Hansard, 1965-12-22

asked the Minister for Education whether and when his Ministry will commence negotiations with the Singapore Teachers' Union on claims submitted during 1961 relating to (a) anomalies in the salary structure in the Teaching Service between the normal-trained,the old certificated-trained and the new certificated-trained teachers and the graduates; and (b) the re-introduction of the one Principal one session school system as was in practice before.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the existing salary structure for the Education Service is based on the scheme of service for the teaching profession which was incorporated in the Scheme of Higher Services, 1953, and implemented with effect from 1.1.

50. In the course of development of education in Singapore, several of the salary scales were modified and new salary scales introduced from time to time to meet changing circumstances. The consolidation of salaries in 1952, the Ritsonisation in 1953, the general revision of salaries for teachers and other groups of public servants undertaken in 1958, have all had their effects on the salary structure. And the Ministry of Education is aware of certain anomalies therein. So with a view to regularising the salary structure which might have become administratively cumbersome, the Ministry of Education has proposed a revised salary structure for the consideration of the Salaries Commission. It is understood that the Teachers' Unions have similarly made recommendations to the Commission on the scales and salary structure. The Ministry of Finance has advised the Ministry of Education that matters relating to salary scales should be referred to the Salaries Commission to be resolved by them. In the circumstances, any negotiations on the salary structure of the teaching service must await the outcome of the deliberations of the Salaries Commission. Regarding the second part of that question, the re-introduction of one Principal for one session, the Ministry of Education is aware that in postwar years, there arose the need to build more schools and later to use schools as two-session schools to cope with the increase of the student population of Singapore. At that time, the accent was on primary education. From about 1953 to 1959, if primary schools were used as two-session schools, there were two Principals. In 1960, to cope with the new policy of providing education for even larger numbers of children of school-going age, it was decided that more schools would be used as two-session schools. The move to put one Principal in charge of a school of two sessions was part of the effort of providing the largest number of children of school-going age with an education on an economic budget, coupled with the fact that it was considered then that there were not enough teachers with the requisite experience to discharge adequately the duties and responsibilities of Principals. There are certain administrative disadvantages in having one Principal per session as questioned by the Member for Bras Basah. Morning and afternoon schools will be separate entities, each with its own Principal, staffed with its own teachers, accounts, sports equipment, teaching aids, school functions, and so on. But the building, playing field, classrooms, furniture, storage space, school servants and watchmen, will have to be shared by both schools, morning and afternoon. Now this leads often to misunderstanding and petty bickering. In particular, it is difficult for school servants and watchmen to work under two independent Principals. The annual interchange of morning and afternoon staff will also present some difficulty if the two Principals are at loggerheads. All in all, administration with two Principals will be more cumbersome than having one overall head. To assist the one Principal who is responsible for the two sessions, there are senior assistants provided at the rate of one senior assistant for every 15 classes, taking both sessions into account. The senior assistants do an average of 10 hours 31 minutes of actual teaching a week and assist Principals with the administrative work on an average of 8 hours 17 minutes per week, which assistance is confined mostly to paper work and not to supervision of the staff, the standard and the discipline of the school. This shows that the senior assistant is only effective as a teacher for 10 hours and 31 minutes per week compared with the average for teachers, other than senior assistants, of 18 hours and 2 minutes per week. Senior assistants do not receive any extra remuneration, but they are afforded time off from teaching duties, and the administrative experience which they gain as senior assistants invariably stands them in good stead for promotion purposes. The idea of one Principal for one session has been carefully explored and consideration has also been given to the idea of paying some form of remuneration to senior assistants vis-a-vis Vice-Principals. Certain proposals have been put up for the consideration of the Salaries Commission. In the circumstances, and because of the proposals put up to the Salaries Commission in this connection, the decision in this matter must await the outcome of the deliberations of the Salaries Commission.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand from the Minister of State for Education that it is the intention of the Minister to set up a Salaries Commission. This Salaries Commission is to inquire into the salaries of all the civil service. I am asking a question about the removal of the anomalies that have existed since 1958 until today. May I know whether the Salaries Commission is to inquire into the revision of salaries, or into the removal of the anomalies in the salary structure, or both?

Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, the Member for Bras Basah, I think, made a mistake in stating that it was the Minister's intention to set up a Salaries Commission. It is no longer an intention. The Minister has already announced last week that a Salaries Commission will be set up. On the question of anomalies and revision of salaries, the hon. Member for Bras Basah also missed the point when he questioned whether teachers were to be included in the general revision of salaries which will be dealt with by the Salaries Commission. As he is well aware, teachers are also civil servants in Singapore. Therefore, they will be included in the revision of salaries. Anomalies are part of the question of revision of salaries which will be considered by the Salaries Commission.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I know when and how soon this Salaries Commission will be set up? It has been the practice of the Government to delay the setting up of a Salaries Commission and all that. It is always the case that the setting up of a Salaries Commission takes a very, very long time. Will the Minister kindly indicate when this Salaries Commission can be set up?

I understood the Minister to say that it has already been set up. Am I right?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Bras Basah is questioning when it will end.

No. His question is when it will be set up.

That, as you have stated, Mr Speaker, was already answered earlier.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a Salaries Commission was actually set up when we were part of Malaysia. But after the separation, we were informed that our representative is no longer required to sit on it. Therefore, it will take us some time to get members to serve on the Salaries Commission. I am sure the Member for Bras Basah would not like any Tom, Dick and Harry to serve on the Commission. We want to see justice done and, therefore, it will take some time before we set up a Commission. Anyway, action is proceeding.

So it seems the Commission has not been set up! [Interruption] The personnel has not been named.

Will the Minister also inform us, when this Salaries Commission is set up, firstly, will the views of the civil service unions he sought? Secondly, will the Teachers' Union representative be allowed to help the Ministry in drawing up the terms of reference?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Bras Basah should be aware that Government always seek the views of those who are interested. Views from the teachers have already been submitted, if I am not mistaken, to the Malaysian Salaries Commission. And I can assure him that we will seek further views if they are required.

They want to reduce their claims!

Will the Government also give an assurance that some of the claims of the civil service unions will be back-dated when the Commission make their findings?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have made clear my stand on backdating a few days ago, and it has not changed since then.

asked the Minister for Education whether teachers in the aided schools are not provided with similar medical facilities as their counterparts in the Government Service, although they perform identical duties, and why.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Teachers' Union, the Singapore Chinese Teachers' Union and the Malayan Christian Schools Council have repeatedly asked that the same medical benefits and facilities that are accorded to Government teachers should be extended to teachers of aided schools. Such facilities, if granted, will, of course, apply to the other employees of aided schools, such as clerks, servants, watchmen and so on. The Unions make much of Government's policy of equal pay for equal work, and point out that in most cases of negotiations, disputes and arbitration outside the civil service, medical facilities and privileges are always enforced. While free medical treatment is accorded to all members of public and aided school teachers at all Government hospitals and clinics, the Unions are concerned mainly with the hospitalisation of members and the consequent ward charges, X-ray charges, specialist fees and so on if they go to a paying ward, i.e., First Class or Second Class. The main difficulty in according the same medical privileges and benefits enjoyed by Government teachers, school servants and so on of Government-aided schools is due to the fact that aided school teachers and servants are strictly not Government servants, but employees of aided school management committees. As such, privileges and benefits, if accorded to employees of aided schools, may have to be extended to other bodies of employees. The suggestion put by circular to the management committees of aided schools that they should pay the full charges for medical treatment and hospitalisation at public rates in respect of their staff and seek reimbursement from such staff at rates charged for Government service, is not acceptable to the management committees, and this they have informed us. We are now examining alternative possibilities like the introduction of a medical benefit insurance scheme operated commercially with regard to the provision of medical facilities. Such a scheme would probably involve a certain amount of contributions either from the aided school employees or the management committees. 2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the cornerstones of the policy of the Government is a multi-racial Singapore. We are a nation comprising peoples of various races who constitute her citizens, and our citizens are equal regardless of differences of race, language, culture and religion. Whilst a multi-racial secular society is an ideal espoused by many, it is a dire necessity for our survival in the midst of turmoil and the pressures of big power conflict in an area where new nationalisms are seeking to assert themselves in the place of the old European empires in Asia. In such a setting a nation based on one race, one language and one religion, when its peoples are multi-racial, is one doomed for destruction. To ensure this bias in favour of multi-racialism and the equality of our citizens, whether they belong to majority or minority groups, a Constitution Commission is being appointed to help formulate these constitutional safeguards. The terms of reference of the Commission are: (a) To receive and consider representations on how the rights of the racial, linguistic and religious minorities can be adequately safeguarded in the Constitution. (b) To consider what provisions should be made to ensure that no legislation, which by its practical application is considered likely to be discriminatory against members of any racial, linguistic or religious group, should be enacted before adequate opportunities have been given for representation from parties likely to be aggrieved. (c) To consider what remedies should be provided for any citizen or group of citizens who claim that he or they have been discriminated against by any act or decision of the Government or the administration or any statutory board or public body constituted by law, and to recommend the machinery for the redress of any complaints. (d) To consider how such provisions can be entrenched in the Constitution. The Government has given this matter careful consideration and has decided that this Commission shall consist of legally qualified persons, who will know what is feasible and practical of constitutional guarantee. They represent various communities in the legal profession. They are:- Chairman: The Chief Justice Deputy Chairman: The Speaker Members: Mr C. F. J. Ess Mr M. J. Namazie Mr Geoffrey Abisheganaden Mr C. C. Tan Syed Esa bin Syed Hassan Almenoar Inche Manap Ghows Mr Graham Starforth Hill Mr S. H. D. Elias. It is expected that the Commission will complete its work before September next year.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, and the one following it, the Republic of Singapore Independence Bill, will together complete the formalities consequent upon the assumption of independence by the State of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg your indulgence to refer to both Bills and to the documents which the two Bills together seek to amend. The Constitution of Singapore as it was on the 8th of August this year, the day before separation, was contained in two documents, first, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia; next, the State Constitution of Singapore. Together they comprise the framework for the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary and the Public Administration. By the document which was published on the 9th of August, proclaiming Singapore as an independent State and setting up the agreement between the Federal and the State Governments, that the Federal Government shall relinquish all further executive and sovereign authority over Singapore and that that authority shall he vested in the sovereign Government of Singapore and the sovereign Legislature of Singapore, certain consequences have to be spelt out. In the first Bill, we have taken the State Constitution as the basis for the Constitution of Singapore. That remained unchanged. This Bill seeks to change certain terms and seeks to amend certain of the Articles in the State Constitution, such as the election of a Deputy Speaker which has to be from an elected Member of this Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to go through clauses 1 and 2. They are simple and straightforward. It is a straight change in nomenclature. Clause 3 sets out the methods by which the Head of State, henceforth to be known as the President of Singapore is to be elected, the period of his term of office, and the special nature of his office. Clauses 4 and 5 will enable this House to appoint as Deputy Speaker, a person not necessarily a Member of the House. We have to mould the Constitution in accordance with our needs, and whilst it may be preferable that an elected Member of this House should occupy the post of Deputy Speaker, we have found it in practice not necessarily a convenient way of conducting the proceedings of this Chamber, and it is the Government's intention that someone who is not a member of either Party should be appointed to this Chair. The schism between the Opposition and us is so wide and almost unbridgeable, that I think debates, if and when they are resumed with the Opposition, should be held under conditions which will make it manifest to all that there is free and full debate within the rules of the Constitution and of this Chamber, without the Opposition fearing any bias or favour on the part of either the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. After the passage of this Bill, it is our intention to seek the election of a member of the Bar who is not connected with either of the Parties in this House to assist you in discharging your functions. Article 7 revokes a clause which was introduced into the State Constitution of Singapore when it entered Malaysia. Members in this House will know that there was no such injunction of holding a by-election within three months in our previous Constitution. We resisted this particular condition being imposed upon the State Constitution at the time we entered Malaysia, but our representations were not accepted because Malaysia insisted on uniformity of our laws with the other States in the Federation and with the Federal Constitution itself. Since we are no longer a part of the Federal whole, for reasons which we find valid and valuable as a result of our own experience of elections and of government in Singapore, we have decided that this limitation should no longer apply. Clause 8 repeals Article 90 of the Constitution which sets out the mode by which the Constitution can be amended. Article 90 requires that there shall be no less than two-thirds of the total number of Members thereof supporting any amendment to the Constitution on the Second and Third Readings. Mr Speaker, Sir, this and the other Article in the Federal Constitution also requiring a two-thirds majority, will be repealed. It is our considered opinion that a two-thirds majority is not necessarily the best way of entrenching the Constitution. There will be different sections in the Constitution dealing with matters of varying gravity. Some will be entrenched to a point where, if the Legislature seeks to amend, a reference to the general electorate may be necessary. In others, we may go back to the mechanism which was used in Malaysia whereby a two-thirds majority was required. In other sections, such as the number of Members in this Chamber, the less fundamental sections of the Constitution which order the delineation of constituencies and so on, may not require any such special sanctity before amendment. The point I would like to make is this. It is illusory to believe that because an amendment has to he passed by a two-thirds majority, the provisions are thereby sacrosanct. From our experience in the short while we were in Malaysia, we have found that in a situation such as theirs, and indeed in a situation such as we have in this Chamber where the Government has a clear two-thirds majority, it is no impediment to the Government to alter the Constitution at will. In fact, in the case of the Federal Constitution, as Members may well know, some 250 amendments of various sorts have been introduced into the Constitution and incorporated into it since it was first adopted in 1957. Clause 9 is a transitory provision whereby the Head of State continues as President of Singapore from his present function as Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, with your indulgence, run through the provisions of the Republic of Singapore Independence Bill? Clause 1, title, nomenclature. Clause 2, change of nomenclature. Clause 3 is the recital of a fact which took place on the 9th of August this year -- that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, as from Singapore Day, cease to be the Supreme Head of Singapore and his sovereignty and jurisdiction and power and authority, executive or otherwise, in respect of Singapore shall be relinquished and shall vest in the Head of State of Singapore. Clause 4 recites the fact that the executive authority of Singapore shall vest in the Head of State and shall be exercisable by him or by the Cabinet or by any Minister authorised by the Cabinet. Clause 5 transfers the legislative powers of the Parliament of Malaysia to this House. Clause 6 sets out those provisions of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia which we now incorporate as part of the Constitution of Singapore. Sir, in sub-clause (3) of clause 6, we have set out the provisions which will not have effect. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution of Malaysia is one which covers the relationship between the Federal Government and some 14 State Governments. In so far as those provisions apply to the relationship between the Centre and the States, they are expressly to be now excluded. Part I consists of four Articles. It sets out the States, the religion, the law of the Federation. I shall be moving an amendment to exclude Article 4, together with Articles 1, 2 and 3 from the Constitution of Singapore. The reason for that is as follows. Article 4 sets out that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation; in other words, if we accept that particular Article as part of the supreme law of Singapore, then any other law found in any other document is subsidiary law, including, of course, the State Constitution of Singapore. There are certain Ordinances relating, for instance, to citizenship which were peculiar to Singapore and which, whilst we were in Malaysia, were revoked by way of Modification Orders, Malaysia seeking to unify the, citizenship laws by extending its citizenship laws, rules and regulations into Singapore to the exclusion of Singapore citizenship laws and rules and regulations. Now, if this Article stands, then it will not be possible for us without a constitutional amendment to revive our Singapore Citizenship Ordinance and the rules and regulations thereunder. So for that reason, after further consideration consequent on the First Reading of this Bill, we have decided to exclude Article 4. Part II deals with fundamental liberties. Article 5, liberty of the person; Article 6, slavery and enforced labour prohibited; Article 7, protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials; Article 8, equality; Article 9, prohibition of banishment and freedom of movement; Article 10, freedom of speech, assembly and association; Article 11, freedom of religion; Article 12, rights in respect of education. These fundamental liberties will continue as part of our Constitution. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will notice in clause 1 of the Republic of Singapore Independence Bill that this Bill will be deemed to have come into operation as from the 9th day of August, 1965, so that there will he no hiatus in the law. Clause 13 - we have specifically set out to exclude. The reason is quite simple. This Constitution was drawn tip by five eminent jurists from five of the major Commonwealth countries for the old Federation of Malaya. It is, in form, modelled upon a similar provision in the Constitution of the Republic of India. Since the passage of that section in the Indian Constitution, amendments have had to be introduced because land reforms were not possible, if the strict tenor of the words were to be complied with. In other words, in clause 2, once we spell out that no law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation, we open the door for litigation and ultimately for adjudication by the Court on what is or is not adequate compensation. Last year, if you will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, we moved a Bill to change the law regarding the acquisition of land in which we laid down that where land was compulsorily acquired for public purpose, no compensation shall be payable to the owner for any appreciation in value of the land which has been brought about by development expenditure of the Government. It very often happens, as it did in the case of the development of the Jurong industrial site, that when public funds have been expended in considerable amounts for the development of roads, services, harbours, the adjacent land appreciates in value. And when it became necessary to acquire parts of the adjacent land for the expansion of the Jurong industrial estate either for expansion of the estate itself or for ancillary services such as schools, hospitals, and so on, we had to pay the owner under our present acquisition laws the enhanced value of the land, a value to which he himself had contributed nothing and which was, in fact, created wholly by the expenditure of State funds. This Article will, therefore, be excluded. With this exclusion our Land Acquisition Bill, which went to Select Committee and was allowed to lapse because of the doubt as to whether or not it could be said to be in compliance with Article 13, which is the supreme law, shall he proceed with. Whilst we were still in Malaysia, we had sought to get Article 13 excluded in its application to us, but, in the nature of things, these matters either took a very long time for any decision to be made or for some reason or other no decision was made. Now the jurisdiction again reverts to this House and it is our intention that the Land Acquisition Bill shall be proceeded with and Article 13 excluded. Clause 6 sets out also the various other Articles which are to be excluded. For instance, Articles 14 to 18 relating to the acquisition of citizenship which is not relevant to us, because they refer to a Malaysian citizenship which is no longer ours, and our State Constitution already makes provision for Singapore citizenship. Article 19A - transfer of citizenship to and from Singapore -- that again is no longer relevant. Article 22 - citizenship by incorporation of territory - as we are a peace-loving nation, we have no intention of incorporating territories, as some other countries have done. We have decided that it is more in keeping with our modest and peace-loving attitude to world affairs generally to exclude this provision. Articles 28 and 28A - application to certain citizens by operation of law, and deprivation of citizenship - they no longer apply because we have our own provisions in the State Constitution. Part IV, which refers to the structure of the Federation's Supreme Head of State, Conference of Rulers, Executive, Federal Legislature, Legislative procedure, Capacity as respects property, contracts and suits - all those do not apply, and have therefore been excluded. Part V - Precedence of Rulers and Governors, Federal guarantee of State Constitutions, and so on - they are also not applicable. Part VI - Relations between the Federation and the States - is also excluded. Part VII - Financial Provisions - is excluded. As you will see from a Bill which has been introduced, we are ourselves introducing a separate statute to order the procedure by which the financial affairs of the country will be conducted in this House. Part VIII - Elections - is again not applicable for the elections relate to Federal elections, and our own elections are contained in the State Constitution. Part IX - Judiciary - we have taken in toto, with such changes mutatis mutandis to apply to the separate status of Singapore. Part X - Articles 133 and 134 - Joint services, etc. and Secondment of officers, expunged, Article 139, Public Services Commission, expunged, we have our own under the State Constitution. Articles 141 to 143, Railway Service Commission, General provisions relating to Commissions, and Conditions of service of members of Commissions, inapplicable. Articles 146A to 148, Branches in Borneo States and in Singapore of Judicial and Legal Service Commission, Branches in each Borneo State and in Singapore of Public Services Commission - they are no longer to be applied - going right on to Protection of pension rights and Interpretation of Part X. You will see, Mr Speaker, Sir, that within this Bill itself we have set out the rules governing the transfer of personnel from the Federal Government back to the Singapore Government, and the Public Service Commission of the Singapore Government will now again reassert its jurisdiction over the whole of the Public Service. Then Part XI is adopted in toto. Part XII is excluded, it does not apply. Reservation of quotas in respect of services permits, etc., for Malays, which never applied anyway to Singapore. "The Federal capital", "Commonwealth reciprocity", and so on. Part XIII - Temporary and Transitional Provisions - is not applicable. Part XIV - Saving for Rulers' sovereignty, etc. - is not applicable. And all the various Schedules, the Third, Fourth: Third is "Election of Yang di-Pertuan Agong ..." and Fourth is "Oaths of office of Yang di-Pertuan Agong". Seventh - "Election of Senators" and Eighth "Provisions to be inserted in State Constitution". Ninth and Tenth - "Capitation grant, State road grant", inapplicable. Eleventh - "Provisions of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, 1948, applied for interpretation of the Constitution" and Thirteenth - "Provisions relating to delimitation of constituencies", all inapplicable. Sub-clause (4) of clause 6 sets out the transfer of the various powers of those parts of the Federal Constitution which are applicable to Singapore to the corresponding Ministers and their counterparts in Singapore - the powers of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to be exercised by the President; the powers of the Federal Government to be exercised by the Government of Singapore; the powers of the Federal Legislature to be exercised by the Legislature of Singapore; the powers of the Prime Minister of Malaysia to be exercised by the Prime Minister of Singapore. The powers of a Minister of Malaysia shall be exercised by the corresponding Minister in Singapore or by such Minister as may be designated by the Prime Minister of Singapore. The powers of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission shall be exercised by a Legal Service Commission which shall consist of the following persons: the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, a Judge of the High Court and two members of the Public Service Commission. The powers of the Police Force Commission shall be exercised by the Public Service Commission. The powers of the Lord President of the Federal Court shall be exercised by the Chief Justice of Singapore. The powers of the Attorney-General of Malaysia shall be exercised by the Attorney-General of Singapore. Clause 7 sets out the position already obtaining, that Malay, Mandarin, Tamil and English shall be the four official languages in Singapore. The national language shall be the Malay language and shall be in the Roman script. The proviso sets out a guarantee that no person shall he prohibited or prevented from using or from teaching or learning any other language: and nothing shall prejudice the right of the Government to preserve and sustain the use and study of the language of any other community in Singapore. Clause 8 invests the power of pardon on the President who will exercise it in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet. Clause 9 sets out the terms of the agreement between the Malaysian and the Singapore Governments that all property which, before Malaysia, belonged to Singapore or was the responsibility of Singapore will, after the 9th of August, once again revert to, and vest in, or devolve upon, and become the property of or the responsibility of the Government of Singapore. Clause 10 (1) deals with the status of all persons who were officers of the Singapore Government and who, on our federating with Malaysia, became servants of the Central Government, and now revert to public servants of the Government of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 10 (2) does not spell out the position which the Legislature of Malaysia probably had sought to enact for us. If I could refer to the Gazette Extraordinary of the 9th of August, you will see, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Federal Government, by the agreement reached between them and us sought to arrange that all persons who, between Malaysia Day and Singapore Day, were engaged by the Government of Malaysia for employment in those departments which were departments of the State of Singapore before Malaysia Day shall, on Singapore Day, become forthwith officers employed by the Government of Singapore. Now this does not coincide with our provision. We say that all persons who between the 16th day of September, 1963 - the day we became a constituent member of Malaysia - and Singapore Day (9th of August this year) were engaged by the Government of Malaysia and were employed in those departments which were departments of the Government of Singapore before the 16th day of September, 1963, shall on Singapore Day become persons temporarily employed by the Government of Singapore. And the President may within twenty-four months of Singapore Day confirm or terminate the employment of any person or class of persons who are temporarily employed by the Government under the provisions of sub-clause (2) . Mr Speaker, Sir, after the separation, we discovered that there had been considerable recruitment in what were known as the Federal Departments such as the Police, the Army and some other sections of our public service. The result has been that in the two years that we were in Malaysia a large number of persons who are not Singapore citizens and who come from the other States of Malaysia have now become members of our own public service. This raises for us the question first, of principle, and second - even more important than principle - the question whether this arrangement will be practical of application. I think I would he less than honest to Members of this House and to the public generally, particularly in the absence of the Opposition, if I did not say that we were very loath not to adopt in toto what was a solemn agreement arrived at between the Malaysian Government and us. It was an agreement which, in the nature of the transaction, was an extremely urgent one and, therefore, the main terms and conditions were agreed upon on the basis of major principle. But when we found that the implementation of this would mean, in effect, that large numbers of our own security organisation would not be our own citizens, then a problem arose. We have asked the Federal Government whether they would wish to re-absorb their own citizens into their services. In the case of the Army, I am happy to be able to tell the House that all those who are not Singapore citizens will find positions in the Malaysian services. However, in the case of the Police, I am told by my colleague, the Minister of Defence, that the complement for the police force of the Federation is all filled up and that, therefore, they have asked us to deal with such recruits in our service as we think proper. This puts the burden on us. I would like to state here what I think should be our policy with regard to each individual case. We do not start necessarily on the assumption that because a man is a Malaysian and not a Singapore citizen he will therefore not be loyal to Singapore. That is not necessarily true. In fact, nearly half of our population are people who have come from the States of Malaya and who have shown over the course of the years that they are extremely loyal to the country, and that when it came to a moment of crisis, they were loyal to their first responsibility - that as citizens of Singapore. However, we ourselves will have to weigh the various considerations that will have to be borne in mind in deciding whether a particular person is retained or is not retained in our public service. This applies, by and large, to those in the lower echelons of the public service. I am told that there are quite a number of Malaysian citizens who have been engaged in our higher branches of the administration, in the legal service, and so on. And whilst this clause applies uniformly to all who were recruited in Malaysia, I think I can hold out a firm assurance that we will continue the practice which we had before we entered Malaysia, namely, that our public service is open for competition to all Singapore and Federal citizens and will continue to do so. I think it is good for us and good for them and probably good for both countries in the long run. But there are certain sectors where it is important that their loyalty should in no way be divided. As you well know, Mr Speaker, Sir, situations may arise in which the absolute and unquestioned loyalty of the police can be a matter of crucial importance to all of us and, therefore, it may well take as long as two years before we decide to do what is right in respect of the fairly large numbers of officers who have been recruited since the 16th of September, 1963. The group of persons is a limited one; it cannot grow any more. We have once again re-established the Police Training School in Singapore and no further recruitment or training will be done by Malaysia. Therefore, the number of persons who will be affected is defined and their positions will be resolved, I hope, within 24 months of Singapore Day. Clause 11 sets out the continuance of the practice of appeals from the High Court to the Federal Court and thence to the Privy Council. I think it would be in the interest of the administration of justice if this were to remain so. Clause 12 will automatically make it unnecessary for any statutory board, whether it be a Government statutory board or whether it is a Council of the University, to have representatives from any of the States of Malaya, or indeed of Malaysia, or of any appointee or nominee from any body or association or statutory board or Government from the Malayan States. Quite a number of our laws provide for such representation and it is hardly necessary for me to say that this representation arose, first, out of the fundamental premise that we were going to be part of Malaysia; and then, secondly, whilst we were in Malaysia, this was part of the Federal framework and, therefore, representation of various States was allowed in our statutory bodies. For instance, a member of the Port of Singapore Authority would be appointed by or nominated by us on the recommendation or on the submission of the Federal Government. Similarly, we have the rather absurd situation where the Singapore taxpayer and the Singapore Government are supposed to pay for the upkeep of the University of Nanyang and our representation on the Nanyang University Council, together with that of the various guilds and clans and other associations which are interested in Nanyang University from the Singapore side, is outnumbered by somewhat like 3 to 13 or 3 to 11. There are 11 States in Malaya and each little State nominates one member, with the result that we may find large sums of money to which we have committed ourselves being disposed of in a way which may not accord with the interests of people who have paid for the maintenance of this institution. But it has a saving proviso, that wherever it is deemed necessary and it varies from Ordinance to Ordinance, we may allow the representation to continue by way of Gazette notification. I could think of quite a number of instances where it may be useful. I do not think we will have any serious objection to the Government of Malaysia having representation on our University of Singapore Council. I do not think we would have any objection if they sought representation on the Nanyang University Council. But I do think that we cannot put ourselves in the position now where our money is to be disposed of in accordance with what the 11 representatives from 11 associations in 11 States of Malaya may decide amongst themselves. This is a matter which will have to he sorted out. I do not think we object to all the 11 turning up provided they only have one vote as against our three votes, since we are paying for all the development and recurrent expenditure. At the same time, I would like to add that this has been done without any feeling of rancour or a desire to be rid of people whom we do not like. It is just a neat and tidy way of rectifying what needs to be rectified. Either we have to go through about 40 or 50 different Ordinances and amendments will have to be made to each one, or we do it by an omnibus clause. This omnibus clause allows us, wherever we think it is of value, to provide that the Federal Government will still continue to have an interest in our institutions like the University of Singapore if they wish to continue. But where we feel the weighting is somewhat lopsided as in the case of the University of Nanyang, where 11 States versus Singapore one State, and Singapore pays for the education and the upliftment of the minds of all the off-spring of the people in the 11 States, then the position must be set right. It may well be that, after discussions, there is no objection to the 11 representatives turning up for meetings and observing and going hack to the 11 States and reporting on what has taken place. But when it comes to the very important question of how monies are to be dispensed, then we must have a fairly decisive say as to what happens to the monies we ourselves have provided. Article 13 is an omnibus clause setting out that all existing laws shall continue in force but with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with this Act and with the independent status of Singapore upon separation from Malaysia. Sub-clause (2) of clause 13 sets out the various changes in nomenclature consequent upon separation. Sub-clause (3) allows the President for a period of three years to make such modifications in any written law as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the enactment of this Act and in consequence of the independence of Singapore upon separation from Malaysia. I sincerely hope that it would not take three years. This is a very long time and we want a certain amount of clarity and finality in the law. It is our hope that by this time next year the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission on how to safeguard minority rights will have concluded and we ourselves will have prepared a comprehensive document setting out all the constitutional provisions applicable to Singapore, so that the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore will be neatly accumulated in one bundle of documents. But even more important is the state of the law generally. I am told by practitioners now that it is quite a problem to find out which Modification Order extends which law from Malaya and revokes which law in Singapore. These are some of the minor manifestations of empires, and are expected. We always believe that our laws are better than those of the territory we have acquired or incorporated. Hence a considerable number of our Ordinances were set aside in favour of Ordinances and statutes prevailing in Malaya. Not unnaturally we have a particular familiarity with our own procedures and our own set of laws. In quite a number of cases, civil servants and other law officers who have to advise the Government prefer to use the instruments to which they have been accustomed. So now a series of Modification Orders may well be issued which will restore, by and large, what was the position before Malaysia. But at the end of it all, you will notice, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there is a Bill for a Law Revision Commission. It is our hope that within two years a new set of the laws of Singapore will be available not only to practitioners but to all administrators, and everybody else interested in orderly government in Singapore, and everybody will very easily determine what is the law applicable to any particular subject he is interested in from a set of documents which will have the authority of this House. Sub-clause (4) is purely consequential. Sub-clause (5) and sub-clause (6) are of a consequential nature allowing the Prime Minister to declare which is the corresponding public officer or the corresponding authority or body to exercise the executive powers which are contained in the Federal Constitution. Now there are two amendments which I shall be moving, Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have mentioned. First, to remove Article 4, for the reasons I have set out, that I do not think it is possible for us to say that those sections of the Federal Constitution which will continue to be in force in Singapore are supreme law because that would imply that if there is any contradiction or any conflict with either the State of Singapore Constitution or any other Ordinance, then our own Ordinance and our own State of Singapore Constitution will have to give way, and it is not a situation which we desire. Ultimately what will be supreme law will be the Republic of Singapore Constitution after it has been brought up to date. And second is an amendment to ensure ex abundante cautela that any Act done by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara or the State Advocate-General before the enactment of this Act shall be valid notwithstanding that this Act is retrospective as to its operation from the 9th of August this year. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have set out candidly and in some detail the reasons why we have made the various amendments set out in the two Bills. After the enactment of these two Bills and the various modifications have been done, it is possible to put the Constitution in one simple document. But it will still be a cumbersome document because we have inherited, first, a Federal Constitution which is not applicable to us because we are not a Federation; and, secondly, a State Constitution which, in some respects, contains a number of provisions to bring us into uniformity with the other States which we deem to be irksome and cumbersome. We have got rid of some of those items which we consider unnecessary and cumbersome. We have had to spell out who corresponds with the respective executive authority set out in the Federal Constitution. In other words, what we have sought scrupulously to do is to state the law, the powers and the jurisdiction of the various executive authorities and judicial bodies and legislative bodies as they existed before Malaysia transmuted into this new situation. In the course of next year, we will have to decide whether or not amendments should be made to the whole body of executive and legislative functions. It is easier, I think, from the point of view of public confidence, in the process of orderly government, if we were first to move into what were the positions occupied by the Federal executives. Whilst we were part of the component States of Malaysia, it was my impression that perhaps quite a number of these provisions had a bias towards executive power. But then it is not a very fair assessment to make because at that time, as you will know, Mr Speaker, Sir, there were moments when it looked as if the overbearing weight of executive power might fall upon our ears. Therefore, we did not take kindly to executive powers. It may well be that, in the light of our experience in dealing with a difficult and truculent citizen, a certain degree of executive effectiveness may well be useful. But my general training as a lawyer leads me to feel that a liberalisation of some of these provisions may well be in keeping with the spirit of a tolerant government or a tolerant multi-racial society which we already have in Singapore and which we are seeking to consolidate. I do not think it is possible, in the four months since separation, to come to any finality or any definite conclusion on quite a number of these provisions. They are as they stand now, taken over from Malaysia into Singapore, transferred from the Federal Government to the Singapore Government; transferred from Federal Ministers, Heads of State to Singapore Ministers, their Commission to our Commission, and so on. I do not think we have any vested interest in continuing with a constitutional framework which really in extremis means that the Head of State can, with certain key Ministers and Commanders-in-Chief, proceed with orderly government, which I think was the situation and contingency for which it was intended. That is not the situation we would like and, therefore, we want to get away from it where, by a series of judicious appointments in certain key echelons of institutions of the State, in fact, power resides within a very small and compact group of persons. I think one of the theories of democratic government is that power should be effectively placed in the Executive and there must be counter-balance, counter-checking and counter-vailing forces in the Legislature and in the Executive. Thereby we ensure that government is for the majority in the majority interest, and not in the interest of the continuance of any specific regime. With those remarks, I would hike to urge the Second Reading of this Bill. I have read somewhere that this is not a very tidy way of doing things. I do not claim it is, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an extremely competent set of legal draftsmen in the Advocate-General and his Chambers, and I can assure the House that when due consideration has been given to what we seek to do with these enormous executive powers which were available to the Federal Executive, then we shall put forward a comprehensive document which I hope will endure. The main thing about the Constitution is that it must work. Never mind whether it is the work of good judicial or juristic training. The Federation Constitution in 1957 was the product of five eminent jurists. But the fact that it has had to be amended no less than 250 times shows that either the people who had to work the Constitution were inadequate to the demands of such a liberal Constitution, or that the Constitution assumed a state of orderly society which did not prevail; and, I think, to be kind and fair, probably certain factors caused the necessity for 250 amendments. I should hate to believe, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we would be foolish enough to call five jurists to draw up a perfect legal document for ourselves over which we and our successors may have to spend considerable time taking division, as a two-thirds majority is required for each amendment, for no less than 250 times, all in the space of about seven years. It is my hope that we will he able to produce before this House a document which will be workmanlike, with a fair spread of the powers of Executive authority, checks and balances for a proper account of the use of these powers, and, most important of all, ensure without major amendment the continuance of good and orderly government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." May I, in moving this, remind the House that perforce we will have to take a division. Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The motion is now open to debate. There being no debate, I take it the Prime Minister does not intend to reply?

No, Mr Speaker, Sir.

As the Prime Minister has already indicated, under the provisions of Article 90 of the Constitution of the State of Singapore, this Bill as it now stands before the House shall not be passed by the Legislative Assembly unless it has been supported on Second and Third Readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members thereof. It, therefore, means that the Bill now before the House requires the votes of not less than 34 Members on its Second and Third Readings. After I have put the Question and after the Division Bells have been rung for two minutes, the Clerk will call the names of Members in alphabetical order and record each Member's vote and the names of Members who abstain from voting. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." 3.55 p.m. The House divided: Ayes, 36; Absent, 15. Ayes. Absent A. Rahim Ishak Bani. S.T Barker, E. W. Chan Sun Wing. Buang bin Chia Thye Poh. Omar Junid Chan Chee Seng Chio Cheng Thun Chan Choy Siong, Fong Kim Heng Madam. Chow Chiok Hock Goh Keng Swee Fong Sip Chee Koo Young Gonzales, R. A. Kow Kee Seng Govindaswamy. P. Lee Tee Tong Ayes - contd. Absent -- contd Ho Cheng Choon Lim Huan Boon Ho See Beng Loh Miaw Gong Miss Jek Yeun Thong Ong Lian Teng Lee Khoon Choy Poh Ber Liak Lee Kuan Yew Tan Cheng Tong Lee Teck Him Wong Soon Fong Lim Cheng Lock Lim Kim San Lingam, S. V. Mahmud Awang Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi Nair, Mrs. Devan. Ng Kah Ting Ng Yeow Chong Ong Pang Boon Othman bin Wok Rahamat bin Kenap Rajaratnam, S. Rajoo, S. Rodrigues, Bernard. Sia Kah Hui Sim Boon Woo Teong Eng Siong Toh Chin Chye Wee Toon Boon Yaacob bin Mohamed Al-Haj Yong Nyuk Lin

36 Ayes, 15 Absent. I declare that under Article 90 of the Constitution of the State of Singapore the Second Reading has been carried by not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of the House. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [The Prime Minister]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment.

4.01 p.m.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir.

Please move.

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

The procedure that was adopted on the Second Reading will again he adopted on this Bill. The Clerk will ring the Division Bells. Division Bells rung. The house divided: Ayes, 36; Absent, 15. Ayes. Absent. A. Rahim Ishak Bani, S.T Barker, E. W. Chan Sun Wing Buang bin Chia Thye Poh Omar Junid Chio Cheng Thun Chan Chee Seng Fong Kim Heng Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Goh Keng Swee Chow Chiok Hock Koo Young Fong Sip Chee Kow Kee Seng Gonzales, R.A Lee Tee Tong Govindaswamy, P. Lim Huan Boon Ho Cheng Choon Loh Miaw Gong, Miss Ho See Beng Ong Lian Teng Jek Yeun Thong Poh Ber Liak Lee Khoon Choy Tan Cheng Tong Lee Kuan Yew Wong Soon Fong Lee Teck Him Lim Cheng Lock Lim Kim San Lingam, S. V Mahmud Awang Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi Nair, Mrs. Devan Ng Kah Ting Ng Yeow Chong Ong Pang Boon Othman bin Wok, Rahamat bin Kenap, Rajaratnam, S. Rajoo, S. Rodrigues, Bernard. Sia Kah Hui Sim Boon Woo Teong Eng Siong Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon Yaacob bin Mohamad Al-Haj Yong Nyuk Lin

I hereby declare that the Third Reading of the Bill has been carried in accordance with the provisions of Article 90 of the Constitution of the State of Singapore. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.08 p.m.

Sir, I have already dealt with the contents of this Bill in some detail when I moved the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, and it is not my intention to re-cover the grounds. But I would just like to sum up what I have said, namely, that those parts of the Federal Constitution which were part of the Constitution of Singapore and are still relevant for us in our new situation - first, no longer as a member of the Federal whole, and, second, as a sovereign State and Legislature on our own - have been adopted. The changes made are changes in nomenclature and the transfer of powers from the various bodies that exercise this authority in Malaysia to the persons and bodies who will exercise this authority here. It is the view of my colleague, the Minister for Law, and that of the State Advocate-General and his Chambers that it is possible, by the end of next year after the Constitution Commission has concluded its deliberations, for us to decide to bring into one complete document the Constitution which is now in four Parts - the Federation of Malaysia Constitution, the State of Singapore Constitution, the Amendments to the Federation of Malaysia Constitution by this the Republic of Singapore Act, and the Amendments to the Singapore Constitution by the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. In bringing these together, of course, it will also be our intention, as I have indicated, to bring about such changes as I think will be possible to liberalise the Constitution and make the weight of executive authority less inhibitive to the Legislature and to the Judiciary. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question put.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of the Constitutional procedure, again it will require a two-thirds majority on Second Reading.

Mr Prime Minister, the only obligation on me is to see that I have a two-thirds majority on the Singapore Constitution Bill, but no such obligation is put on the Assembly with regard to the Federal Constitution. If the House, however, feels that it would be safer this way, I have no objection, but I felt that there was no obligation on this House to provide a two-thirds majority of any amendment to a matter outside the Constitution of the State of Singapore.

Ex abundante cautela, I would urge that the House take a division after the Committee stage and on the Third Reading, the reason being as follows, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think a strict interpretation of the responsibilities as set out in the State of Singapore Constitution Act refers to amendments to the Singapore Constitution. But it is open to anyone to urge upon the Judiciary that the passage of this Bill, in fact, does make a fundamental alteration to the nature of the Singapore Constitution enactment, for it incorporates into that enactment all the Federal powers which were, whilst we were in Malaysia, part of the Federal Constitution. So that there can be no doubts about this matter, I would urge that the Bill be passed by a two-thirds majority and that a vote be taken.

I entirely agree with Mr Prime Minister that this would be the safer course, of course, and we will take it. If there is going to be any argument about it, this will put it out of court completely. Perhaps the House will record a vote on the Second Reading. Ring the Division Bells. Division Bells rung.

I will now put the Question again, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The House divided: Ayes, 36 Absent, 15. Ayes. Absent. A. Rahim Ishak Bani, S.T Barker, E. W. Chan Sun Wing Buang bin Chia Thye Poh Omar Junid Chio Cheng Thun Chan Chee Seng Fong Kim Heng Chan Choy Siong, Goh Keng Swee Madam Koo Young Chow Chiok Hock Kow Kee Seng Fong Sip Chee Lee Tee Tong Gonzales, R.A Lim Huan Boon Ayes - contd Absent -- contd Govindaswamy, P. Loh Miaw Gong, Miss Ho Cheng Choon Ong Lian Teng Ho See Beng Poh Ber Liak Jek Yeun Thong Tan Cheng Tong Lee Khoon Choy Wong Soon Fong Lee Kuan Yew Lee Teck Him Lim Cheng Lock Lim Kim San Lingam, S. V. Mahmud Awang Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi Nair, Mrs. Devan. Ng Kah Ting Ng Yeow Chong Ong Pang Boon Othman bin Wok Rahamat bin Kenap Rajaratnam, S. Rajoo, S. Rodrigues, Bernard. Sia Kah Hui Sim Boon Woo Teong Eng Siong Toh Chin Chye Wee Toon Boon Yaacob bin Mohamed Al-Haj Yong Nyuk Lin

36 Ayes; 15 Absent. I declare that the Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by more than two-thirds of the Members of the House. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[The Prime Minister]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 - Amendment made: In page 2, line 17, to leave out "Articles 1 to 3" and insert "Part 1".-[The Prime Minister]. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 to 13 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause - "Saving. Nothing in this Act shall affect the validity of any acts done in the name of, or by, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara or the State Advocate-General before the enactment of this Act.". - [The Prime Minister]. Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr Speaker; Sir, I beg to move, "That the New Clause (to be inserted after clause 13) be read a Second time."

Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill. Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Division Bells rung. The House divided: Ayes, 37; Absent, 14. Ayes. Absent A. Rahim Ishak. Bani, S.T. Barker, E. W. Chan Sun Wing Buang bin Omar Junid. Chia Thye Poh Chan Chee Seng. Chio Cheng Thun Chan Choy Siong, Fong Kim Heng Madam. Chow Chiok Hock Koo Young Fong Sip Chee Kow Kee Seng Goh Keng Swee Lee Tee Tong Gonzales, R. A. Lim Huan Boon Govindaswamy, P. Loh Miaw Gong, Miss. Ho Cheng Choon Ong Lian Teng Ho See Beng Poh Ber Liak Jek Yeun Thong Tan Cheng Tong Lee Khoon Choy Wong Soon Fong Lee Kuan Yew Lee Teck Him Lim Cheng Lock Lim Kim San Lingam, S. V. Mahmud Awang Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi Nair. Mrs. Devan. Ng Kah Ting Ng Yeow Chong Ong Pang Boon. Othman bin Wok Rahamat bin Kenap Ayes - contd. Rajaratnam, S. Rajoo, S. Rodrigues, Bernard. Sia Kah Hui Sim Boon Woo Teong Eng Siong Toh Chin Chye Wee Toon Boon Yaacob bin Mohamed A1-Haj Yong Nyuk Lin

37 Ayes; 14 Absent. I declare that the Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by more than two-thirds of the Members of the House. Bill, as amended, accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In most statutes, there is a section which sets out the meanings which are to be attached to the particular words used in that statute. Such a section, the Interpretation Section, supplements for each particular statute the functions performed for all statutes by an Interpretation Ordinance or Act. The existing statute relating to the interpretation of certain expressions used in our laws is the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance and Chapter 2 of the 1955 Edition of the Laws of Singapore. The Interpretation Bill now under consideration by the House re-enacts the provisions of the existing Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance making such amendments as are necessitated by Singapore's status as an Independent Republic together with certain other amendments considered desirable. In general, it is the object of this Bill, like all enactments relating to interpretation, to shorten the language of the statutes and to provide in our legislation uniformity of expression, thus avoiding superfluity of language. Within the compass of a single Act are contained provisions pertaining to the definition of terms and expressions used in all our laws, definitions which would otherwise have to be specified separately in many different Acts, Rules and Regulations. For example, Mr Speaker, a "monogamous marriage" is defined to mean a marriage which is recognised by the laws of the place where it is contracted as a voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others during the continuance of the marriage. Another example, "Singapore" means the "Republic of Singapore" and shall be deemed to include the island of Singapore and all islands in places which on the 2nd day of June, 1959, were administered as part of Singapore and all territorial waters adjacent thereto. Mr Speaker, Sir, in consequence of Singapore's independent status, certain definitions, such as "Assembly", and the "Yang di-Pertuan Negara", which are no longer to be used, are excluded and are substituted by a new set of definitions. For example, the term "Acts", Acts with a capital "A", is defined because the laws of Singapore will no longer be known as Ordinances. It is also expressly provided that in every written law prior to the enactment of this Bill, references to the Assembly or the Legislative Assembly are to be construed as references to Parliament; references to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara as references to the President, and references to the Federal Minister as references to the appropriate Minister of Singapore, and references to the State Advocate-General as references to the Attorney-General. Part II, Mr Speaker, relates to the general provisions regarding written law and follows in general the parallel provisions of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance as the Comparative Table shows. Provision is now made in clause 9 for references in Acts to sections, Parts, Chapters or Schedules by numbers or letters only as this follows the current drafting practice elsewhere of avoiding the repetition of phrases such as "of this section", or "of this Act" and so on in legislation, when the omission of these phrases would cause no ambiguity in the context. Part III, head "Subsidiary Legislation", deals with that subject, and it is now expressly provided that authority to make subsidiary legislation ipso facto carries with it the power to provide penalties for contravention up to a maximum of $2,000 in case of a fine or one year in case of imprisonment or both the fine and imprisonment. Similarly, authority to provide for reduction, waiver or refund of fees or charges is to be read into any authority to impose these charges. Powers and appointments form the subject of Part IV, and a new provision in this part is to the effect that the powers of a board, commission, committee or similar body, whether corporate or un-incorporate are not to be affected by any vacancy in membership, or by the fact that it is afterwards discovered that there was some defect in the appointment or qualification of a person purporting to be a member, or again that there was any minor irregularity in the convening of a meeting. Part V is concerned exclusively with the reprint of Acts and expands the existing provisions of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance. The provisions of this part lay the foundation for the next Revised Edition of the Laws of Singapore, for reprints often come in the vanguard of law revision. Parts VI and VII re-enact in the main the parallel provisions of the present Ordinance except for two new clauses. Clause 46 provides that any official act or service for which payment is required need not be performed until the fees are paid or the payment made for it; whilst clause 47 states that the general power of reduction, remission, or refund of any prescribed fee or charge in whole or in part is vested in the appropriate Minister. Finally, Mr Speaker, the Bill provides for the repeal of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance and for the cesser of application to Singapore of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, 1948, of Malaysia and the Modification of Laws (General Provisions)(Singapore) Order, 1964. 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 E. W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The re-registration of the population is of vital importance to independent Singapore. National registration was first introduced in 1948 as an emergency measure, but registration under that scheme was haphazardly done. The incorrect information and the perishable nature of the identity cards issued, and the deficiencies in the registration system have made the existing system most unsatisfactory. Forgery of identity cards has been rampant and these have been sold on a mass scale to illegal immigrants. Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the reasons for the Bill is to eradicate the forging of identity cards for sale to illegal immigrants who have imposed themselves on our social services. Since Singapore is now fighting for its survival and endeavouring to build a more prosperous and just society, it is only logical that the fruits of our endeavours should benefit only those who are right-fully entitled to them, namely, our citizens. In fact, the Singapore Government drew up a scheme as far back as 1961 for the re-registration of the population, but in anticipation of merger and Malaysia and in view of the fact that national registration would be a Federal subject, the scheme was not implemented. Here is another clear example of how the Federal Government had deliberately neglected the interests of Singapore when we were in Malaysia. For two years while we were in Malaysia, nothing had been done by the Central Government to implement the scheme; not even a single hint from their high officials. In the meantime, they themselves had initiated and completed a re-registration scheme in the Federation and issued everyone with a plastic identity card. They had treated Singapore like a step-child or a colony where they expected to harvest 40 per cent of our Federal revenue and did nothing. The new identity cards that will he issued on re-registration of the population will be laminated with heat-resistant plastic by means of a special process. This will ensure that the cards are forgery-proof, tamper-proof and water-proof. This is of the utmost importance because it is essential to our survival and prosperity. The two main objects of the Bill are set out in clauses 5 and 6. First, subject to certain exemptions which will he made by regulations, all lawful residents in Singapore above the age of 12 will have to be registered. Second, those who are in possession of existing identity cards issued under the provisions of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, 1955, will also have to be re-registered. For the dependants of foreign services personnel, separate administrative arrangements will have to be made with the respective foreign authorities. In the re-registration exercise, it is essential to distinguish citizens from non-citizens. It is, therefore, intended to issue two types of identity cards of different colours: one for citizens, and the other for non-citizens who are permanent residents. This will tie up with the Bill providing for the issue of work permits to non-citizens, the Second Reading of which I will move later. By a glance at the colour of the identity card, an employer will be able to know whether his workman is required to carry a work permit or not. In view of the special significance of an identity card issued to a Singapore citizen, every person who applies for such a card will have to provide adequate proof that he is a Singapore citizen by birth or by registration. In the case of a citizen by registration, a citizenship certificate must be produced. In the case of a person claiming to be a citizen by birth, a birth certificate or other evidence to substantiate his birth in Singapore must be produced, and the onus of proving such birth is on him. However, the evidence of a birth certificate without the name of the child or a birth certificate supported by only a Statutory Declaration to the effect that the person was born in Singapore, or an identity card which only states that the holder was born in Singapore will not necessarily be accepted as sufficient evidence of such birth. This provision is necessary, Sir, because in the past we have found many people who were not born in Singapore at all but using other people's unnamed birth certificates or those of dead persons claiming to be citizens by birth. However, we will be very tactful and considerate in the implementation of this provision, for we are aware that there are still many people in Singapore who are genuinely in possession of birth certificates without names. We will use every means to track down the forgers and the impostors, and will ensure that innocent people will not be unduly inconvenienced. For the innocent people, the re-registration will prove to be a great help in establishing their status as citizens by birth. In the past they may have encountered many difficulties when they apply for passports or for Housing Board flats or other social amenities where more stringent proof is required to establish their citizenship status. But if in the re-registration process they can prove once and for all that they are citizens by birth, then this fact will be written down on their identity cards which will serve as permanent documentary proof of their citizenship status on all future occasions. And in time to come they may even afford to discard their nameless and worthless birth certificates. It is intended to charge a citizen 50 cents and a non-citizen $1 for the issue of a new identity card, and for a replacement identity card a flat rate of $5 will be charged. However, in the case of school children and others such as persons receiving public assistance from the Social Welfare Department, provision will be made in the regulations to exempt them from these charges. Hon. Members will realise that re-registration will involve an expenditure of a large sum of money. The imposition of a charge on the new identity cards which are for the benefit of the people is, therefore, reasonable, for these identity cards will be their passport to prosperity and security and may last them for decades. The Bill also provides for the compulsory notification of change of residence within 14 days of such change. For the convenience of the public, facilities will be made available at police stations, post offices, and other disseminated centres where change of residence can be effected. Then there is the problem of how to keep the address on the identity card accurate. In many cases the addresses on the identity cards do not necessarily describe the places where the holders of the identity cards can be found. In the outlying areas, especially in kampongs and villages where road names and house numbers are not to be found, the address on the identity card may simply mean the address of a village coffeeshop which the holder frequently visits to collect his mail or sip his coffee. Then there is also the question of colloquial names of places. Some of our streets are named after colonial rulers in the past. Their names are so difficult to pronounce that local people soon have to resort to their own way of naming the place where they live. A person may come and tell you that he is staying at such and such a house number in Tai-poh. But Tai-poh may mean anywhere in Chinatown around the Kreta Ayer area. In order to secure accurate addresses, it is our intention to send out a few teams to survey the area and to visit every family before re-registration in any particular area is attempted. The family so visited will be issued with an appointment letter showing the date when they should visit the Registration Centre and the correct description of their address. Re-registration is understandably a massive exercise and must be carried out smoothly and efficiently with as little inconvenience to the public as possible. The work of re-registration will, therefore, be phased with school children and those in Government institutions like the Home for the Aged, and so on. They will be registered first, and the respective schools or institutions will be serviced by mobile teams. The next phase will embrace registration of workers in commercial and industrial undertakings with 20 or more persons at or near their places of work. On completion of these two phases, the third phase of re-registering the public will begin at registration centres which will be set up in various parts of the island. Mr Speaker, Sir, the re-registration exercise does not stop at just the issue of identity cards. The system devised will ensure the compilation of more up-to-date and reliable population statistics, and in due course will give each Singapore resident a number which will be used for all purposes in future. This is an essential requirement to meet the goal of a welfare State. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill tabled by the Minister for Labour can be considered to be a Bill which deserves the support of all, as it will protect the interests of the people of Singapore, and their livelihood will be enhanced. But I have a little doubt, and I am quite sure the people of Singapore are equally doubtful, and also the Members in this House, about the provisions of clause 12 of the Bill. Clause 12 of the Bill states that (a) birth certificates without names (b) birth certificates without names but supported by a statutory declaration and (c) cards issued under the Registration of Persons Ordinance, 1955, will not be sufficient proof that such holders were, in fact, born in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, this clause gives me grave concern, and I am quite sure to those who were actually born in Singapore and who are in possession of birth certificates without names, or those who have mislaid or lost their birth certificates. At one time such persons were informed by the authorities that there was no need for them to obtain citizenship papers as they were born in Singapore. However, when this Bill becomes law, such persons will no longer become Singapore citizens. Where do they stand, Mr Speaker, Sir? Although it has been explained by the Minister for Labour that in the implementation of the clause there will he flexibility in respect of those who are in possession of birth certificates without names, Mr Speaker, I still have my doubts because I fear that such persons will be disappointed. Mr Speaker, I agree that there have been forgeries or falsification of birth certificates without names. Nevertheless, I believe there will be many more persons who were genuinely born in Singapore but whose birth certificates did not state their names, and persons who lost or who cannot trace their birth certificates in the Registry of Births and Deaths. I myself do not know whether the Minister for Labour has a birth certificate with his name on it. This is because our forefathers felt that birth certificates would not be an important document in later years, for in their time birth certificates were not necessary at all. They paid very little attention to birth certificates. So, Mr Speaker, clause 12 will result in thousands of genuine Singapore citizens being deprived of citizenship because they cannot trace their certificates, or because their birth certificates do not have their names on them. And when their citizenship is deprived, they will suffer consequentially - deprivation of school facilities, social welfare aid, and such other facilities, while people who were born outside Singapore but obtained citizenship by registration could enjoy these benefits. In the circumstances, Mr Speaker, I hope the Minister for Labour will give further consideration to clause 12, so that we will not neglect our own citizens at the expense of outsiders, particularly the benefit in respect of paying school fees. As the Minister intends to charge a citizen 50 cents and a non-citizen $1 for the issue of a new identity card and $5 for a replacement, it is a burden to wage earners in the low income group who have many dependants of ages above 12 and such persons must be given free new identity cards. Through no fault of their own, they should not be charged $5 for a replacement but a nominal fee. And I suggest the issue of a new identity card should be free of charge. Mr Speaker, this clause will also cause concern and anxiety to many people in Singapore, particularly those in the low income group, and I hope the Minister will give due consideration to the matter. Some hon. Members rose ---

I see there are a number of Members who wish to speak. So I think this would be a convenient time to suspend. I suspend the sitting and will resume the Chair at twenty minutes to Six o'clock. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.08 p.m, until 5.40 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.40 p.m.

Debate resumed. 5.41 p.m. Mr S. V. Lingam (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to associate myself with the views which were expressed by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, and I only wish to add one or two points to what he has said. The Minister, when he was speaking on the Second Reading, said that when people register for plastic cards, it will cost them a dollar each and that if they lose them, the replacement cards will cost them $5 each.

I think he said 50 cents.

Sir, 50 cents for citizens and $1 for non-citizens. Mr Lingam: I am sorry, Sir, If a person is affected by a fire, flood or an accident, I do not think it is fair to charge him for a replacement card, because, if there should be a family consisting of about twelve persons, this will cost them a lot. Clause 12 (3) (b) of the Bill reads: `a birth certificate without the name of the child, but supported by a statutory declaration to the effect that the birth certificate refers to the birth of the persons referred to in the statutory declaration'. Sir, there are citizens of Singapore who have birth certificates without names. But their parents, if they are alive, can be asked to support their declarations for the purpose of re-registration and getting new plastic cards. The question of persons who have birth certificates together with statutory declarations made by their parents should also be looked into. I hope the Minister will look into these two points and make this re-registration as easy as possible for the people of Singapore. Mr S. Rajoo (Farrer Park)(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak on certain matters regarding clause 13 of this Bill. Provision is being made for registration, but certain birth certificates do not bear the names of children. Names may be omitted for certain reasons when births are registered. There are some children who seek employment after graduating from schools and they have to produce birth certificates. I know of an 18-year old boy who went to the Labour Exchange to get employment. He was about to get a job, but he was asked to produce his birth certificate. The certificate did not bear any name. He had an identity card issued by the Government with his photograph and name on it. But the Committee of Selection did not accept it; they just refused, because his name was not on his birth certificate. The reason for refusal was nothing else but just because the birth certificate had no name. If the parents of a child whose name is not on the birth certificate make a statutory declaration, and even if the Government refuses to accept the statutory declaration, then the position in such a case is that a minor citizenship can be obtained. But if, unfortunately, the parents are dead, the child is helpless. I would like to know then what will he the position in such a case? Under such circumstances, when a boy attains 21 years of age, he may apply for his own citizenship. But he may not get any opportunity of employment until he gets his citizenship. Therefore, his chances of life and employment are wasted by four years. In another case a boy has passed his Senior Cambridge examination. He applies for a Teacher-in-training post. He is rejected or asked to produce citizenship papers because his birth certificate does not bear his name. What happens in such a case is that when he applies for citizenship, he is given a period of six months or a year to finalise his citizenship certificate. He may get his citizenship a year later. But his chances of admission to the Teacher-in-training service for that year is lost. In cases of adoption, the problem becomes more complicated. Under the circumstances, the Government should try to get the official records of the schools in which such children were educated, because their names will be found there. If the name of the child, the statutory declaration and the nameless birth certificate tally with one another, he should he given opportunities in all fields of employment. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Mr Sia Kah Hui): Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to touch on clause 12. To a Chinese parent of the old school, the naming of a child is a very serious matter. One does not go about it lightly. He has to consult people and books and until he knows whether his child is a boy or a girl, he cannot go about naming it in advance. Very often, he waits until it is born and he takes quite a long time to think of a name that is considered suitable and respectable to the grandparents, and all the rest of it. There are all sorts of connections, even cousins and sisters; every link has to be considered. So it takes quite a long time. Not realising the importance of having a name recorded on a birth certificate, such a Chinese parent often takes no trouble to have his child's name registered. I think after a certain number of years, if a name is not registered in a birth certificate, you cannot have it done. So the chance is missed. Because of this, we know that there are a great number of people in Singapore who possess birth certificates without names. Clause 12 (3) says that a person with a birth certificate without the name of the child, but supported by a statutory declaration shall not necessarily be sufficient evidence for the purposes of sub-clause (1) . I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider a birth certificate without the name of the child, plus a statutory declaration plus a passport --- either a Singapore or a Malaysian passport --- as sufficient evidence for the purposes of sub-clause (1) . 5.52 p.m. Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson) (In Tamil): The Minister has announced that 50 cents and $1 will be collected for the issue of identity cards. There are certain people who receive public aid from the Social Welfare Department, and I wonder whether the Government will grant an exemption to them from paying these fees. They get $46 a month as public assistance for the family. If there are four members in the family, they have to pay -

Order. The Minister has said, I think in his Second Reading speech, that those who are on public assistance will not be charged any sum of money for their identity cards. Am I right, Mr Minister? Mr Jek Yeun Thong indicated assent. Mr Govindaswamy (In Tamil): But there are poor people who may be adversely affected; they may not be well off. If the Government is to collect $1 or 50 cents from them, they may not be able to afford it. Sometimes, the card may be lost and the stipulation is that they should pay $5. This will affect the poor people adversely. I request that adequate changes and modifications be made. 5.54 p.m. Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join my colleagues here who have made many suggestions and criticisms on the National Registration Bill. Clause 16 (3) reads as follows: `No woman shall be searched under this section except by a woman.' Mr Speaker, Sir, in order that there should be equality, I suggest that no man shall be searched under this section except by a man. Otherwise, Mr Speaker, it would be very embarrassing for a woman to search a man! 5.55 p.m. Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to be very brief. Is it the intention of the Government, as a protective measure, to countercheck the registration of citizenship by birth? Then there is no other way out but to accept the evidence of a birth certificate with the name of the child. But surely there are many ways whereby we can establish whether a claim is genuine, such as birth certificates with names of younger brothers or sisters showing the parents' names identical with those of the one who does not have his name on his certificate. I think that should also be accepted as sufficient evidence. 5.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to thank my colleagues and Back-benchers for offering very useful suggestions for the implementation of this Bill. I think many Members have some doubts on clause 12 which provides that a birth certificate without a name shall not necessarily be considered as sufficient evidence of birth. I think here the operative word is "necessarily", which gives the officials in the registration centres the discretionary power to decide whether a man who produces a birth certificate without a name is the holder of a genuine certificate belonging to him. I must inform the House that this clause is mainly devised to catch impostors and forgers. I think the officials in the centres will do everything they can to help the innocent people in possession of birth certificates without names to establish their citizenship status. In fact, in the long run, this will be of very good service to them. The Member for Farrer Park has cited the case of a boy who has a birth certificate without name and who is finding difficulty in getting a job. Not only that; I think he will also find difficulty when he grows up and tries to get a house or a passport, because the possession of a birth certificate without a name is not conclusive proof that the certificate belongs to him. So, in the re-registration process, if this boy can prove with all the relevant documents, once and for all, that he was really born in Singapore, then this will save him all further trouble. Then he will not be faced with the same problems in future when he applies for a job or a passport or a house or any other social amenities where very strict rules have to be followed in regard to citizenship status. In the long run, I think this re-registration will benefit these people. In the re-registration process, the officials will try to help the people to locate evidence. If a person has a birth certificate without a name, then we will try to help him to locate his brothers, parents and all other relevant documents to prove that he was really born in Singapore. This provision is necessary because of the widespread forgery in birth certificates. For instance, if a person in possession of a birth certificate without his name dies, then his relative will be able to sell this blank certificate to anyone; and if we do not have a provision in this law, then anyone can turn up with this blank certificate and claim that he is a citizen by birth. So this law is to discourage such illegal activities, and I think we will do everything to see that innocent people will not he inconvenienced. The Member for Aljunied has said that the replacement charge is a bit high for those people who, as a result of fire, flood, or other disasters, have lost their identity cards. So, this will put a very heavy burden on them, Therefore, I think in these cases, which are very exceptional and could he called an act of God, special consideration will have to be given. As to his suggestion that the living parents of a person having a birth certificate without name can make a statutory declaration to the effect that the child was born in Singapore, I think this is a good suggestion and, in fact, the practice has been followed in the Citizenship Registry. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health has asked whether a passport, plus a statutory declaration, plus a birth certificate without name, can be considered as conclusive proof of a citizen by birth. Well, I would say that if a person can produce enough relevant evidence like a passport and a State statutory declaration and a birth certificate without name, then this can be taken as conclusive proof of birth in Singapore. Some Members have said that the charge for the issue of an identity card to citizens at 50 cents and non-citizens at $1 is a bit on the high side. But I must point out that to issue this card costs the Government about 70 cents and the money that we are charging them is only a negligible amount as compared to the money that the Government has to spend to provide these plastic cards. We have to buy very expensive equipment from the United States and we also have to buy special plastics which can withstand very high temperature. All this costs a lot of money and this 50 cents or a dollar is only a nominal charge for them. And also considering that this card will last them for life, I think the charge of 50 cents or a dollar is comparatively cheap. 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. 6.13 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 - Mr Lim Cheng Lock (River Valley) rose ---

Are you just going to speak on the Bill? You cannot move an amendment, Mr Lim. If you are going to speak on clause 12 with a view to finding out certain things which are troubling you, you may do so. Mr Lim Cheng Lock: Yes. That is what I am going to do. Question proposed, "That clause 12 stand part of the Bill." Mr Lim Cheng Lock: Mr Speaker, Sir, the provision contained in clause 12 is going to affect many thousands of bona fide Singapore citizens who have birth certificates, but without names. Although the Minister has given the House an assurance that sub-clause (3) shall not necessarily be sufficient evidence for the purposes of sub-clause (1) and the officers in charge will be given discretion, I am afraid this will definitely open the door to corruption. I would like to seek the Minister's assurance that he will consider making special regulations, which I believe he is empowered to do in this Bill, for those citizens who were born here but who have no names on their birth certificates, and for special centres and special offices to deal with this category of persons.

Are there any other Members who wish to speak on this clause?

(In Malay): At the time when the Minister was moving the Second Reading of the Bill, he stated that it would not necessarily be evidence. As was stated by the Member for River Valley, this leaves the door open for corruption, because a person who has a blank certificate and who is able to gratify the officer responsible would be issued a plastic identity card by him, while those who are not in a position to gratify to satisfy him would be told that, according to law, the birth certificate could not be taken as conclusive evidence. So I would suggest that the Minister for Labour take particular care to see that nothing would happen, as mentioned by him when moving the Second Reading, since there are many forged identity cards being sold. If this matter is not looked into very carefully, then what he fears will happen. Mr Sia Kah Hui: I think it is a very good suggestion.

Just a minute. The interpretation is not over yet. Mr Sia Kah Hui: I think it is a very good suggestion by the Member for River Valley, that a special centre should be opened to cater specifically for people who have birth certificates without names. And to further assist these people, the Minister could issue a notice of some kind to members of the public that certain types of documents would be acceptable, and list them, something like what they have in the Immigration Department, when you apply for your aged parents to come or your wife or husband to come - they have this printed on the back of the application form. These documentary proofs must be produced before the case can be considered, so that cuts out possibilities of corruption. It means that everyone concerned knows that if he can produce certain documents, then he can satisfy all the requirements and his case will not be left to the whims and fancies of the officials concerned in this matter. Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, a little while ago the Member for River Valley suggested that a special registry should be set up to deal with applicants who have birth certificates without names on them; in other words, that they can go to such places to apply for identity cards. I have another suggestion. The suggestions by other Members are also good. 6.15 p.m. If such special registration offices are set up, people will be inclined to overlook the necessity to register the names of their children on the birth certificates, because they know that there is such a special registration office to suit their convenience. As far as I understand, the main reason why certain people have birth certificates without name is that their parents did not pay much attention to such practice. Only within this decade people tend to view birth certificates with more concern. So, if it is possible, the Minister may adopt some of the provisions used in dealing with people who have concubines to deal with such a situation as I have mentioned. For instance, we have a Women's Charter which provides legal protection for women. Now everybody can have but only one wife. What I mean to say is that because of past practice, there are some people whose birth certificates are without names. Is it possible not to re-register such people whose birth certificates are without names but who have sufficient documents to prove their claims? I would like to say that this is the time when everybody should know the importance of birth certificates, and if the parents overlook the importance of filling up the names of their children, then they have themselves to blame. Because if we set up special centres to register such people, then they will still be inclined to neglect the importance of having names on birth certificates. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to be a fence sitter on the subject here, but there are pros and cons in this matter. On the subject of birth certificates without names, I think earlier on the Member for Upper Serangoon and the Member for Delta have both dealt with it to a very considerable extent. I would like to point out that there is another instance where a man could come before any of the government officers and produce a birth certificate without his name and claim it as his own. In fact, there are cases like that. Some unfortunate children were lost in the war or perhaps they passed away during the Japanese occupation in Singapore. There were no proper records kept by the authorities on births and deaths. These certificates, without the names of the children, later on found a good market, particularly with illegal immigrants, and some other people who considered that it would be more convenient to buy blank birth certificates at, say. $200 each from the parents of the children who died during the Japanese occupation and treat them as their own. Therefore, clause 12 is intended to tighten up such loopholes. I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on one other matter, that is, there are persons with birth certificates without names, and yet their flames appear on the electoral register. This peculiar situation was created by the former Lim Yew Hock Government back in 1957. I would like to ask the Minister whether the fact that a person whose name appears on the electoral register and who at the same time has a birth certificate without his name on, but has no citizenship papers, could be regarded as having sufficient evidence to prove that he is a citizen of Singapore? As I said earlier, the provisions are intended to regularise the very peculiar position prevailing now. I do urge the Minister to see that no undue and unnecessary inconvenience is caused in cases which they consider to be genuine. Another point. Mr Speaker, is that when this Bill comes into effect, a person can he confronted by the authorities which say that the possession of a birth certificate without his name is not sufficient evidence to prove that he is a citizen of Singapore. It appears to me that there is no provision in the Bill to cover the interim period. In such a situation, a person applying for his registration card cannot prove that he is a citizen of Singapore, whether or not the status quo of the legal position of these people is maintained or recognised by the authorities. Mr Sia Kah Hui: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister. If I am not mistaken, I think the public generally assume that if their names are on the electoral registers, then they are Singapore citizens. I think probably that would be the impression of the public. Is it the intention of this Bill that those people whose names are on the electoral registers, but who cannot produce documentary evidence to prove that they are either citizens by birth or citizens by registration, will have their names removed from the electoral roll?

Mr Minister, in reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir,I have already said that this clause is not designed to catch innocent people. If it is so, then I am afraid quite a number of us here will he caught by this Bill, and found without citizenship status. I, myself, am in possession of a certificate with a different name. The peculiar custom of our people here is that when a father is blessed with a child, he cannot know first whether it will be a boy or a girl. If it is a boy, he has to give him a boy's name, and if it is a girl, he has to give her a girl's name. After it is known that it is a boy, the whole family becomes excited. So, for a period, no name is given to him. Temporarily he will be called "Ali Kow" or by some other name. When the midwife calls, they just give his nickname. When he grows up, they find it rather awkward for him to carry on still with the old nickname which describes him as a pig, a cow or a dog. So he has to change his nickname to a proper name. Quite a lot of our citizens here, although they were genuinely born in Singapore, are either in possession of birth certificates without names or with different names. The officials in charge of registration will have to be very careful in weighing the pros and cons of each case. Some Members have suggested that special centres should be set up, to deal with these certificates without names. I think this is a very good suggestion. If this is to be carried out, I think one centre will not be enough, considering the large number of persons without names on their birth certificates. This is a good suggestion and it will be passed on to the officials in charge of registration for them to make recommendations. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health has asked whether applicants of new identity cards should be asked to produce any type of document. I would say yes, because clause 19 provides power for the Minister to make regulations, and among the subjects under clause 19 (2) (c) is "the nature of information and documents to be furnished for the purposes of registration". I would say, when the re-registration campaign is started, a complete set of regulations will be published informing the people about the type of documents they have to bring with them to the centres. 6.30 p.m. As to the remarks about the electoral rolls, some people have birth certificates without names, but their names appear in the electoral rolls and they have voted in several elections and the Referendum. This is because our electoral rolls were compiled in accordance with the counterfoils of our existing identity cards. When we issued identity cards in 1948, no proof was required to substantiate the claim that a person was born in Singapore. In those days there was no citizenship and the people did not pay much importance to citizenship papers; that was when we were still under colonial rule. In those days, the official just took the word of the applicants for granted. If they said that they were born in Singapore, the officials just put down on their identity cards that they were born in Singapore. If they said that they were born in China, then the identity cards would show that they were born in China. Because of this, our electoral rolls are actually not very accurate, as they were compiled according to the counterfoils of these identity cards. In future when we have completed our re-registration campaign, if we find that some persons with identity cards show that they were born in Singapore, but if we can prove that they were not born in Singapore, then I am afraid their names will have to be struck off the electoral rolls unless they apply for citizenship under registration. Otherwise it would not be fair to put the person who is not a citizen on the electoral roll. I think that is all I have got to say.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 13 to 20 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 6.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, we are all aware that the influx of people from Malaya has been on the increase. The majority of them have come with nothing other than their bare hands and hungry stomachs, because their Ministers have not done anything to improve their lot in the Federation. In 1964, we had a net increase of some 10,000 Malayans. In the first ten months of 1965, we saw a further increase of some 10,000 more. The Prime Minister of Malaysia, in answer to a question in his own Parliament, said that there were 800 families from Singapore who had applied to go to Johore to open up the jungle. This is not a true statement of fact, Sir. The figures in our Registry of Persons show that from August to November this year 6,319 Malayans came down to Singapore as against 423 Singaporeans going up to the Federation in the same period. I do not think these 423 Singaporeans have gone to Johore to open up the jungle. I suspect they were managerial staff or skilled labourers of Singapore commercial firms on transfer to the Federation. In November alone 2,320 Malayans came down to Singapore as against only 78 Singaporeans going up to the Federation. Nobody in his sound mind would abandon the comfort of city life and go into the wilderness unless he is driven to it. But we are not driving away any of our citizens to the jungle. In fact, some of the Singapore U.M.N.O. members have accused the Government of forcing the people to evacuate their slums in the kampongs and putting them into flats which are the products of modern civilisation. Hitherto, we have freely allowed workers from Malaya to come to Singapore to seek employment, because, before us, there was a golden avenue to economic union and a Common Market. But the prospects dimmed and gradually disappeared because of the policy of the Government of Malaysia to isolate Singapore and pressurise her into economic subjugation. Since their Government is not SO friendly to our people and tries to stifle our industrial growth, why should we make our amenities available to their people? We can no longer allow the Federation Ministers to dump their unemployed into Singapore at the expense of our citizens. They must be made to do some work and face reality. Nor can we allow non-citizens without skill to impose themselves on our educational, medical, housing and other social facilities and amenities. These we have provided at enormous cost for the benefit of our workers in order to bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots, thereby building a just and equal society. It is with considerable reluctance that the Government has decided to introduce this Bill to provide some measure of control. If such a decision is not taken, the standard of living now enjoyed by our workers will be seriously affected. Our economic and social burdens will become unmanageable, and our attempt to build a more just and equal society will he nullified. Sir, the intention of the Bill is not to bar all non-citizens from employment. Under it, all non-citizens, whether they are seeking employment or are already in employment at a basic salary of not more than $750 a month, will he required to obtain work permits. For practical application and administrative convenience, this rate of pay is considered to be sufficient to cover all workers in the unskilled and semi-skilled categories for the purpose of regulating their employment. Control will only be exercised at the point of recruitment, because it is our intention not to impair the free movement of persons between Singapore and Malaya. Work permits will be freely issued to non-citizens who have special training, skills and qualifications. In fact, we will welcome them because there are ample employment opportunities for skilled workers and professional persons who can contribute substantially to our economic development. But work permits will not be issued to incoming non-citizens in the unskilled and semi-skilled categories. Mr Speaker, Sir, I must assure the House that the enforcement of the Bill will not give rise to adverse repercussions. Non-citizens already in employment for some considerable time will not be displaced. They will be issued with work permits so that they may continue in employment even though they do not possess the required skills. Allow me to elaborate a little on the basis on which work permits will be issued. All non-citizens who have been in employment before the 1st of June, 1961, will be issued with work permits liberally, whilst those employees who began employment between 1st June, 1961, and 16th September, 1963, will be given sympathetic consideration if they are married and their wives are permanent residents of Singapore. Those employed after 16th of September, 1963, but before 9th of August, 1965, will also be given the same consideration if, in addition to satisfying these two conditions, they have children who are permanent residents of Singapore. Special consideration will also he given to non-citizens who are permanent residents and already in employment if they are children of Singapore citizens, or whose children are Singapore citizens. It must be remembered, however, that each application will be considered on its own merits and that while we may issue work permits to non-citizens already in employment, we cannot promise that they may be issued with work permits again if they fall unemployed subsequently. I must stress that work permits will not be issued to recent arrivals with no family roots in Singapore, including those who have been in employment since 9th of August, 1965, unless they possess special skills. The provision of this Bill can only reduce the pressure of population from Malaysia. With Singapore serving as a beacon for a high standard of living and an equal and just society in the dark sea of a feudal, corrupt and unjust society, I feel that people will continue to gravitate towards Singapore. There is nothing we can do about it. Our next step will be to strengthen the various licensing authorities, like the Hawkers Department and the Registry of Vehicles, so that our streets will not be choked with hawkers and pirate-taxis from the Federation. The main object, of course, is not to drive the people back, but to stop a future influx. These measures may, in the long run, have beneficial effects on the people of the Federation, for once we make them realise that they cannot escape from their cruel reality by taking a trip to Singapore, they will stay put and rally more people to fight for a better life in the Federation. This will shake the whole structure of the existing social system and spark off a revolutionary wind of change and, in the end, the common people who are true Malaysians in heart will emerge victorious. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 6.47 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, on the whole, this Bill is good for the people of Singapore. It will mean more employment to the people of Singapore. I merely wish to touch a little on what has been explained by the Minister just now. Non-citizens who are already in employment will be issued with work permits. Those who were employed before 1963 will he given sympathetic consideration. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, I fear that with regard to those already in employment before 1st June, 1961, employers will misuse the provisions of this Bill by terminating the services of those who are non-citizens of Singapore before 1st June, 1961. This will give an opportunity to employers to retrench workers because, according to clause 7, workers who have been retrenched because of their work permits being withdrawn cannot, or the unions cannot, negotiate with the employers on this matter. This is in clause 7 (3) (a), (b), (c) and (d). Under clause 7 (3) (a), the union cannot represent such category of workers and negotiate with the employers. No action can be taken by such trade unions. Under sub-clause (d), the matter cannot he discussed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Since this Government is a pro-labour Government and it has an Industrial Relations Ordinance, I hope the Minister for Labour can enlighten me further in respect of non-citizens who are already in employment before 1st June, 1961, so that they will not become the victims of those employers who are anti-union.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong, in reply. 6.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our first responsibility is to our citizens. For those who are non-citizens but who have been resident in Singapore for quite some time - not after Malaysia but long before Malaysia - then the scheme here will provide that they be issued with work permits liberally. For those who were already in employment before 1st June, 1961, they will be eligible for work permits and will be allowed to keep their employment. The Member for Kampong Kembangan has alleged that an employer may try to exploit the workers by abusing the provisions in this Bill. In such a case, I think inspectors of the Labour Ministry will have to keep an eye on such employers. This will clear the doubts of the hon. Member. As to the disability of the union to take up the case for dispute of a worker who is dismissed because he is not issued with a work permit by the Government, I think this restrictive provision is necessary. Because if this Bill is enforced, there may be some cases where the Commissioner for Employment is unable to issue a worker with a work permit, and in such cases the employer, under the provisions of this Bill, will have to dismiss the worker, if we allow trade unions to take up these cases for dispute, then there will be disputes all over Singapore. This situation will not contribute to the stability of our economy, and I think it is most undesirable. So because of the possibility of such a situation arising, we have to put in this Bill the provision that trade unions cannot either take up the case of a worker who is dismissed because he was not issued with a work permit, or bring it up before the Arbitration Court under the provisions of the industrial Relations Ordinance. This provision is necessary to safeguard the peace in our industrial field; otherwise if the Government decides to cancel the work permits of workers in several firms, we will have widespread strikes all over Singapore. Therefore, if we are to enforce this Bill and the measures provided in it, it is necessary that we have to make such a provision.

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.

Mr Minister, will you move the adjournment of the House?

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn." - [Mr Jek Yeun Thong]. Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes to Seven o'clock p.m.