today, that is the Government, the S.P.A. would have no hesitation, I am sure, in bringing the Government down. The P.A.P. does not depend on the working class for support but on the compradores and representatives of big businesses, both foreign and local, and other reactionary elements for support. The P.A.P. today solicits support from the very same reactionary elements that the Prime Minister used to despise and ridicule only not so very long ago. The picture of the Prime Minister hugging the Member for Farrer Park in the Straits Times two months ago tells us graphically where the P.A.P. stands today --- An hon. Member: That is a technical offence.

--- not with the anti-colonial Left, but with the pro-colonial Right. The Ministers have changed their once-upon-a-time anti-colonial P.A.P. - that is, the genuine P.A.P. of old - into a fervently pro-colonial front and puppet organisation of Whitehall. We understand that we want to finish our debate early tonight, and I do not intend to weary you with a whole series of examples of broken promises and pro-colonial policies of the P.A.P. I have already touched very lightly on some. More can be found on every page of the Hansard and in the Press since our break with the P.A.P., and for some time even before that. For example, it is quite obvious that the promotion of television and the programmes in Radio Singapore serve only party and sectional interests and the interests of foreign capitalists and the colonial powers. The recent Budget debate of the last few days tells us exactly where the P.A.P. stands. The P.A.P. has also done nothing to prevent the attempts of Western films and literature from promoting propaganda for the colonialists and from undermining the development of the national aspirations of the vast majority of the people. Neither has the P.A.P. done anything to prevent the undermining of the morals of our youth. An hon. Member: You went to a striptease dance.

Similarly, in the matter of education, the whole trend of the P.A.P. policy is not to give equal treatment to the four streams of education. Very little has been done for the national language; very little has been done for the Tamil language. The number of students attending Chinese schools is dwindling and the Nanyang University question remains unsettled. The aims of the P.A.P. policy, in fact, are to anglicise the whole population of Singapore and so to strengthen the colonial influence in the country, paving the way to a cultural subversion by Western films, newspapers and so-called literature. I will not go into great details, Sir, but I wish briefly to summarise some of the main pro-colonial policies of the P.A.P. as follows:- One, the merger negotiations. It helps to divide and rule the people. It helps only British interests. The financial negotiations have revealed enough that Singapore has been sold lock, stock and barrel to the Federation. All this, Sir, only profits ultimately the colonial power that rules the whole area from behind. Two, their active support and promotion of the British-sponsored Malaysia Plan. This is the most obvious example, Sir. The whole world knows that Malaysia is a neo-colonialist plan. The President of the Philippines, the President of Indonesia - the closest neighbours of Malaya and Singapore - have condemned Malaysia as neo-colonialism. Yet the P.A.P. Government glorifies Malaysia. Three, their suppression of the fundamental rights and freedoms of speech and publication, association and assembly. The P.A.P. abuses State power for private and sectional interests. I do not need to give many examples. Just one or two - the S.A.T.U. conference was banned; a convention was also banned last year. Four, their frequent and unjustifiable attempts to divide the people by deliberate rousing of communal sentiments and fears on national issues. One of the most blatant examples is the Prime Minister's constant harping on the communal arithmetic of Malaysia. Recently, he talked of a Singapore electing only a Chinese leader to head the Singapore Government and the Federation electing only a Malay to head the Federation Government. Yet, not so very long ago the P.A.P. had been telling the people that Malay Assemblymen were elected in predominantly Chinese areas. Another example, Sir, is the way the Prime Minister threatened the Chinese in British North Borneo into supporting Malaysia following the Brunei uprising. No. 5. Their use of the police and troops against the workers and the deliberate division of workers and non-implementation of their promise of unification of the trade union movement. They talk of industrial peace with justice. But, of course, whenever they talk of justice, they talk of justice only to the employers and the imperial masters. They never talk of justice to the workers. The Finance Minister has said that Hong Kong is a successful industrial State because the workers there have no unions. From this, you can see what the Minister for Finance has in mind concerning the reunification of the trade union movement and the unions of the workers. No. 6. The P.A.P. support of the Internal Security Council in the arbitrary arrests and detention of anti-colonial stalwarts. Everybody knows that the I.S.C. is an imperialist organ, an instrument for the imperial power to suppress the hopes and aspirations of the people in the region. Yet we see the P.A.P. Government fully supporting the Internal Security Council in arresting people who are fighting for the interests of the people. No. 7. Their denial and revocation of citizenship rights and the threatened banishment of anti-colonial stalwarts. We have a sorry spectacle of a Government that was elected by the people now going completely against the people. Those of us who have obtained our citizenship after such difficulties are now in great danger of losing that citizenship. The funny thing about the so-called national Government of Singapore is that even Malay nationals, born in the Federation, are having their citizenship taken away from them. No. 8. Their suppression of national education and the promotion of Western education. I do not need to enlarge on this because we have had a good debate on it only last night and it is quite clear that the P.A.P. Government intends to anglicise the educational policy of Singapore. No. 9. The P.A.P. is not pursuing a policy of helping local businessmen and industrialists to develop a national industry. The P.A.P. concentrates on promoting the interests of external imperialist businessmen like those from Japan, Australia and other imperialist countries. No. 10. They are doing nothing to prevent the Naval Base from being used for the suppression of the nationalist and popular liberation movement in Brunei and Kalimantan Utara. It is recognised that the Brunei uprising is a national liberation uprising, and yet the P.A.P. Government wants this liberation movement to be suppressed and does nothing whatsoever to prevent the British from using the Naval Base in Singapore as a lumping-off ground in its suppression of the nationalist uprising. No. 11. The P.A.P.'s active co-operation with the Special Branch and the Internal Security Council to suppress the legitimate hopes and aspirations of the people. This is especially blame-worthy and deplorable when the P.A.P. uses and employs foreign nationals to suppress the people of Singapore. People like Thomson, Blades, Ahmad Khan, Corridon are not citizens of Singapore. They serve only the interests of people outside Singapore. Yet the P.A.P. today uses these people to suppress the hones and aspirations of the people. No. 12. Their use of Commissions of Inquiries to frighten and intimidate people opposed to the P.A.P. for selfish cods. I do not think I need go further ---

You have your own myth.

You will probably realise that the PAP, is very fond of Commissions of Inquiries in order to serve the interests of the P.A.P. and their masters.

Serve the interest of truth.

No. 13. Active co-operation with the colonial Press and the giving of special commendations and even medals to pro-colonialists and pro-imperialists.

You will not get a medal, I am sure.

These are some of the main items of the pro-colonial policies of the P.A.P. I shall leave other material to be touched on by some of my colleagues. But let the P.A.P. remember this. The P.A.P. celebrated National Day two weeks ago, but Singapore is still a colony. National Day in Singapore serves to remind the people of toast sacrifices in blood and toil in order that they may have today limited self-government. But more important, National Day reminds us of the yet uncompleted tasks ahead. The tasks ahead in the anti-colonial struggle. This struggle must lead us to complete independence and to the restoration of all our basic and fundamental democratic rights. Only then will the people have the opportunity to go one step further in the struggle towards freedom in order that they may solve the basic problems of poverty, disease, ignorance and want, and towards a society with no exploitation of man by man. The P.A.P. was elected to office in 1959 on an anti-colonial policy. The object then was to lead the people to genuine independence and freedom. But for selfish interests, the P A.P. Ministers now try to retard the progress of the people in their march towards freedom. In so doing, the P.A.P. Ministers ally themselves with the imperialist and colonialists and pursue pro-colonial policies I have just outlined. I, therefore, move, That this House expresses no confidence in the People's Action Party Government for its pro-colonial polices. Question proposed. 8.23 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion standing in the name of the Member for Queenstown and myself. Much has been said about the pro-colonial policies of the P.A.P. Government. I would like to stress only one or two points. The P.A.P. came to power on an anti-colonial platform, but the P.A.P.'s pro-colonial policies during their short four-year reign have exposed their deceit of the people and have openly shown their tolerance, adulation and support of colonial polices. On the other hand, their support for all anti-colonial struggles has been next to nil. Instead of making use of the country's surpluses to solve our problem of unemployment and to industrialise our country, the P A.P. Government has followed in the footsteps of the previous colonial Government by investing millions of dollars abroad, especially in the United Kingdom During the general elections in 1959, the P.A.P. promised the people of Singapore that they would recall all local capital invested abroad for the industrialisation of the country. But since they came to power, more and more money has been invested abroad, nearly twice the amount in three years, and these large sums of money which should have been used for the benefit of the people of Singapore are being used to provide employment for the benefit of other people. The P.A.P. have never come out in the open to give wholehearted and sincere support for any anti-colonial struggle. Most Afro-Asian leaders and political Parties condemn the apartheld policies of the Verwoerd Government in South Africa. To show their disapproval of this apartheid policy, many of them, including the Federation of Malaya, imposed a boycott on South African products. But the P.A.P. Government which profess to be anti-colonial have not done anything of the sort. Their silence on this issue could only mean support and tolerance of the racial and colonial policies of the Verwoerd Government. In the struggle of the Indonesian people to liberate West Irian, the P.A.P. as a ruling Party failed to show any vigorous support. It was the Barisan Sosialis who organised the people to show their support for their brothers and neighbours. When the Brunei revolution broke out, the P.A.P. openly condemned it, just as the British had condemned it and sent troops to suppress it. But in the eyes of the Afro-Asian countries, the revolution was a national revolution aimed at ending British colonialism. The P.A.P. stand condemned in the eyes of the Afro-Asian countries. This could not be better illustrated than by what had happened to their delegation at the Third Afro-Asian Solidarity Conference at Moshi recently when the P A.P. delegates had the door of the Conference slammed in their faces. As a semi-colonial country with no control in foreign affairs, even then the P.A.P. as a local political Party can come out and show their support for anti-colonialism. But the P.A.P. dare not do so, for they arc entirely dependent on the British Government for their survival. They depend on the British for aid, especially military aid, in the form of troops, to wipe out their political opponents. This is best illustrated by the fact that the Prime Minister has, during a world tour, stopped at London to ask the British Government to finance another battalion in the Singapore Military Force. It is well known that the Malaysia Plan is not originated from the Tunku.

8.30 p.m. He has only been made use of by the British to bring out this Plan. It is a British-sponsored plan, a plan by which the British hope to withdraw from political control of the territories of Borneo and Singapore, leaving them in the "safe" hands of their stooges, thus maintaining their economic and military interests in this region. This is the usual design in the grand tradition of British colonialism. The British only let the Tunku announce the plan to allay suspicion. The Prime Minister of Singapore, in fact, who knew of this plan before, instead of opposing it as a true anti-colonialist should, welcomed it as a means of saving himself from political bankruptcy. He thought that through Malaysia he could deceive the people about achieving merger with the Federation, an objective advocacy by every political Party in Singapore. He, therefore, came out in full support of the plan. The P.A.P. who call themselves anti-colonialists now become purveyors of non-colonialism. The British now have, therefore, in Singapore and the Federation, two stooges to carry out their grand plan. Before I sit down, I would like to stress another point which is quite important in parliamentary practice, as the P.A.P. have always pretended to he the protector of the parliamentary system. I was told that if in the House of Parliament or in the Assembly, whenever there is a motion of no confidence, the Government, if they have guts, if they are serious, and if they have confidence in themselves, should push aside all matters on the Order Paper and debate the motion of no confidence. But instead the P.A.P. Government decided to postpone this motion which we have tabled at the last sitting and forced us to have it debated at today's sitting. Even then our motion was not debated first but was left till the end of this sitting. If the P.A.P. Government and the P.A.P. Front benches are really the protectors of the parliamentary system, and if they have guts and confidence in themselves, they should have debated our motion first instead of now. 8.33 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is a saying that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. The Barisan Sosialis have been repeating themselves so often that we on this side are often constrained to repeat our counter arguments. Perhaps it would be best to start off by asking what they mean by anti-colonialism. That is the essence of the motion, that we are following pro-colonial policies. As I understand anti-colonialism, its purpose is to get rid of foreign rule, foreign control, political or otherwise. The method by which we intended to get rid of colonialism was laid out in the fixed political objectives of the Party, the policy statement by the Central Executive Committee of the People's Action Party in 1960, contained in the book, The Battle for Merger, a statement issued before the election and signed by every P.A.P. Assemblyman. It indicated how to get rid of colonialism. First, we made it quite clear that fighting to get rid of colonialism did not mean fighting for an independent Singapore. It was made quite clear that we said that an independent Singapore, once established, cannot lead to merger by consent. If merger ever came, it would be by the conquest of one by the other. For an independent Singapore, once established, even for an interim period, would create a situation whereby vested interests with a Chinese appeal would become permanent. If once independence were achieved in this island city, 75 per cent of whose population is Chinese, the logical consequence would be that those Chinese chauvinist sentiments which are at present being muted and slowly dissolved because of the objective of independence through merger, would openly and aggressively come to the fore. Therefore, the objective was independence through merger, and that was the basis of our anti-colonial struggle signed by everyone of the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen. That was 1959, four years ago. I think exactly 77 days from today, we will be getting merger. The gentlemen over there will get into trouble on 31st August. But we have fulfilled our mandate of securing independence through merger. Can they say that we have not kept faith with our anti-colonial policy, the major platform of our election promise signed by all the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen? What is a pro-colonialist? A pro-colonialist is one who wants to sell the country to outside forces, who has to rely on outside forces. I would like to convince you, within this short period of time - I do not want to take up too much time - that it is the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists who are today following a pro-colonialist policy. You will remember, Sir, that when the question of merger was sprung on the Communists, what did they do? It was revealed here that the first person they ran to was the United Kingdom Commissioner in order to make a deal. Pro-colonialists? Anti-colonialists running to the U.K. Commission to have tea. They were led up the garden path into taking a dangerous and disastrous course, which they did. Anti-colonialists never tried to do a deal with the U.K. Commissioner. What was their deal? We said independence through merger. By getting merger we, in Singapore, will become part of a national Government which will have control over foreign affairs and defence. We have internal self-government; now we want control over foreign affairs and defence. What was the deal that the Communists in the Barisan Sosialis put forward to the British? They said, "Please give us internal self-government in return for which you, the British, can keep control of defence and foreign affairs." Who are the pro-colonialists? Who are the anti-colonialists? I can tell you, Sir, it was sometime in August last year, I think, that the Barisan Sosialis sent a delegation to the United Nations to try to interest the Russians and the Poles to take up their cause. The Prime Minister was there. When their representation was made, the Russians and the Poles thought the Barisan Sosialis were Communists. They took a firm anti-colonial stand. The Prime Minister said. "Yes, but do you know the Barisan's stand is against merger, as proposed by us, and that they will allow the British to keen defence and the Naval Base and foreign affairs?" The Russians were so flabbergasted. They thought the Prime Minister was putting on a fable. So they asked Mr Woodhull, "Surely, Mr Woodhull, that is not so?" Mr Woodhull said, "Well, I have no authority to make any statement on that point." "But is it so?" He said. "Yes, at the moment." He had already said that under their arrangements the British bases would be retained. The British could have control over their bases and over foreign affairs and defence. Pro-colonialists? Who are the pro-colonialists? After that the Russians and the Polish delegates decided to call the whole thing off. They were so embarrassed. Here were Communists coming before other Communists taking what appeared to be an active anti-colonial line, but which in fact turned out to be a pro-colonial line. As I have said, Sir, we have fulfilled our mandate. The political objective, which, as I have said, was signed by them also, is to get independence through merger. In 77 more days that mandate will be carried out to the hilt. And these gentlemen first went to the U.K. Commission to do a deal! They even embarrassed the Russians and the Poles! Further, in the issue of the Plebeian Express No. 6, ten cents, published by the Barisan Sosialis - I believe the Petir is a bit more expensive. But this is ten cents; and what is it? Here they try to prove - "Malaysia on 31st August???" Three question marks. They try to convince here, and demoralise and rather frighten their followers that Malaysia will not come about. Why? Because they have the people behind them? No. They give the reasons why Malaysia will not come about. Perhaps, Sir, it is better to quote. "First, a lot of difficulties for the Tunku." The Tunku is not a foreigner. He is one of us. He is a Malayan, a Malaysian. But they are not referring to the Tunku, "First, that guerilla warfare is spreading in the Borneo territories." Who is spreading guerilla warfare'? Mr Azahari. Where is Mr Azahari? An hon. Member: In Indonesia.

In Indonesia. Mr Azahari is carrying on propaganda to say "Save Malaysia from the Chinese." How to save it? Break up Malaysia! Those are the allies of the Barisan Sosialis, their friends, the men who are going to save and destroy Malaysia. Mr Azahari, who is in Indonesia, now says, "We must oppose Malaysia to save it from the Chinese." Kalimantan Utara Radio broadcasts it every day. Pro-colonialists? Anti-colonialists? Secondly, what is the other alternative? What are the other reasons why they believe that Malaysia will not come about? They say, "It is because of the sham referendum." 70 per cent of the people voted for it. Is it a sham? They know that they cannot rely on the people of Singapore te break up Malaysia. So, therefore, they have to rely on Brunei. Azahari? That also fizzled out. Today they say, perhaps it is not Azahari - this gentleman is now a little bit as desperate as the Member for Queenstown - but because there are other reasons. What is the greatest of the other reasons? The greatest is that a strong and vehement opposition has come from Malaya's immediate neighbour, Indonesia, and Malaya's ASA partner, the Philippines. Great anti-colonialists, nationalists now saying, "We cannot get the people of Singapore to oppose Malaysia. But this is all right, friends and comrades. Indonesia and the Philippines will help break up Malaysia." 70 per cent of the people voted for Malaysia, but the Barisan Sosialis, the great anti-colonialists, say, "Do not worry; Indonesia and the Philippines will help us to break up Malaya." Anti-colonialists? Pro-colonialists? I say. Sir, that a pro-colonialist is one who sells his country to foreigners and outside forces. Who are the pro-colonialists? An hon. Member: The Barisan.

Further, they say "Malaysia will not come about???" Three question marks. "Because it will mean the intensification of the confrontation policy with a greater flare-up in the fighting in the Borneo territories." That simply means that foreign forces are going to invade the Borneo territories and we will be saved by the Barisan Sosialis, the great anti-colonialists. We will be saved not by the people of Malaysia, but by people from outside. Again I ask you, Sir, who are the anti-colonial's and who are the pro-colonialists? People who sell out the country, who depend on foreign forces, who tell the British that they are prepared to give them their foreign bases, ask them to keep their defence and foreign affairs. They are the colonialists --- An hon. Member: Fifth columnists.

Order. I would suggest that Members on the Government side do not interject. I think Members of the Opposition side have not so far interjected.

Sir, that is bad enough. At least they can say that it is in the spirit of Afro-Asia. But the Member for Queenstown has new allies to help break up Malaysia. Not in Afro-Asia. Because he goes on to say, "Britain too ---", page 4. This was all written before recent events. This was 7th June, 1963. "Britain too recognises these difficulties and the Under-Secretary for Commonwealth Relations, Sir Saville Garner, was concerned about the attitude of Indonesia, and, therefore, tells the British that if they go ahead with this, they are going to get into trouble." In other words, they now hope that even the British will come to their aid. And you will remember, Sir, that a few months ago the Member for Queenstown, having lost the referendum, when 70 per cent of the people voted for merger and Malaysia, said, "Better get rid of Bung. Let me go and enlist new friends." So he said he was going to visit Afro-Asia. But he went to London - the heart of colonialism - to enlist support from amongst M.P.s. And we know three M.P.s turned up. These three M.P.s came at his request, though, as you know, Sir, when they came, the first thing they said was, "We are coming here at the invitation of the Prime Minister." But, in fact, I did suggest to the Finance Minister that if the Member for Queenstown kept on insisting that the three M.P.s came at his request, he should send all the bills to him. But, I think, since the M.P.s said that they were coming here at the request of the Prime Minister ---

Who is paying the bill?

The interesting thing is that even if the three M.P.s had come at the express invitation of the Member for Queenstown, his treatment of the three M.P.s. his three guests, was even more deplorable. You will remember - in the newspapers, he invited the three M.P.s to go to the Happy World rally. They always go to the Happy World because they are so depressed that that is the only place where they think they can feel a certain amount of elation at what is going to happen. They invited the three M.P.s and insisted that they should speak. They refused to speak, and then they went off. The Member for Queenstown then got up and made a long speech in which he denounced the three M.P.s Who had invited their guests, Sir? They invited them. The M.P s did not want to go to their meeting. They said, "We have not come here to address mass meetings, having addressed bigger meetings." They made their case and they went away. So he denounced them. He said, "The three M.P.s were Labour M.P.s. The Labour Party is a Party of monopoly vested interests." Then three paragraphs later there is a new trend in the argument. He said, "On the other hand, the Barisan Sosialis had a big reception at the Airport, one of the biggest receptions." So it all boils down to this. The Barisan Sosialis organised a big reception at the Airport to meet three Labour M.P.s who were the representatives of monopoly capitalism. How silly can the Barisan Sosialis get, that they should now confess that here is an anti-colonial Party inviting three Labour M.P.s from the heart of colonialism to help break up Malaysia, and, at the same time, they organised a reception for what amounted to representatives of monopoly capitalism. That is why. Sir, I earlier prefaced my remarks by saying some epithet about the Barisan Sosialis, that those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. And this is madness, Sir. First, anti-colonialists who rely on foreign forces, ending up with British monopoly vested interests; representatives of monopoly vested interests to help them out of their predicament. Anyway, Sir, now they have come to this point. You will remember these great pro-colonialists. There is no doubt about it. We are the real anti-colonialists. We said we would get you independence through merger in 77 days - in 77 days that will come about. These people originally said that they supported the concept of Malaysia - on the record, the concept of Malaysia. But now, in the Barisan Sosialis Plebeian Express on the 15th May, they say, "We oppose Malaysia irrespective of whether it is the plan or the concept." Here, they repeatedly kept on saying, "Oh, we accept the concept of Malaysia. We oppose the plan."

Read it.

Sir, it is in the Plebeian Express.

Read it, read it!

"No to Malaysia. We oppose Malaysia irrespective of whether it is the plan or the concept. We oppose Malaysia and we do not want Malaysia."

Read on.

"It may be asked, do we object to smaller territories?" Now, I do not want to repeat your propaganda here.

Read.

"That the Borneo territories will have self-determination." But you say now that you oppose the Malaysia concept just as you signed the pledge ---

Order. Everybody is getting excited now. I have said nothing about the Malaysia concept. The Minister should now address the Chair, and perhaps if he holds his glasses in his right hand, he will not be pointing so much at the Opposition side.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would not risk my glasses by holding them in my right hand, having regard to the microphone here. I will just try to control my hand. Sir, we have come, I think, to what is really the last chapter in the history of the Barisan Sosialis. You will have noticed a rather significant news item which appeared a few days ago. There was a united front of the Workers' Party, the Barisan Sosialis, the U.D.P. But you will have read that the Workers' Party has pulled out. Why? Because they know that by tagging themselves on to the united front, they are going to get into real trouble. So, like rats which know how to desert a sinking ship, they have pulled out first. They have even better reasons for believing that these are condemned men who have got a few more days - 77 days; tomorrow it wi11 be 76 days. Sir, they have now placed all their hopes on foreign socialists - Indonesia, the Philippines, British M.P.s. even British colonial administrators - to help them out. They cannot mobilise the people to help them out, but we have had news from Manila. They have been putting their faith, their last hope, on confrontation But now we know that whatever happens, both the Philippines President and the President of Indonesia have considered that Malaysia is not neo-colonial. Sir, if you will read the communique - not the speculative part which gave buoyant hope, increased their optimism the day before yesterday (but yesterday I noticed they looke4 slightly depressed) - in today's paper, what does it say? The communique, the relevant part ---

The Straits Times?

The Straits Times of 12th June, 1963. `The Ministers in the context of their close and brotherly association, succeeded in reaching common understanding and complete agreement on how to resolve problems of common concern arising out of the proposal to establish a Federation of Malaysia.' Nobody reaches common agreement to establish something which he believes to be neo-colonial because whatever he might say President Soekarno is no neo-colonialist. An hon. Member: Provided?

There is nothing; provided what? 'In the same brotherly spirit the three Ministers discussed the Phillippines claim to North Borneo and arrived at a common understanding...'. At a common understanding, not what you were expecting, Sir. Sorry, Sir, not you, the Communists expected: `and agreement and how this problem should be resolved justly and expeditiously.' But it is quite clear, Sir, now they are hanging on to half straws. Yesterday, or the day before yesterday, they were clinging on to a straw. Today it is half a straw. But I think in a couple of days they will have to swim on their own and since they do not know how to swim, you know what the outcome will be. But this is inevitable when tenderfoot Communists, wolf cubs, girl guides of the Communist movement try to launch out on their own. Sir, they issued a statement the day after this communique came out. We only read the speculative part. As a newspaperman, I know every newspaperman wants to give a sensational twist to a rather prosaic communique. Of course, the speculations - they were talking about a referendum even in Singapore, Sir, and they were getting a bit elated, and on the basis of that they went and issued a silly statement supporting the accord which was reached in Manila. I think the statement was issued on the following day, 13th June. But if they had only restrained themselves and not launched out on their own, they would have got the right line first. They praised the Manila Agreement. I have a translation here. It appeared in the Chinese Press. `We are thankful to the Foreign Ministers (that is, Tun Razak too, Sir) conference in Manila for paving the way for a summit meeting of the heads of Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaya. This will undoubtedly reduce tension and help bring about stability and peace in South East Asia ...'. An hon. Member: Is that true?

Mr Aidit - the man for whom they have great respect and who can decide their fate arid their future - came out later in the Straits Times, June the 14: `Aidit hits at Manila Agreement. The leader of the Indonesian Communists complained yesterday (he was not praising, thankful or welcoming) that the Foreign Ministers' joint communique in Manila lacked the spirit of anti-imperialism. It is a warning to them that this is not in the spirit of welcoming something. It is not in the sprit of anti-imperialism, because it did not contain enough of the anti-imperialist and the Bandoeng principles' Sir, I think this was the last issue of the Plebeian which came out on the 7th of June and I have no doubt that the next issue will contain another somersault in denouncing the talks at Manila.

Today.

Order.

It does not matter, because I say there are only 77 more days. This issue was probably concocted before June the 14th.

With pictures too.

Order.

I have no doubt that just as they supported the Malaysia concept - in fact, the Member for Thomson went even further; you will remember that he supported the Malaysia concept but he wanted Indonesia to be the heartland - but, as I have already said, they do not even support the Malaysia concept but all that they want is Indonesia as the heartland. So now Indonesia has deserted them. They have no friends. The Workers' Party has deserted them; some of their ghost-writers have left the scene. So there are 14 gentlemen who do not know how to swim, and there are 77 days more before we, as we have promised, finish our anti-colonial battle. As we have said, the nature of the anti-colonial battle is to get independence through merger, and I am quite sure that the ten million people of Malaysia will rejoice in exactly 77 days. Malaysia will come. We still have the neon light service for all: a flash with the words "As sure as the sun rises."

As the sun sets.

And as sure as Malaysia rises, the Barisan Sosialis will set.

Dr Lee, in reply?

I understand that the Member for Upper Serangoon wishes to speak a few ---

A few words?

Yes.

Mr Chan Sun Wing - just a few words. 9.06 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, I will leave it to our Chairman to rebut the balderdash uttered by the Minister for Culture. I will now only speak on some other aspects. I would like to point out to the Party in power that they have deviated from their original anti-colonialist stand, because in one of the past P.A.P.'s declarations, they said that the economy of Malaya existed only for British interests. They also said at the same time that under the then economic system the thought of getting political power through constitutional reform was something of a deception, that the various reforms carried out in Malaya after the war by the colonialists were all meant to consolidate the interests of British colonialists and that before achieving political freedom it was impossible to change the then economic system. Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the past P.A.P.'s declaration, it was necessary to change the economic structure first. You will remember the other day in this House, I criticised the P.A.P. policy. When I insisted on changing the economic structure at the time when I was in the P.A.P., the Minister for Finance accused me of being a Communist. From this, you can clearly see that the P.A.P. have deviated from their original anti-colonial stand to their present pro-colonial stand. Further in February 1959, the then Chairman of the P.A.P., in a Hong Lim mass rally, said that there were three forces existing. The first force was the banking compradore class, the second force was the British and American imperialists, and the third force was the Ministers such as Inche Johari of the Federation. Now, this was uttered by the P.A.P. before they came to power. They described the then situation as one of the existence of three forces. At present, we are witnessing the P.A.P. competing with the M.C.A. of Malaya for the role of compradores. They no longer criticise the British and the Americans because the U.K., the U.S.A. and all Western countries are now praising the P.A.P.'s new approach as wise. Although the Prime Minister has, on a few occasions, attacked a certain Minister of the Federation, yet he has been playing golf in the Federation. Before I sit down, I would also like to point out that we Barisan Assemblymen left the P A.P. in 1961 mainly because we saw through the P.A.P.'s stand which was pro-colonialist. In January 1962, sometime before the referendum was held, not only we in the Barisan Sosialis knew that the P.A.P was pro-colonialist but that the political Parties from the five territories which held a socialist conference in Kuala Lumpur knew it too. At that conference the P.A.P. was expelled from the socialist camp. After the national referendum ---

Order. I did have great hopes that at last parliamentary practice was going to be practised in this Assembly, and I was informed of the speakers who were going to speak on this matter. Now, the Member for Upper Serangoon is raising new issues which will probably have to be replied to by the Government side. As I have said, I had great hopes that at last we are knuckling down to really good parliamentary practice. I wonder whether the Member for Upper Serangoon realises that what he has said about certain parties not practising parliamentary democracy might very well apply to him. Mr Chan Sun Wing continued speaking in Mandarin.

I did not get that. Will the Member please repeat what he has said?

(In Mandarin): Just now, I said that I do not agree with the last sentence of your ruling.

Order. If the Member does not agree with my ruling, then I think he had better sit down. That is my ruling.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am not challenging your ruling, because the last part of your sentence said that I had not been complying with democratic parliamentary practice.

Order. The opinion of the Speaker is that the Member for Upper Serangoon is not complying .with parliamentary practice. The information that was given to the Speaker was that there were going to be two speakers from the Barisan side and one from the Government. That is the information. If that cannot be honoured, parliamentary practice cannot be honoured.

(In Mandarin): This is because my Party has not informed me of this undertaking and, in the meantime, I have already informed my Party that my speech will be very short. So if Mr Speaker did not stop me I think I might have already finished my speech.

The Member is being very disrespectful, and if he continues in that strain I will ask him to stop. He must apologise for being disrespectful.

(In Mandarin): Well, due to some misunderstanding, I am quite prepared to apologise if you think it is necessary.

The Speaker does think it is necessary, and if the Member for Upper Serangoon does not apologise without any frills, I will ask him to stop speaking or I will take action under Standing Orders.

(In Mandarin): From what I have said, one can see that since we have understood the deviation of the P.A.P. from the original stand ---

I still have not got apologies without any frills. I want that apology without any frills.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, my apologies. Mr Speaker, just now I have pointed out that understanding the change of stand of the P.A.P. from one of anti-colonial to one of pro-colonial and the change of being a true Party to that of a colonial puppet, and after the referendum, their position is precarious. We can see now that the moving of this motion by us will not bring down the Party in power, but I believe, in spite of this, this motion should receive support from the other Opposition Parties. At least we can understand their attitude on this motion. 9.18 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the the Member for Upper Serangoon says that the P.A.P. Government has not honoured the manifesto of the P.A.P. I believe he is trying to make use of this opportunity to deceive the people. The declaration in the manifesto was made in 1954. I would like him to refer to the manifesto of 1958 before the general election. It is entitled Our Role and Policy after Self-Government. I would like to quote just a small paragraph: `The basic aim of the party was brought up four years ago in 1954 on 1st July when a declaration was made on the policies and aims of the P.A.P. During these four years there hive been some changes in the history, of Malaya. Three years after 1954 the Federation of Malaya in 1957 on 31st August became an independent nation, while the people in Singapore were still separated from the people of Malaya and such separation was even advocated. In fact, Singapore not even part of the Federation of Malaya, and Singapore itself could not possibly become independent. It could only achieve self-government in the following year, and so to review our position and to explain our policies and aims the time has come for us to do all these things!' I would like him to refer to this paragraph again. Sir, before he stood for the election, he endorsed our aims and policies. What he read was outdated. He was repeating something which was outdated. Now we have already changed.

Order. The Parliamentary Secretary has developed the habit of the Minister for Culture of pointing across the Chamber. He must not do that.

(In Mandarin): I do not wish to take too much time on this. All I want to do is to remind the Member and those people who have sold out the P.A.P. and who are now in the Barisan Sosialis of their knowledge of our new policy as expounded. So they should not mention anything that was made previous to this new change of policy. Policy must change according to the context of society and history. If they are really gentlemen and honourable, then they must admit that they were elected on a P.A.P. ticket and so, by right, if they want to reserve their seats in this House, they should go out from this House to the electorate ---

Order. I think that is completely irrelevant. That is inciting a debate from the opposite side. Perhaps he could wind up now. Mr Parliamentary Secretary.

(In Mandarin): I was just pointing out to the Member for Upper Serangoon that he was trying to make use of our past manifesto to deceive the people of Singapore.

Dr Lee, in reply. 9.21 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with what the Minister for Culture has said, "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."

At least, he admits now.

Because it is quite obvious to all of us that the Minister for Finance --- An hon. Member: The Minister for Culture.

The Minister for - yes, the Minister for Finance too, I think -

Order.

The Minister for Culture plus his ex-Parliamentary Secretary are getting mad ---

Who is mad?

--- standing up in this Assembly and pointing their fingers across the Floor. Are they not mad?

You have a funny look in your eye.

Order. I have already indicated to the Member for Queenstown that if he asks questions, he will probably get an answer across the Floor. Perhaps if he tries not to ask rhetorical questions, we could get on with the debate.

He wants to go to Yio Chu Kang.

Because he is asking: what is anti-colonial? And then, according to him, it is to get rid of foreign rule. Yes, we agree that it is to get rid of foreign rule. But it is foreign domination in many aspects. They keep on repeating the slogan of independence through merger. They also say independence through Malaysia. But one of the most pro-Malaysia politicians in Sarawak today has come out and said that this slogan of independence through Malaysia is a myth. Sir, we in this House have debated ad nauseam and explained to all the Ministers how the so-called merger will not give the people of Singapore independence. The Member for Upper Serangoon has already informed the House that the P.A.P. has such a bad reputation amongst genuine anti-colonialists that it was driven out of the socialist conference in Kua1a Lumpur in January 1961 and was debarred from entry to the conference at Moshi, Tanganyika, in spite of all the sponsoring by friendly governments hoping to smuggle the P.A.P. candidates into the conference. My colleague, the Member for Havelock, has also mentioned the fact that the P A.P. Prime Minister went to England to ask for money for troops. Troops for what? Are these troops to fight the British? To borrow money from the British to fight the British? Do they recognise that we are still a colony? Are the Ministers opposite trying to tell us that the British are willing to lend money to the P.A.P. in order to kick the British out of Singapore? This is a new and funny way of fighting against colonialism. Today our troops in Singapore are not trained to fight the external enemy. They cannot fight against Indonesia; they cannot fight against the Philippines; and they cannot fight against anybody outside. The troops are only good for suppressing the people inside Singapore in their struggle for freedom and their democratic rights. That is all that the troops in Singapore are good for. Is this what the troops meant to do? These troops definitely are not meant to fight against the colonial masters. Our troops, in fact, are only trained to surround blocks of buildings and to prevent people from getting in and out. The troops are also ---

Are you trying to get in or trying to get out?

Order.

--- used to suppress strikers and to act as blacklegs in the breaking of strikes. At one time when the daily-rated workers went on strike, our troops were used as blacklegs and the whole exercise to get dust bins emptied and streets cleaned, was more in the manner of a military operation. That is how our troops are being used in Singapore today. The Minister for Finance talks very much about bases. I have here the text of a speech by the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, on National Day --- Mr Rajaratnam rose ---

On a point of order?

Point of clarification.

Point of clarification. Will the Member give way? Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown had better look after himself. He keeps on confusing me with the Minister for Finance. An hon. Member: Off beam!

I think what the Minister means is that the Member for Queenstown is referring to the Minister for Culture as the Minister for Finance. This is the second time he has done that. Once he nearly got into trouble, I think.

He has already got into trouble.

It is the Minister for Culture.

But I am now referring to the Prime Minister. [Laughter] Maybe he thinks he is going to change himself into the Prime Minister. I am not sure whether the Minister for Finance intends to take his place, because I ---

Order. The Member for Queenstown did say the Minister for Finance, and he was going to refer to that pamphlet. Do I understand now that that pamphlet refers to the Prime Minister and not the Minster for Finance or the Minister for Culture? Dr Lee. Dr Lee Siew Choh rose ---

The Minister for Education.

You are off your rocker.

Every country that has self-respect will never like to have foreign bases on its soil, and any politician worth his salt and who calls himself a nationalist, will always do his best to get rid of bases from the country. Yet, I see here, Sir ---

On a point of clarification, Sir. Dr Lee Siew Choh remained standing.

No, the Member is not giving way.

--- the Prime Minister glorifying the bases ---

What about Mr Woodhull?

He says: 'Without Singapore and her bases, Malaysia cannot be defended. Whatever mutual defence pacts there may be, if tomorrow we were to obiliterate Singapore from the map of Malaysia then the sine vs, with which Malaysia can be defended would be destroyed.' Defended. Defended for whom?

The people of Singapore.

Today the bases are here to defend British interests. The Prime Minster, piqued at not getting his way in the financial talks, is trying to frighten the Federation by reminding them that Singapore is, in fact, an asset to the Federation. But in his trying to emphasise the importance of Singapore, he only talks of Singapore as a base - a base for the defence of whom and for whose interests? Surely, he must know that today the centre of the British Far East Unified Command is in Singapore. The base is the centre of the British Far East Unified Command. In fact, Malaysia is only the political aspect of this military command which embraces all the five territories in Malaysia. The base in Singapore is to act as the springboard for the protection of British interests in the Far East, and stretching as far as the Indian Ocean and into the Arabian Sea. That was what was announced in the British White Paper, and all the big-wigs of the British Military Command have repeatedly said the same thing. Recently, the Far East Unified Command Chief said that Malaysia would be defended 500 per cent with British forces. Do you mean to say that the British are going to defend Malaysia for people like the Minister for Finance? In fact, all the P.A.P. Ministers have been pleading for British retention of the base, in his visits to the rural constituencies, the Prime Minister stressed the fact that the base is important to Singapore.

40,000 jobs!

He calls Singapore the stopper of South-East Asia and the base is to be used as the stop of the stopper.

To stop you from talking rubbish!

You can, therefore, see, Sir, that when the Ministers of the P.A.P. talk of their being nationalists, they are in fact playing the role of colonial stooges. They tight for the British base to be in Singapore. They want to preserve the base in Singapore so that it may serve the interests of the P.A.P. to a certain extent, but more important, the interests of a foreign power. Our stand on the question of the base has been repeatedly stressed in our statements. We want a free, independent, democratic Malaya - that is to say, Singapore together with the Federation - free of foreign troops and free of foreign control. In other words, the base must go if we are to be really independent. But, of course, the P.A.P. likes the base to be there because it will serve the P.A.P. to a great extent.

40,000 jobs!

They keep on talking about 74 days to merger and the fulfilment of a promise. But was there any mention of Malaysia?

Merger, yes.

There was no mention of it at all in 1959. Why do they keep harping on independence through Malaysia then?

What is your point?

The point is you are bringing new things into your policy which were never mentioned before. Now the P.A.P. Government is even thinking of using money reserved for the development of Singapore for the expansion of the armed forces to protect the so-called Pan-Malaysian Services, Azahari's fight in Brunei is well known. His stand has been supported by all the Afro-Asian countries in Moshi --- An hon. Member: Mushi? Another hon. Member: Moshi, Moshi.

All of us know that Azahari is an anti-colonialist in his own way in Brunei.

Very funny way!

Any person who fights against imperialism gets our support. Our stand is clear. Whether the anti-colonial struggle be in Brunei, Africa or Latin Amerce, it will get our support.

Timbuctoo too.

At one time, the P.A.P. gave the impression of supporting the anti-colonial struggle in Algeria. But when we did the same thing in support of Brunei, they used that as an excuse to arrest and detain the leaders and organisers of our Party. We are very clad, Sir, that the Minster for Culture agrees with our analysis in the Plebeian, and we are very glad that ---

On a point of clarification, Sir.

If the Member will give way.

There is no need for any clarification from him. An hon. Member: You cannot understand him.

Because it is all here ---

I never agreed to it. I just read it out.

He quoted extensively from our Plebeian. Our Plebeian came out well before the Manila Conference ended, and we had already predicted the difficulties of the Federation Government and the British in their wish to implement Malaysia. We know that the British and the Federation would like to push through Malaysia, but in view of the difficulties that they will have to face, I think they will be forced to think twice before going ahead without regard to the views of Indonesia and the Philippines.

All are agreed now.

Order.

We have said here very clearly that the Federation and the British would most certainly like to push through their plans for Malaysia, but because of the realisation that if they persist with their plans, they would have to incur great losses, therefore, they now have to think of cutting their losses. That is why we said that there are great possibilities of Britain and the Federation postponing Malaysia.

77 days more!

I remember when the news came out about a referendum in Singapore and in the Borneo territories, we on this side of the House could see long faces on the opposite Benches. They were worried and did not know what to do. Only with the help of Malaysia can they hope to retain their position. But with Malaysia possibly not forthcoming as scheduled the Ministers opposite are getting worried.

Are you serious?

Anyway, we are very glad that they realise that Malaysia is not going to be smooth and plain sailing. In spite of their hopes, it looks as if Malaysia is going to strike rock.

Where?

If I may quote, Sir, from our latest Chinese Barisan. May I read this in Chinese so that it can be translated for you, Sir?

I think it will be more convenient, for interpretation purposes, for the hon. Member to interpret straightaway.

Skip it.

I will translate it: 'It does not matter how eager the British and the Federation hope to implement their Malaysia plan. but because of ;strong opposition from the people fn the five territories, from Afro-Asia and from world opinion, and added to this the opposition from the Philippines and Indonesia . . . .'

Cuba.

Order.

`, it looks as if the Federation Government and Britain will have to give way.' And this is to inform the Ministers opposite: let them not be too happy. I think, from today onwards, they will have to start thinking of other ways and means of saving their personal fortunes.

Sir, on a point of order. You will remember ---

The point of order being?

A breach of privilege, Sir.

What is the allegation?

The Member has said that we are trying to save our personal fortunes. Sir. We have no personal fortunes.

Order. I cannot see how that is either a point of order or a breach of privilege. The Member for Queenstown is just saying that he does not know how the Members are to save their personal fortunes. He has not said how they have amassed fortunes or, in fact, if they have amassed fortunes.

The Minister also complained that we have changed cur stand towards the concept and plan of Malaysia. Our stand is very simple, Sir. The present plan and the present concept both embrace the Borneo territories, Singapore, and the Federation. As far as we are concerned, the Borneo territories should have self-determination. They have asked for independence, and they should get independence. Moreover, already there is Kalimantan Utara. On our side, we ask for reunification with the Federation. That is all. To keep talking about the concept will allow certain people who are pro-Malaysia to distort the anti-Malaysia stand of the people by quoting non-opposition to the Malaysia concept as non-opposition to the Malaysia plan itself. A very clear example is seen in Mr Narasimhan's statement recently. He went to Borneo and the Federation. Because some of the Parties have said they are not opposed to the concept, so Met Narasimhan told the world that there was no opposition to Malaysia when, in fact, all of them are opposed to Malaysia. Therefore, to prevent all these distortions and confusion, it is much easier that we say we oppose the Malaysia plan and the Malaysia concept. It will save a lot of confusion and everybody can understand exactly what our stand is.

Stop talking and save confusion.

The Minister mentioned something about our having a party and reception for the M.P.s who represent the monopoly capitalists. We did not have a party to welcome the Labour M.P.s who represent monopoly capitalists. We had that party to show the M.P.s that there is strong opposition to Malaysia in Singapore. In spite of the Straits Times' distortion and the attempt to give the impression that I had scolded the M.P.s behind their backs, I had, in fact, given my speech to the M.P.s long before I started to speak. Sir, there was no talking behind the backs of the M.P.s. I do not know why the Straits Times put on that "twist". Possibly it was because we are against Malaysia and therefore are against the interests represented by the Straits Times. If the Straits Times were honest enough, they should ---

Pack up.

--- correct their presentation and tell the people of Singapore that I never did say anything behind the backs of the M.P.s. I do not wish to go very much further ---

Thank God.

--- in reply, because, in actual fact, the Minster never touched on any of the points which I raised. The Members opposite keep talking about their 1958 Fourth Anniversary Souvenir. But I remember, Sir, we started complaining about the implementation of the pro-colonial policy of the P.A.P. as early as September, or even August 1959. The P.A.P. had a meeting in a special bungalow in Changi and we Assemblymen and other cadres were asked to attend. As early as 1959, we had already pointed out to the leaders that they were pursuing a policy which was entirely different from the pledges given to the people before the elections. Since that time, there had been frequent meetings and every time the cadres complained to the Ministers. But later on, because of what is now called the Ong Eng Guan incident, these differences were put aside until the time when the P.A.P. openly supported the Malaysia plan without consultation of party cadres. So to say that we supported the P.A.P. from the beginning is entirely wrong. Our quarrel with the Ministers and leaders of the P.A.P. started as early as 1959. Today the P.A.P. always talks about the Communists because they want to use the Communists as scapegoats. They want to crush the Barisan Sosialis by smearing us as Communists. They want frighten away supporters of the Barisan Sosialis. And when they make mistakes and commit blunders, they hope to blame the Communists for such mistakes and blunders. Everything undemocratic that they do is blamed on the Communists. I think the Minister for Finance did on one occasion say that he needed undemocratic measures to protect P.A.P. democracy.

Rubbish!

And because of that, therefore, we had clause 29 of the Referendum Bill. And because of that also, I and many of us suffered loss of individual freedom in the police station lock-up. Sir, democracy is dead in Singapore today. I would advise the P.A.P. to correct its policy even in the short time left to them. The correct policy is to pursue the anti-colonial struggle correctly and try to raise the living standards of the people. Colonialism exploits the people in many forms. Even if political domination has been taken away, the country can still be dominated economically and militarily, and economic and military domination constitutes neo-colonialism. That is what Malaysia is, and if the P.A.P. wants to get away from this pro-colonial policy, I would ask it to immediately stop supporting Malaysia and to go back to the people. Question put, "That this House expresses no confidence in the People's Action Party Government for its pro-colonial policies."

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, 23; Abstentions, 6; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Buang bin Chan sun Wing Omar Junid Fung Ying Ching Byrne, K. M. Miss Chan Chee Seng Hoe Puay Choo, Chan Choy Siong, Madam Madam Lee Siew Choh Chor Yeok Eng Leong Keng Seng Goh Chew Chua Lim Yew Hock Goh Keng Swee Lin You Eng Lee Khoon Choy Low Por Tuck Lee Teck Him Ng Teng Kian Lim Cheng Lock Ong Chang Sam Lingam, S. V. Ong Eng Guan Mammen, John Sheng Nam Chin Mohd. Ariff bin Tan Cheng Tong Suradi Tee Kim Leng M. Ismail Rahim Teo Hock Guan Ong Pang Boon Wong Soon Fong Rajaratnam, S Ramaswamy, S Absent. Sohorah binte Ahmat, Madam Ahmad Jabri bin Tan Kia Gan Mohammad Akib Toh Chin Chye Kandasamy, G Wee Toon Boon Koh, C. H. Yaacob bin Lee Kuan Yew Mohamed Al-Haj Marshall, David Yong Nyuk Lin Abstentions. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat Mohd. Ali bin Alwi Rajah, A. P. Seow Peck Leng Mrs Thio Chan Bee Motion accordingly negatived.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn to Wednesday, 24th July, 1963." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye] Adjourned accordingly at Ten o'clock p.m. to Wednesday, 24th July, 1963.