Hansard, 1963-12-20

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (2) (d) of section 30 of the Singapore (State Constitution) Order in Council, 1963, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Mr Ho Cheng Choon (Geylang East), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development - from 22nd December to 31st December, 1963.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [19th December, 1963], "That the Bill be now read a Second time.". Question again proposed. 2.31 p.m.

The Deputy Prime Minister was speaking in reply yesterday when he was interrupted at the moment of interruption. Does the Deputy Prime Minister wish to speak further? The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Just one line. Mr Speaker, I was going to end yesterday rebutting the Member for Hong Lim who had earlier on suggested that there was an attempt by the Government to fiddle with the electoral registers. I would only like to remind him that the results of the elections depend upon those who cast votes themselves. They are human beings who must be present in person. And being human beings, they will not like, without their own consent, to be transferred from one electoral district to another. Therefore, it is not possible at all to fiddle with the electoral registers to anybody's particular advantage. It is not the electoral registers which decide victory or defeat for a candidate, but it is the electorate themselves who make the decision. 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 Toh Chin Chye] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This amendment Bill is being introduced partly in the light of experience that has been acquired by the Elections Office over the past years. As the list of claimants after the register of electors and Lists A and B have been exhibited to the public has increased enormously from about 9,000 in 1959 to 22,500 in 1963, more time is now required for the registration of these claimants. This is provided for in clause 2 of the Bill. Clause 3 proposes an amendment to reduce the period between the date of issue of the Writ of Election and Nomination Day from nine days to five days. I would like to point out that this is in accord with the practice in the United Kingdom where from the time the Returning Officer receives the Writ up to the Day of Nomination, the period can be calculated to be about five days. In the United Kingdom, however, this period of five days is the maximum and cannot be increased by statute, whereas in Singapore the provision which we are asking now of five days should be the minimum period and this period could be increased to more than five days, if at any time it is desired to do so. The amendment in clause 4 is consequential to the amendment in clause 3 if this is accepted. It seeks to reduce the period between the publication of the Notice of Election by the Returning Officer and Nomination Day from five days to four days. This is in line with the reduction of the period between the date of issue of the Writ of Election and Nomination Day as proposed in clause 3. The number of days between the Notice of Election by the Returning Officer and Nomination Day can be calculated to be the same as in the United Kingdom. It is considered that the publication of the notice by the Returning Officer at least four clear days before Nomination Day is sufficient notice to prospective candidates. Clause 5 suggests removing the limitation in the present Ordinance which stipulates that Polling Day shall be a Saturday. There is, in fact, no justification for this limitation at all. There has been some doubt as to whether Polling Day being a holiday should or should not be counted for purposes of determining the minimum number of days required between the publication by the Returning Officer of the notice of contested elections and Polling Day. This amendment is for the purpose of clearing that doubt. The amendments proposed in clause 6 follow the provision in the National Referendum Ordinance, which are necessary to ensure that on Polling Day there is no canvassing or undue influence exercised on electors who should be allowed to consider the platform of the various political Parties and candidates and vote according to their best judgment and free will. The intention of clause 7 is to prohibit secret society gangsters who are under Police Supervision Order from taking part in any election activity. Finally, clause 8 empowers the Returning Officer to use free of charge as a Polling Station any school or portion thereof for the purposes of any election. In the past it has been found that on occasions persons who were in charge of the premises of certain private schools were reluctant to allow the Returning Officer to use the schools as polling stations. Although the amendment empowers the Returning Officer to use such schools as polling stations, the power will not be exercised except in places where no other suitable building or place where a temporary building could be erected can be found. This applies mainly to the crowded city area where it is difficult to find suitable alternative buildings or vacant sites for temporary buildings to serve as polling stations. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in regard to this Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Amendment) Bill introduced by the P.A.P. I have great doubts as to the true practice of parliamentary democracy. I fear that they want to resort to legal means to put into effect their dictatorial measures. The scope of democracy is still being limited by this Bill. Originally the period between the issue of Writ of Elections and Nomination Day was nine days. It is now the desire of the Government to reduce it to five days. To the Party in power, of course, there will be no difficulty or inconvenience, but to the Opposition Parties there will be great difficulty and hardship because all the disadvantages of the reduction of the period fall on the Opposition Parties. The Writ of Elections is issued by the Party in power, and not by any Opposition Party. Therefore, only the Party in power know when they are going to issue the Writ. So their intention is not to let the Opposition know or to have enough time to prepare for elections. Even in the recent general elections, the period was nine days from Nomination Day to Polling Day. So the total period would be two weeks from the issue of Writ of Elections to Polling Day. This period of two weeks is insufficient to Opposition Parties because they have to carry out election work, such as printing publicity material, the choice of candidates and election campaigning. But to the Party in power this is not so, because they know it in advance. I heard that publicity and propaganda material had, long before the general election was held, been printed in Hong Kong. They are in a position to know the date of any pending election and could take advantage of it. We in the Opposition do not have that advantage. We are put at a disadvantage. Of course, the Party in power can argue that they have fighters and that we too have fighters. Therefore, they say it is fair. In actual fact, it is not so. The Party in power is in control of all publicity and propaganda machinery. They can, therefore, carry on a propaganda campaign on a long-term basis for the elections. They do this, of course, through the Press, the radio and television. Their candidates will not be arrested by anybody. The Party in power can abuse their power by arresting prospective candidates who are in the Opposition. There is clear and concrete evidence to show this. Many of our prospective candidates were arrested prior to the general elections. This caused great difficulty to our Party. The P.A.P. can, of course, argue that the Government have still afforded us the opportunity and facilities to take part in the general elections, and that we are free to carry on with our propaganda work like the holding of mass rallies. But we are only afforded such opportunities during the period of nine days allowed to us. We are not afforded such opportunities or facilities on other days. Another aspect of this Bill is this. Clause 6 gives strong powers to the police. This provision is similar to the one in the Singapore National Referendum Ordinance of 1962. This clause provides that no person can, on Polling Day, enter two houses or places of work of the electors in the same polling district other than his own home. If he is seen doing that, he will be committing an offence under the provisions of this Bill, unless he can prove to the contrary. It also gives the Commissioner of Police very great powers in dealing with these matters. The police can enter and search any premises or place for the purpose of ascertaining whether such an offence is being committed. The P.A.P. may abuse these powers when applying these provisions. People will be intimidated. This provision will create fear in the electors. When we consider all the provisions of this Bill, we can see that Polling Day will be a day of terror when these rules are applied. This will be so if we take into consideration the provisions in clause 3. For instance, a hawker will he prohibited from carrying on his trade on Polling Day according to the provisions of this clause. This is because he is not allowed to enter more than two houses. Even those people who want to call on their friends will be committing an offence if they do so. Hawkers and shop assistants who wish to deliver their goods will have to enter more than two houses, but this will be construed as having committed an offence. Nobody will dare to go anywhere. In addition to this, it is the practice of the P.A.P. to intimidate and coerce people, by propaganda and other means, saying that if they carry on certain activities or take part in election campaigns, they will be arrested. There is thus an atmosphere of terror. There will be a reduction in the period from nine days to five days in regard to the period between the issue of the Writ of Elections and Nomination Day. We can see from this whether or not the P.A.P. are dictatorial. This shows that the P.A.P. have ignored the principles of democracy in the interest of the Party. I think democracy is the monopoly of the P.A.P. They can pass unreasonable and undemocratic laws in this House. After that they implement the laws outside this Assembly. They then turn round and say that they are doing things in accordance with the laws passed in this House. As a matter of fact, they are doing things contrary to the principles of democracy. This is not justice as embodied in the term "democracy". If they want to achieve their aim by this kind of legislation, then I advise them to introduce a Bill in this House whereby they can deprive others of any right. They have a majority in this House. They can also turn round and say that they have that right under the law. If they wish to be so undemocratic, they might as well pass a law to say that the victims of a robbery are guilty and the robbers are innocent. It is entirely wrong in principle for the P.A.P. to legislate laws from the point of view of their Party's interest.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I believe you will agree with me that an election is a special feature in a democratic country. It is a peaceful method by which the people can express their wish. The people can decide the future of their country through the ballot box. I would like to tell the Back-benchers that whether the Opposition Members have enough time for propaganda or not does not depend on the number of days allowed for electioneering. Whether a candidate of the Opposition is good or bad will depend on what he has done in the past. A candidate cannot convince the people that he is good during the few days allowed for electioneering. Whether he is good or bad will depend on what he has done over a long period of time. They have complained that we have not given them enough time to carry out their election campaign in the rural areas. Voting is secret and the choice of a candidate is determined in a free manner. There is no humbug about it. Nobody can force another person to vote for a certain candidate. If one says that the voters can be made use of during the election to bring victory to another Party, then I say, in my view, this is impossible. Nobody will ever be used or will agree to any interference of their freedom. Canvassing actually is a method by which interference of this nature is effected. This was done by the Barisan Sosialis during the last election. That is why they were able to win a few seats. Their own candidates had to resort to canvassing and other illegal means. For example, the Member for Bukit Merah had not intended to stand for election in his constituency. But a few days before Nomination Day, a few leading figures of the Barisan Sosialis were sent to his house in order to persuade him to stand for election. They promised him certain conditions in the event of a Barisan victory. They threatened him by saying that should he refuse to stand for election, his position in Nanyang University would be made untenable. This is what they did. I personally feel that if we really want to safeguard the democratic system and the rights of the people, then we must give sufficient powers to the police to protect the rights and security of the people. But the Communists will always make use of the democratic system to undermine the system itself. That is to say, they are making use of democracy to undermine democracy itself. We hope that through the provisions of this Bill, the true spirit of democracy will be safeguarded and maintained. This will ensure that those who act foolishly and in the dark will not be able to do so again in the future.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, we have different kinds of elections. We have democratic elections as well as dirty and filthy elections. There are elections which are carried out fairly and justly and there are elections which are rigged. [Interruption] The Member for Jalan Besar does not know of a story of a King who was elected by the people. I will tell him. In the 19th century, Napoleon II of France made a law to force the people of France to elect him as a King and he received a hundred per cent votes. Does the Member know about this? If he does not know it, he should go and read his history books. [Interruption]

Order. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs allow the Member for Tampines to proceed? The Member for Tampines is now telling us stories which do not appear to be relevant to this Bill. I know the Member was led into it by interruptions. But please get on with the debate.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I was just saying that there are all kinds of elections. But it does not mean that an election is and can represent the true spirit of democracy. If an election is conducted fairly and justly, of course, we cannot deny that it is a democratic election. But if an election is done in a filthy way and is a humbug, then it is a dictatorial election. So one must not say that because in the last general election the P.A.P. obtained 37 seats, then it must be a democratic election. There is a peaceful election and a violent election. I think they had better listen to me carefully and quietly. What is the difference between a violent election and a peaceful election? My friends opposite must pay attention to what I am going to say. If you have basic common knowledge and common sense, you will recall that in the recent elections in South Korea and Japan, voters were forced to take part in the elections, and many of them were slaughtered and killed in these two places. Here in Singapore, similar incidents occurred in which Barisan Sosialis workers were assaulted. Can you say this was a peaceful election? Can you say it was conducted in a peaceful manner? There should be an election in which the voters can express their views freely. But in certain circumstances force was used on the voters. Violence too was used. So let them stop talking about the last election and claim that it was a peaceful election. I must say that the last election and future elections will not be conducted freely because of the number of days for campaigning which has been reduced from 9 to 5. Reference was made about the Member for Bukit Merah. Who was actually guilty of deception? It was not the Barisan Sosialis. Who was guilty of intimidation? It was the P.A.P. and the Prime Minister. We already know how the intimidation was done ---

On a point of order. We are talking about this Elections Bill. We are not talking about what has happened. We do not want to listen to the figment of imagination of the Opposition of what happened.

It is true, Mr Minister. What the Member for Tampines is doing is replying to an allegation made by the Member for Ulu Pandan about the election in Bukit Merah. Surely he has a right to reply.

Mr Speaker, I am not aware that the Member for Ulu Pandan did that.

He did that. The Member for Ulu Pandan cast some aspersions on the election in Bukit Merah. Please continue, Mr Poh.

(In Mandarin): I think the Minister must behave himself ---

Order. All that the Minister was doing was to come up on a point of order, which is very proper. The Member should not make any allegations against the Minister.

Improper allegations.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am sorry. I asked him not to be excited. I did not mean to say that he must behave himself. I asked him to be calm and not to be excited. That was what I meant ---

Mr Speaker, the Member is taking advantage of your ignorance of the Chinese language. I think he was just fooling around because what he said was "Luan, Luan lai", which means "rubbish". Now he turns round and says that what he said was "slowly, slowly".

Please proceed. No more references to the Minister. Get on to the subject.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I just do not understand whether our Member for Bukit Merah has authorised the Member opposite to speak on his behalf, or whether the Barisan Sosialis Headquarters have given authority to the Members opposite to make reports to this House about the candidature of the Member for Bukit Merah. I just do not understand at all, it appears that our rights as a Party and the Party's internal affairs and decisions made by the Party were made in consultation with Members opposite. I just do not understand why he should smear our Member for Bukit Merah. It looks as though he is jealous of our success in Bukit Merah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tampines is quite a historian. He has given us a list of the various types of elections. But I think he has forgotten one particular type. Does he know there is one great country, a big country where, during election time, there is only a single list of candidates and no one ever loses? Everyone wins! That is the kind of country that he admires. I should remind him that there is only one Party candidate and no one else. But maybe he prefers that one. When they talk about elections being undemocratic and so on, well, for propaganda purposes, it is all right. But when it comes to actual fact, when they were talking about the defeat of Mr Lee Khoon Choy in Bukit Panjang, they never said a word that the last election was undemocratic. They even thought that it was a wonderful election that they had won in Bukit Panjang. It is said that to reduce the number of days will benefit the Government Party by giving it time to prepare well in advance. Any political Party that is worth its salt and has got a platform would surely have prepared everything in readiness a long time beforehand. Yes, all these years, in fact; every day is part of a politician's work. There is no last-minute juggling about. That is why I say that he is thinking only of presenting candidates at the last minute and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate in a last-minute effort. When the Member was talking on the point that on election day the police will have the power to check canvassing and so on and talking about shop assistants going round - "ch'u ch'i sung hoa" - I wonder whether he was thinking that there is one way out. Policemen are wise enough, and I think they have a sufficiently fair standard of education to differentiate between a canvasser and a shop assistant. But I can say here is one way out. If he thinks that being a shop assistant he can get away from this part of the Bill, where policemen will not allow a man to go to more than two or three places on canvassing day, well, he can disguise himself as a shop assistant and get away with it. During the last election, the complaint was that the number of days for campaigning was too short and all the rest of it, but I am sure that if there were more time, if we were able to refute some of the statements that Mr Tan Lark Sye had said, perhaps some of these gentlemen would not be in this Chamber today.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I feel this amendment Bill is full of the spirit of democracy. As a matter of fact, the aim of the amendment will act in the same manner on the Party in power as well as on the Opposition Parties. The reduction of nine days to five days is to enable officers of the Elections Department to prepare themselves for Nomination Day. It is not our intention to make use of the provisions to restrict the activities of all the political Parties in their contact with the electorate. No, it is not our intention. If the Barisan can claim that they have the support of the broad masses behind them, then why should they be afraid of when and where election is to be conducted? Why should they be afraid and worry about the number of days allowed for campaigning? They just cannot say that there is no democracy because the number of days is reduced. If they claim that they are the heroes of the people, they are the representatives of the people, they have no reason to fear at all. But it is surprising that their remarks against this Bill show that they are paper tigers and paper heroes. They really do not have the support of the people, and that is why they are afraid of this Bill, which will give the Government the power to hold elections at any time. Then they will be afraid. Mr Speaker, as I have said just now, this amendment Bill is full of the spirit of democracy, because we have no intention and desire to restrict the opportunities of the Opposition Members to come into contact with the electorate. In the last five years of our office, we have given them opportunities to come into contact with the people. In fact, they did make use of these opportunities to spread rumours among the electorate and the people. The Members opposite are really good at spreading rumours. They made the allegation that our propaganda material was printed in Hong Kong, but I can prove to them that it was published and printed by our local printers. But it is the usual tactic of the Barisan Sosialis to spread rumours. They say the rumours are spread by others but, in fact, they came from them. So we can see that the Barisan Sosialis, who claim to be heroes of the people and enjoy the support of the people, are really humbugs. If they really had the support of the people and they had five years to carry out their propaganda work, then they should not have been what they are now. They would have got the support of the people and come to power. What difference does it make between nine days and five days? Do you mean to say that the reduction of the number of days is going to affect the Opposition to such an extent as to warrant the uncalled for criticism against the Bill? Then they spoke about the election of a king. I would like to ask them what is the meaning of the word "election"? Election means competition. In this historical case that they referred to, was there another candidate competing for the throne? No. That was not so. That being so, where was the election? They are just talking nonsense. Their talk is very preposterous and absurd. If it was a true election, of course, there must be another person competing for the same thing. If there was a true election for a king, then there must be another candidate competing with Napoleon for the throne. But from the Member's own historical knowledge - let us assume that he has some such knowledge - he knows that there was no candidate competing with Napoleon for the throne. Can you call that an election for a king? They say that the P.A.P. are not democratic and that their workers were assaulted during the election. Now let us look at them. They are all very young and have strong muscles.

Order. The hon. Member is making a personal attack. Will he leave the "young Members" - as he calls them alone? Please get on with the debate.

(In Mandarin): I am just making a point to refute their allegation that their workers were assaulted and hit on the head during the election. I say that their people were not so peaceful and innocent. We saw how lorry-loads of their supporters went round prepared for a fight at any moment. How could such people have been assaulted? Who will believe their allegation that it was the P.A.P. people who assaulted the Barisan boys? If this was so, I am sure the P.A.P. would not have been returned with 37 seats. If we had done so, we would have resorted to violence against our opponents and they would not have had a chance to come in here at all. It was fortunate that the P.A.P. did not restrict the activities of the Barisan Sosialis during the election. In fact, we gave them ample opportunities to conduct their election campaign in a democratic manner so that the people could make a free choice of their candidates. The facts have proved that we are right. The people have chosen us again. And yet they talk of the broad masses behind them. But it was the broad masses who objected to their coming to power. Where was the support that they had? If they say that the people were behind them, then the people would have voted them in. But why did they choose such a handful of them? On the other hand, why were 37 of us elected? We have been here day in and day out continuously explaining to them, and yet they fail to understand the true position. These people just refuse to understand the fact that Singapore has joined Malaysia as a State. Instead of referring to our country as Malaysia, they still use the term "Malaya". [Interruption] Mr Speaker, Sir, there is one other point I wish to draw attention to, and that is with regard to the police. They say that during the election the police were given power to arrest the Barisan people and to interfere with the activities of the workers and delivery-clerks, thereby creating an atmosphere of fear. This is sheer falsehood in order to divert the attention and blind the vision of the people. We know that the police do not belong to the P.A.P. They do not belong to any Party. They are a neutral force and are above party politics. They are not a partisan force. If you are guilty of an offence, then the police will arrest you. If you want to sell out the interests of the country and become traitors, then, of course, the police will arrest you. What else do you expect the police to do? If you do not have the consent of the members of a union and you make use of the funds, then, of course, the police will investigate into the matter. But the Barisan Members have the cheek to say that the police are helping the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, you appreciate that the police are above politics and are neutral. If you are guilty of any offence, you will have to face the law. This is a State where the rule of law prevails. [Interruption]

Order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Ulu Pandan referred to the Member for Bukit Merah. It is lucky that he said that in this House. If he had said it outside this House, we would have taken court action against him. But his allegation does not merit our rebuttal. I wish to touch on the points raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs. He said there were no rival candidates competing with Napoleon for the throne. But Napoleon also said that he was elected by the people. For example, the ex-President of South Korea, Syngman Rhee, was also elected by the people in a democratic way. There was a rival candidate. But sometimes such rival candidates are arrested, executed or they just disappear in elections. The Parliamentary Secretary also made another point. He said that if we have mass support, we can take part in elections anywhere and at any time. But in the recent election, one of our candidates, Mr Tan Siew Swee, was arrested just before Nomination Day. Mr Speaker, Sir, this was the so-called election referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary. We know that once a candidate is arrested and detained, he cannot take part in the election. I am now going to refer to the election in Sarawak. That was also an election. The Opposition Parties in Sarawak also nominated their candidates to contest the election, but they were arrested by the police and detained in a police station far away from the town. Later on, they were released and asked to walk home.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are debating the Elections Bill of Singapore and not the Elections Bill of Sarawak.

I agree with the Minister that we are discussing the Singapore Elections Bill. How we managed to come to Sarawak was by a series of examples; we have been hopping from Napoleon to South Korea. But as long as the Member is brief, please proceed. An hon. Member: In Indonesia, there is no election.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to cite examples to show that there are various kinds of elections. For example, the election conducted in Sarawak was one kind of election; the election conducted in South Korea was also one kind of election; and the election of Napoleon was also one kind of election. [Interruption]

Order. I cannot follow the English translation unless there are less interruptions.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me give my reasons why I think that the reduction from nine to five days is not right. Firstly, it will be advantageous to the Party in power but disadvantageous to the Opposition Parties. The Deputy Prime Minister said that this reduction in the number of days is based on the practice in England, that the maximum period in England is five days, whereas the five-day period in Singapore is the minimum and that the provision here is better than that in England. Let us compare Singapore with England to show why we should not have a five-day period in Singapore. We know that Singapore has been under direct British rule for more than 100 years. This is a fact which cannot be denied by the P.A.P. During this period, the British suppressed and exploited the people in this area. They did not educate the people in the parliamentary procedures of a democratic system, such as the holding of elections, and so on. The British people have held elections for hundreds of years, but the people of Singapore have held elections since the Rendel Constitution came into existence. The people in England have had hundreds of years' experience in the holding of elections which we lack in Singapore. Another point is that there is the rule of law and constitutional monarchy in England. In such a country, after a long period of political education, the people have become familiarised with the democratic way of life. In addition, they have a very high standard of education; most of them are educated. Therefore, in England, the period of five days is sufficient without causing any difficulty. Another point is that the Member for Ulu Pandan mentioned that it is easy for a particular candidate to be elected if the people know him. There are some shocking incidents which he did not reveal to the House. In England, political Parties can hold rallies at any time they like to carry out their party propaganda. But in Singapore the political Parties are denied this right. For example, if the Barisan Sosialis want to hold a rally at Hong Lim Green, they are not allowed. They will also not be allowed to hold a rally at the Jalan Besar Stadium. There will be the added difficulty of applying for a site for this purpose. We will not get any permission. Therefore, it is difficult for us to carry out our political work, whereas in England the political Parties can carry out their party work, such as explaining their party aims and educating the people. There is this difference between England and Singapore. The process of elections is new to the people of Singapore. Elections were only introduced after the Rendel Constitution came into force. Therefore, the people of Singapore are not accustomed to the procedure of elections. The third point is that education is not universal in Singapore. Not many people are educated, although there is free primary and secondary education. But the students generally do not have voting rights. It is because of these reasons that the reduction of the period from nine days to five days is improper. Many difficulties will come up before Opposition Parties and this will give ample opportunity to the Party in power to deal with the Opposition. The period of five days is very short. Two days will be taken up for nomination, and the balance of three clays is left for campaigning. Mr Speaker, let me give another example. Soon after the elections, on the night of 2nd February the majority of our Party leaders were detained, among whom were Lim Ching Siong and Fong Swee Suan. They are respected by the people and are very popular. That is why they were detained. Altogether more than a hundred of our comrades were detained. Following the arrest of our leaders, the Government restricted the Press so as to deny us the opportunity to publicise our propaganda. On the other hand, the Prime Minister went to the rural areas to carry out his electioneering work. All these rural tours were for the purpose of the elections. We, however, did not enjoy such opportunities. And it was exactly for those reasons that the Government held a snap election. We were only given nine days to canvass, and this already is a very short period. And now they want to reduce it to five days. Within those nine days our potential candidates were arrested and we had some difficulty in getting replacements. If we had other candidates, they too might have been arrested. Moreover, when printing work for our campaigning had gone half-way, the Government cut the electricity supply to our printers, so that our publicity material could not be printed in time. If they reduce the nine-day period to five days, one day is spent on nomination.

I think the Member is basing his argument on the wrong facts.

Is it a point of order or a point of clarification?

The Member is talking about reducing the period from nine days to five days. We are not reducing it from nine days to five days for election campaigning.

Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to reduce the period from nine days to five days. Is that not what the Member is speaking about? The Parliamentary Secretary must rise on a point of order or on a point of clarification. If he thinks that the Member has got his facts wrong, he can rise in reply and tell him so. But he only interrupts on a point of order or clarification. Please proceed, Mr Kow.

(In Mandarin): You do not know what is being discussed. This five-day period is disadvantageous to the Opposition Parties. If elections are conducted fairly and impartially, then, of course, it is a different matter. But the P.A.P. have been guilty of malpractices in elections. And so this reduction in the period is an added disadvantage to the Opposition Parties, so that they cannot have any opportunity to carry out their propaganda work and to get in touch with the people. I will give another example. At the last elections, about two days before Polling Day the Prime Minister gave a radio talk at half-hourly intervals. He said that if the people voted for the Barisan and they were returned on the results of the voting, then Federation troops would march into Singapore, thus causing fear in the hearts of the people. There was almost terror in them. Under these circumstances, we were put at a disadvantage. The Barisan Sosialis then tried to persuade the people not to be misled by P.A.P. propaganda, but whatever we wanted to say, we were not given an opportunity to broadcast over Radio Singapore, and nothing was printed in the Press too because of the P.A.P.'s restriction. Thus if the elections were conducted under similar circumstances, the people would not be able to freely exercise their discretion. The Opposition also would be put in a disadvantageous position. There is also the fear that the Government might monopolise everything. If the Government dared to give equal chances to the Opposition in the elections, such as a certain period of time for the Opposition to speak over the radio, then the results would be different. Otherwise, this Bill only helps the P.A.P. to perpetuate their regime. It is very likely that in future the P.A.P. might introduce another Bill to further reduce the period of live days to three days. I hope the P.A.P. Government do not think that because the people have voted them in, as they so claim, they can now do anything they want, even bad things. The people have voted them in under their own election machinery to form the Government, and so they hope that they can do something good for them and not anything bad. They cannot say that since they now form the Government, they have the right to do bad things, if this is their reasoning, then I really pity them. I believe Mr Speaker and Members of the House have now and then been to the pictures. They will have noted that the finale of every film always shows the villains defeated and the heroes triumphant. So it is the case with our society. In the end, the undemocratic Government will be defeated.

Sir, we all agree that elections are a very serious business and not a circus. We do not want to let the outside world believe that this amendment has any intention to inhibit Members of the Opposition. The Barisan Sosialis, as usual, whenever they are faced with any specific problem, calls the Government "Fascist". They know very well that if we were Fascists today, there would not have been any elections and Members in the Opposition would not be sitting where they are. I would like to make it quite clear that what is in dispute is the period between the Writ of Elections and Nomination Day. The period between Nomination Day and Polling Day is not involved at all in this Ordinance. The minimum period between Nomination Day and Polling Day remains as it is - nine days. In other words, the period for election campaigning is not altered. What we are asking is the reduction of the period between the issue of the Writ and Nomination Day. Members of the Barisan have complained that this reduction in the period is to their disadvantage. I would say right here that it is all utter rubbish to believe that any serious political Party which has intentions or ambitions to form the government would be inhibited at all from participating in the elections purely by a reduction of four days. Let us take the situation which occurred sometime early this year. The Barisan had moved several motions of no confidence against the Government. When they did this, surely they should have been prepared for the consequences. Do they mean to say that they were uttering words without meaning to take action? In the end, the Barisan Sosialis, together with the Right-Wing political Party, the S.P.A., which was already discredited, and with the U.M.N.O. and the U.P.P., ganged up to defeat us on a vital Bill. When I announced in the Assembly on that occasion that we were going to adjourn sine die and that deletions were going to be held sometime after Malaysia day, if Members of the Opposition had any brains in their heads at all, they would surely have understood the consequences of their action. They should have prepared for the elections. You do not choose candidates between the period when the Writ is issued and Nomination Day. A serious political Party would already have laid out its ground. It would have surveyed who would be the likely candidates arid who would stand on the Party ticket. In the past, several elections have shown that independent candidates, who popped up like mushrooms after a thunderstorm or rabbits out of a magician's hat, did not stand any chance at all in these elections. The days have gone when an Independent can claim that he will win his constituency by virtue of his personality alone. Nothing has been more evident than the instance of the election in Anson when an ex-Chief Minister, the ex-Member for Anson, without the support of the Communists, which we have all along said he had been receiving, lost his deposit. The intention of this amendment in reducing the period from nine days to five days between the issue of the Writ and Nomination Day is to facilitate and expedite the business of nomination. Members of the Barisan have forgotten that during the election campaign, an opportunity was given to the Opposition Parties to participate in radio and television forums. In fact, in one T.V. forum, we all remember very clearly that the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis agreed with the Member for Hong Lim that even if the elections had been confined to three days, it would not have mattered at all. They were all in agreement that the record of a political Party over the past few years was the deciding factor. It is not that the electorate are so foolish or stupid as to vote in some unknown candidate. Finally, may I come to clause 6, to which the Member for Tampines has taken great objection? Clause 6, which seeks to prevent canvassing or intimidation during Polling Day, was debated during the debate on the Referendum Bill. In fact, the provisions of clause 6 were enforced during the referendum in September last year. Clause 6 is important to prevent undesirable elements from intimidating those who are going to the poll. As the Member for Hong Lim has said, the Barisan are the meanest political Party in town, and it is quite clear why the Barisan object very much to clause 6. It is not true that a hawker will be afraid to move out of his house to hawk at another house, all because of clause 6. Let me read, so that they can understand the implications of clause 6. This clause says: `Notwithstanding the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to the powers of search of any police officer, if any police officer has reasonable cause to believe that an offence is being committed under the provisions of this section, such police officer, by virtue of his office, shall be empowered to enter and search any premises or place for the purpose of ascertaining whether such an offence is being committed.' There is no reason why, therefore, people who are honest and who have no intention to infringe the provisions of the Elections Ordinance should fear the introduction of clause 6 into the Bill. Clause 6 merely states that a police officer can enter premises to investigate and find out what the suspicious character is doing moving from house to house. It has been our experience in the past that even on Polling Day certain people have been going round the streets intimidating voters and trying to canvass votes even to the very, last minute. It is our intention to stop this and clause 6, we hope, will act as a deterrent to such evil doers. May I say here again that it is not the electoral registers nor the Elections Ordinance which is decisive. The decisive factor, the decisive force, in the elections will be the electorate themselves. Given the opportunity of expressing their views in secret - one man one vote - we are quite sure that democracy will prevail. Despite what the Barisan Sosialis have said against the amendments to this Bill, I can assure Members of this House that elections will always be fairly conducted according to the rules.

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.

3.55 p.m. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 - Question proposed, "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, I have heard the arguments given by the Deputy Prime Minister. He says that clause 3 is in line with the United Kingdom practice. Mr Speaker, clause 3 is the meat of the whole Bill. The Government's proposal to amend section 24 of the principal Ordinance has been motivated, in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, so that electioneering in Singapore will be done according to the practice in the United Kingdom. In the last few minutes, I have gone to the Library of the Assembly House and I have checked that, far from following the practice of the United Kingdom, we are departing further and further away from the electioneering practice there. I have checked that in 1955 the date of announcement to the date of polling is 41 days. This is in the 1955 general elections in the United Kingdom. In the 1959 general elections in the United Kingdom, the minimum period was 41 days after the announcement. But previously the British Prime Minister had intimated to the Opposition Parties that there would be general elections soon. In the last elections in Singapore, the period between announcement and polling is only 18 days. Now the Government is further attempting to reduce it to 14 days. Mr Speaker, if the Government will give us an undertaking that they are going to follow the United Kingdom electioneering practice in toto, we will accept it. We will even support this amendment. But for that matter, having much experience with this Government, I am very much doubtful whether the Government will follow the United Kingdom electioneering practice in toto. I would, therefore, suggest that in future, elections to the State Assembly of Singapore be conducted not by the P.A.P. Government but by the independent Federal Elections Commission, which is an independent body appointed by the Central Government. Clause 3 is the meat of the whole Bill. As a matter of fact, this clause is the most important matter which this House has been discussing. The speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and the Budget are only forums where Parties, both on the Government side and the Opposition side, express their propaganda and their views. They can talk until the morning and until the cock crows. But there is no power struggle involved. Whereas in clause 3 of this Bill, which Bill, in my opinion, is the most important Bill so far brought forward in this House, the Government hope that they will be one step further towards the one-party State, and that by virtue of this clause they will be able to win again in the next general elections. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister has told us that he is only following the United Kingdom electioneering practice. I hope he will give us an assurance that the Government will follow the United Kingdom electioneering practice in toto.

I assure the Member for Hong Lim that that is the intention of this Bill, that is, to follow the time-table as indicated in the United Kingdom Representation of the People Act. In this Act, in Schedule II, the time-tables for the issue of writ and delivery of nomination papers, are all very clearly stated. May I point out to the Member for Hong Lim that even in the United Kingdom, there is greater flexibility given to the Government on the issue of writ. It says in the case of a general election, "as soon as practicable after the issue of the proclamation summoning the new Parliament, a writ will be issued." Writs will be issued to over 500 Returning Officers in Britain. In this Ordinance of the United Kingdom nowhere does it state specifically when the writ will be issued. All it says is that writs will be issued as soon as practicable. After the event of issuing the writ, nomination papers must be received not later than the eighth day after the date of proclamation summoning the new Parliament. Therefore, between the date when the proclamation is issued for summoning the new Parliament and Nomination Day, there are approximately eight days. But the writs can be issued at any time within the eight days. All it says in this Ordinance is that these writs must be issued as soon as practicable. The Member for Hong Lim, from his experience in the last Assembly, should have known that you cannot pick out 51 candidates within five days or within nine days. If the Member for Hong Lim had any serious intentions of forming the Government this year, he would have picked out his candidates wisely and he would have had his candidates' posters plastered all over Singapore. But, unfortunately, the Member for Hong Lim had only posters of himself pasted throughout Singapore, so it appeared to the people of Singapore that there was only one candidate from the U.P.P. In fact, I have heard it said that they did not even know in the rural areas whether the U.P.P. candidate was a man or a woman. All they knew was a name. I do not know whether, even in the next general elections, if we were to allow this period of nine days to remain in the Ordinance, it would improve the situation for the U.P.P. In fact, I would advise the leader of the U.P.P., if he had ambitions to capture what support he can from the Barisan Sosialis, to prepare now and form a shadow Cabinet as the Labour Party in Britain, which is now in the Opposition, has. The Labour Party, although in Opposition, always has a shadow Cabinet, ready for the elections at any time. Therefore, whether the period between issue of writ and Nomination Day is nine days or five days is immaterial. It is purely for administrative convenience that this period is inserted in the Ordinance. In the case of Singapore which is a very small island, it is easy for the writ for 51 constituencies to be issued in one day, because we have only one Returning Officer. But in the United Kingdom you have one Returning Officer for each constituency and many of these constituencies are located in remote spots in Scotland, Ireland and the Shetland Islands. Therefore, that period was provided for in the United Kingdom Ordinance to permit these writs to reach the Returning Officers. I would add once more that, although the Member for Hong Lim says that clause 3 is the meat of this Bill, it forms only part of the amendment which we are proposing and that it is not decisive in the elections to come. What will be decisive will be the work of the political Party each of us represents in the next five years.

Mr Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has not assured us that he is going to follow the United Kingdom election practice in toto. If he had, I will be able to point out to him what is the practice in the United Kingdom. In the 1955 and 1959 general elections in the United Kingdom, the Government announced that general elections would be held and that the period between the announcement of the general election and the writ of elections was 21 days. It was 21 days in the 1955 general elections and 21 days in the 1959 general elections. That seems to be the practice. But in Singapore we have two days. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not possible to make photos and blocks of candidates in two days, unless like the P.A.P. Government with their resources, they can make their blocks and print their posters in Hong Kong and ship them overnight like a thief to Singapore. In the United Kingdom the practice is that the Government always give three weeks, when they announce that general elections will be held, for Parties to prepare up till the issue of the Writ of Elections. There is a further three or four weeks before they have polling. But in Singapore if we have a law making the same requirements that there will be a date of announcement, which will be two weeks or three weeks before the date of the writ, we will accept the Government's amendment.

I do not believe the Member for Hong Lim is quite correct. He is talking of the practice of governments in the United Kingdom. You know very well that governments change. In 1955 you have one government and four years later you have another government. What governs the conduct of any government is the Elections Ordinance, and I have just cited a U.K. Act called the Representative of the People Act which has a Schedule giving the time-table for the issue of writ, publication of notice of election, delivery of nomination papers, Polling Day, and so on. Every government has to abide by this Ordinance which is the law. As for the Member for Hong Lim's complaint that there was no warning for general elections, let me remind him again of what he said on television. He said very clearly it was immaterial whether the election campaign was going to be nine days or three days. He was here in this Assembly in July. He ganged up together with the S.P.A., U.M.N.O., the Independent Member for Anson, and the Barisan. He helped to defeat a vital Bill in this Assembly. That was the last sitting of the Assembly. At that time I stated in this Chamber very clearly, in reply to the Member for Anson, that elections would be held after Malaysia Day. In July we had our last sitting; elections were held at the end of September; there was an interval of three months. How could the Member for Hong Lim complain that he had no time to prepare his election campaign or to look for his candidates, or to get his candidates' posters printed? I have no objections if he has his posters printed in Hong Kong or Japan. That is immaterial to me. But the Ordinance dictates that these are the rules by which elections must he held and we have followed the rules. I do not think any politician would be that stupid to go along and defeat a government on a crucial Bill and not take the consequences of it by preparing for the day when the Assembly would be dissolved and elections held within three months after the dissolution of the Assembly according to the Constitution.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 4 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that this Bill be proceeded with. I therefore beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill was originally introduced and had its First Reading at the sitting of the Legislative Assembly on the 7th of June, 1963. At its Second Reading on the 24th of July, 1963, the Bill was committed to Select Committee. At the first meeting of the Select Committee on the 28th of August, 1963, notice was given of certain amendments. These amendments are now incorporated in clauses 7 and 11. Except for these clauses, the provisions in the Bill remain the same as those in the original Bill introduced on the 7th of June, 1963. The aim of this Bill is to enable amendments to be made to the Central Provident Fund Ordinance. The main amendment is in clause 4, which will enable the Board to declare a higher rate of interest on contributions to the Fund than are now prevailing. At present the Board is precluded from declaring a higher rate of interest than 2� per cent per annum unless the assets of the Board at current market value exceed its liability by 10 per cent. The amendment proposed is in line with what has been introduced in the Employee Provident Fund (Amendment No. 2) Act, 1960, of the Federation of Malaya, which came into force on the 31st of December, 1960. The Board is in a financial position to declare a higher rate of interest than 2� per cent per annum, as the redemption value of the Board's investments is very much more than its liabilities. The other amendments proposed in the Bill are being introduced on the recommendation of the Board in the light of experience gained in administering the Ordinance since it came into force on the 1st of July, 1955. The arguments and explanations for these amendments are the same for those given by the previous Minister for Labour on the 24th of July, 1963, when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not wish to waste the time of this House to repeat these explanations. I will invite Members to look up the Hansard for the explanations if they find them necessary. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 4.18 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 powers in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance to make regulations, among other things, for the control, licensing, keeping, and destruction of dogs. Until the coming into force of the Local Government Integration Ordinance (No. 18 of 1963) on 1st December, 1963, dog licences were levied under the provisions of section 83 of the Municipal Ordinance and the by-laws made thereunder by the local authority, viz, the City Council, in respect of the city area, and the Rural Board in respect of areas outside the city. The Municipal Ordinance was repealed upon the coming into force of the Local Government Integration Ordinance, and as the provisions of section 83 of the Municipal Ordinance have not been repeated in the Local Government Integration Ordinance the statutory powers of licensing cease to exist. The deletion of this provision in the new Ordinance was, however, intentional. As it was considered to be much more appropriate to include dog licensing and kindred matters in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance than in the Local Government Integration Ordinance, accordingly when the Local Government Integration Bill was in the draft stage a draft amendment was also prepared to transfer the provisions to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance. At the same time, steps were taken to draft a comprehensive Animals Ordinance based on the lines of the Federation Animals Ordinance which would embrace related animal matters like meat inspection, slaughter-houses, control of drugs and vaccines and biological products, artificial insemination, etc, including the licensing of dogs, hatcheries, poultry and bird shops, and the like. It has been hoped to introduce this comprehensive Animal Bill simultaneously with the Local Government Integration Bill. But this was not possible as material and information on such legislation had to be gathered from overseas, and it would still take some time to prepare and adopt a comprehensive Ordinance to meet local conditions. It is, therefore, necessary to amend as a temporary measure the existing Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance to seek powers to make regulations for the licensing and control of dogs among other things until such time as the comprehensive Animals Ordinance is ready for introduction to this House. The opportunity has also been taken in this Bill to include poultry within the definition of "animal", as well as providing a definition for hatcheries. Increased penalties were also prescribed in the Bill to bring the scale into line with penalties for other offences of a similar nature. Since the Bill will substantially re-enact the previous provisions contained in the repealed Municipal Ordinance to enable the making of regulations for the licensing and control of dogs, hatcheries, poultry and bird shops, and the like, it will be necessary for the Bill to have retrospective effect from the 1st of September, 1963, which is the day the Municipal Ordinance ceased to have effect with the coming into force of the Local Government Integration Ordinance, in order to preserve the continuity of licensing. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.24 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, this House should be very glad that even pigs, poultry and dogs in Singapore are receiving more and more attention from the hierarchy of the society. So the Party in power is now introducing this amendment Bill to prevent cruelty, to animals, so that animals will be happy to die when they are slaughtered, instead of dying with dissatisfaction. But, unfortunately, the lower strata of society in Singapore are now being treated cruelly and are not receiving any attention from any quarter. It is also regrettable that in introducing this amendment Bill, the Government have, as we have suspected, certain ulterior motives behind the Bill. What we are afraid is that the Government, in the name of prevention of cruelty to animals, levy more taxes on the people because there is provision in this Bill saying that if hawkers sell poultry and other animals they must possess a licence, otherwise they are liable to a fine. So with this provision I do not know whether those hawkers in the rural areas who sell meat are required to be licensed or not. There is another provision in this amendment Bill giving powers to the Minister to regulate rules and fees in connection with licences. So the Minister can regulate rules and decide on the fees according to his own wish. I hope the Government will not try to extract heavy fees from the poor hawkers because the hawkers are unemployed people in the true sense of the word. That is why they have to resort to hawking to earn a livelihood. I hope the Government will not increase the fees for licences in order to get more money from the people. 4.26 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my colleague has already said that our honourable Ministers are paying more attention to poultry and domestic animals. Their interest in this respect is increasing so that they can take further steps to prevent cruelty to animals. But what intrigues me is that there is no provision for the prevention of cruelty to another kind of animal, i.e. human beings. I believe that you will not forget the fact that there are many high-class animals - homo sapiens - who are being ill-treated by the P.A.P.

On a point of order, Sir. We are discussing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Bill, and not a "Human Beings Bill". If the hon. Member wishes to move an amendment to the Bill, he may do so and speak on the amendment. But he is not. So he should be discussing this Bill and not human beings.

I do not think the hon. Member should include homo sapiens in this Bill. Could he just speak on the principle of this Bill pertaining to animals alone?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, human beings are also animals. I think you cannot deny that. Mr S. Rajoo (Farrer Park) rose ---

Point of order?

Yes, Sir, Is the Member saying that he is an animal?

That is not a point of order. Mr Koo Young, please continue.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I think if you will allow me to speak slowly, I will show you the relation between human beings and animals. The Members on the other side seem to be afraid of what I have to say, and so they try to interrupt. I say that human beings are also animals, except that we are high-class animals. The P.A.P. Government arrested a lot of political leaders, and they were ill-treated. The detainees were put in solitary confinement and were not allowed to read books. They were not even allowed to go out of their cells for fresh air. They were only allowed to leave their cells for half an hour a day for baths. So I do not know whether the Minister for National Development is going to extend the scope of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Bill to include human beings, such as the political detainees. We cannot just shed crocodile tears and pretend to be merciful. It would be like preventing cruelty to cats and dogs and forget about cruelty to human beings who are high-class animals. It is the Government that are ill-treating human beings.

I have already ruled that human beings do not come under the definition of "animals" in this Bill. The definition here in this Ordinance is that "animals mean any birds, fish, reptiles or insects, whether wild or tame", and does not include human beings. Will the Member please proceed and do as I have ruled?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want the Minister to expand on the definition.

(In Mandarin): The Members opposite want to debate with us on the foreign stooges now in detention. If they really want to do so, they can do it at the proper time, instead of making use of this opportunity to mention irrelevant matters.

Order. I have ruled. Will the Minister for National Development proceed?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know why they are so suspicious. I have already explained that this Bill is introduced in order to provide for powers which were provided under section 83 of the Municipal Ordinance which lapsed in 1963 when the Local Government Integration Ordinance came into being. This is for us to control licensing of dogs; licensing control, keeping and destruction of dogs. It is not something new. If the Member for Jurong is so concerned about the higher species of human kind, I would welcome his introducing a Bill here for the prevention of cruelty to human beings. I will take it up. We will probably introduce a Bill here to his satisfaction.

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 Lim Kim San]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.37 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to remove the existing restriction on Members of the Legislative Assembly from becoming Members of the Housing and Development Board. Under section 6 of the Housing and Development Ordinance, No. 11 of 1959, it is provided that a Member of the Legislative Assembly cannot be appointed or remain a Member of the Housing and Development Board. Ever since 1960, there has been active participation by Assemblymen in the Allocation Resettlement and other Advisory Committees of the Housing and Development Board. All these Committees have rendered good service and given useful advice to the Board. There should, therefore, be no restriction to Assemblymen participating as full Members of the Board. Further, the restriction is not imposed on other statutory bodies like the Public Utilities Board and the Telephone Board, the Harbour Board and the Economic Development Board. Since all these Boards are appointed by the Government, members of these Boards should command the confidence of the Government as they would be expected to implement Government policy, and there should be as wide a field of choice as possible, and they should include Assemblymen who are elected representatives of the people and command the confidence of their electorate. Such restrictions as there are, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, should only be confined to bankrupts, persons who have been sentenced to imprisonment for terms exceeding six months and have not received a free pardon, and persons of unsound mind, as is the case of membership with the Public Utilities Board. It is also proposed to make this amendment come into force with retrospective effect from the 21st day of September, 1963, as since then some members of the Housing Board have been elected to this Assembly, and so as not to invalidate their acts, it is proposed that this amendment be made retrospective. I beg to move, Sir.

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 Lim Kim San]. Bill considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill he now read a Second time." Over three years have passed since the People's Association Ordinance came into operation on 1st July, 1960. In the light of experience, it is necessary to amend the Ordinance to enable certain reorganisation to be made, especially in the membership to the Board. Hitherto, three Ministers sat on the Board and one of two Ministers must be a party to the signing of cheques. The object of the Bill is to reduce the number of Ministers to two and to make it easier for cheques to be signed. Provision is made for a member of the Corporation to be appointed as Secretary/Treasurer, instead of tying the post to the Director of Social Welfare, which in practice has not been found to be always satisfactory. There is no change in the total membership of the Board, which remains at 14. The People's Association's symbol is now well known in Singapore, and it is necessary to safeguard its use to prevent plagiarism by anybody in Singapore. There are other minor amendments, and all these provide for the more efficient administration in the People's Association. 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. 4.47 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I have His Excellency's recommendation that the Bill be proceeded with. The Government is conscious of the importance of the tourist industry as a source of income and employment. Everybody knows the great potential of tourism in Singapore by virtue of its international name, and its strategic location on international air and sea routes. This potential needs to be exploited and this is best carried out by the joint efforts of both private business and Government. With this in view, the Government propose to establish a Tourist Promotion Board on which both business and Government will be represented. The main functions of the Board will be to publicise Singapore and its attractions in the principal tourist markets, to co-ordinate the activities of tourist enterprises such as hotels, airlines, shipping lines, travel agencies, tour operators, tourist shops, to regulate standards to be maintained by tourist enterprises so that they compare favourably with standards elsewhere, and generally to improve facilities for visitors to Singapore. We must seek not only to attract visitors to Singapore, but we must also see that they go away satisfied so that when the word gets around more visitors will come to Singapore. As regards the composition of the Board, Members will note that five of these will represent business interests as against four representing official interests. I think it is proper that those in business should be given adequate representation in a Board of this nature. The activities of the Board will be financed by funds from the Tourist Promotion Fund (clause 11) to be established under this Ordinance. Both business and the Government have a stake in the tourist industry and accordingly contributions to the Fund will be from both business and the Government. Initially, the Tourist Promotion Fund will be financed from a small cess of 3 per cent on every room or suite occupied each day in every tourist hotel as well as from a subvention from the Government. Members will note that half a million dollars have been provided in the Ordinary Estimates under Subhead 58 of Head 24. Hotels, travel agencies, tour operators and tourist shops benefit from tourism. It is only right that they should be called upon to contribute towards the costs of the activities of the Board. This Bill only sets out the framework, but the success of the Board will have to depend on how intelligently the Board frames its strategy and how effectively specific measures are carried out. The current boom in the construction of first-class hotels shows that fhere should be a bright future for tourist promotion in Singapore. 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.

4.53 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name*. * The motion reads as follows: - That this Assembly resolves, in accordance with section 2 of the Local Treasury Bills Ordinance (Chapter 69) that the Minister be authorised to borrow, by the issue of Treasury Bills in the State, sums not exceeding Malayan $150,000,000 (Malayan Dollars One Hundred and Fifty Millions) in amount. Under the provisions of section 2 of the Local Treasury Bills Ordinance, the Government have been borrowing by the issue of Treasury Bills in the State up to the amount of $40 million by resolution made in the Legislative Council on 13th July, 1948. The limit is now being reached in this, and it is sought to increase the limit to $150,000,000. On 25th July this year, similar approval was sought in the last Assembly, but was not obtained, the votes being equal. The Barisan Sosialis who opposed the motion were under the curious notion that the motion was related to loans for the development of Sabah and Sarawak. There is, in fact, no connection whatsoever. Treasury Bills of 91 days' maturity were issued on tap to statutory bodies as and when required, and are offered to the public every month on tender. Tap bills carry 4 per cent interest per year, tender bills average 4.1 per cent interest per year. The amounts outstanding on these issues are: Tap bills $22.8 million, and Tender bills $17 million. It is the Government's intention to encourage the growth of a short-term money market in Singapore. There is evidence that one or two discount houses or short-term money market dealers are coming into operation. These dealers should be provided with an ample supply of Treasury Bills which should be the main stock in trade. There is also a large quantity locally of surplus funds which are available for investments for short periods. Unless suitable outlets are found in Singapore to absorb such funds, these monies may be remitted overseas for investment. The new limit, which has the approval of the Central Bank of the Federation, under Article 49 of the Malaysian Act will improve the Treasury's ability to borrow in the local market and to provide at the same time opportunities for investment of surplus monies not immediately required. Sir, I beg to move. 4.55 p.m.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves, in accordance with section 2 of the Local Treasury Bills Ordinance (Chapter 69) that the Minister be authorised to borrow, by the issue of Treasury Bills in the State, sums not exceeding Malayan $150,000,000 (Malayan Dollars One Hundred and Fifty Millions) in amount.

4.56 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name*. *The motion reads as follows:- That the Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 12 of the Singapore Society of Accountants Ordinance, 1963, approves the Singapore Society of Accountants Rules, 1963, which were made on the 13th day of December, 1963, and published as Notification Sp. No. S 64 in the Gazette of the 14th December, 1963, as contained in Paper S.L. 19 of 1963. Sir, these Rules were made by the Council of the Singapore Society of Accountants in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) of section 12 of the Ordinance. The Rules provide, inter alia, for the admission of members to the Society, the classification of the members and the election and appointment of the President, the Vice-President and the Treasurer of the Society. The qualifications of persons for admission as members are set out in Parts I and II of the Schedule to the Rules and the fees payable by members are prescribed in Part III of the Schedule. In accordance with Government's policy to provide employment to Polytechnic graduates, the Professional Diploma in Accountancy of the Singapore Polytechnic is accepted as sufficient qualification entitling the holders to registration as members of the Society. Part II of the Schedule sets out the Associations of Accountants whose members are entitled to be registered as full members of the Society. The qualifications obtained by members of these Associations are widely recognised. Rule 2 provides for the admission of members to be made by the Council or a Council Committee at meetings in which at least three-fourths of the members are present. This, in effect, ensures that the admission will be considered by at least 3 members of the Council. Rule 4 provides for four classes of membership according to the qualifications and experience of the members. Admission Fees and annual subscriptions are prescribed under Rules 6 and 7. There will be no annual subscription for the year 1963, but any person applying for membership now will have to pay the 1964 annual subscriptions forthwith on making their applications. The fees prescribed are reasonable and comparable to those prescribed by a local accounting body. Rule 8 sets out the procedure at Council meetings. The quorum for Council meetings is 7 as provided under subsection (2) of section 20 of the Ordinance. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Assembly, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 12 of the Singapore Society of Accountants Ordinance, 1963, approves the Singapore Society of Accountants Rules, 1963, which were made on the 13th day of December, 1963, and published as Notification Sp. No. S 64 in the Gazette of the 14th December, 1963, as contained in Paper S.L. 19 of 1963. Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn to a date to be fixed by the Leader of the House." -[Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes past Five o'clock p.m.