Hansard, 1967-03-13

I have been informed by the President that, on the day stated, he assented to the following Bill:- 3rd March, 1967 Development Loan Bill. (P.COOMARASWAMY) Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

31 p.m. Mr Ang Nam Piau (Thomson) made an Affirmation of Allegiance.

asked the Minister for Education (a) what mini-mum number of pupils who wish to study Tamil there must be in any particular non-Tamil medium secondary school before a visiting teacher to teach Tamil as a secondary language is sent to that school; (b) whether at present, a visiting Tamil teacher visits each such school where there is that required minimum number; and (c) what provision is made and the manner in which children who cannot receive secondary language instruction in secondary schools they attend due to inadequate numbers are kept occupied in those periods when other children in their respective classes are receiving instruction in the other second languages.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a general rule, a full-time teacher is posted to a secondary school to teach Tamil as a secondary language if there are at least four classes of 15 pupils each, or 60 pupils in all, who require instruction in that subject. In such a situation, the school will have 15 periods of Tamil a week, the minimum number to warrant the posting of a full-time teacher. In practice, the rule is not rigidly enforced and the Ministry will post a full-time teacher to a school even where there are fewer than four classes, or where some of the classes have fewer than 15 pupils each, so long as there are no less than 15 periods of Tamil on the time-table. If a group of schools in the same vicinity jointly satisfy the minimum requirements and if their time-tables can be arranged to suit, a visiting Tamil teacher is sent to serve the group. At present , there are three secondary schools which satisfy the minimum requirements and have full-time Tamil teachers on their staff. They are Raffles Institution, Naval Base Full School and Pasir Panjang Secondary School. In secondary schools which do not qualify for a full-time or a visiting Tamil teachers, pupils who wish to study Tamil as a second language can do so at any one of the 18 Tamil language centres: nine functioning in the morning and the other nine in the afternoon. Each centre is located in a secondary school to serve a group of other secondary schools in the same neighbour-hood. Pupils are free to attend the centre serving their own school or another centre which may be nearer their home. Pupils who do not receive instruction in the second language of their choice in school during the second language periods are encouraged to study as a non-examination subject whatever second language is taught during such periods. Those who prefer to spend such periods preparing for other subjects may do so, and supervision is provided wherever possible.

asked the Minister for Health when he wil1l start an Industrial Health Service in view of the rapid expansion of industries in our Nation.

In keeping with our rapidly industrialising society, the Ministry of Health has already taken initial steps to establish an Industrial Health Service in Singapore. In April last year, a Health Officer, already holding a Diploma in Public Health, returned from the United Kingdom after successfully completing one year's training in Industrial Health and obtaining the postgraduate Diploma in industrial Health. At present, two officers with civil engineering qualifications are being trained in the United Kingdom in postgraduate Public Health Engineering course and, on their return later this year, will cover the engineering aspects of industrial health. Also the Chemistry Division of the Ministry has been granted a Fellowship in the United Kingdom this year under the Colombo Plan for a chemist to study air pollution, trade waste analysis and microbiological assays to complement the new industrial health service that is to be established. Liaison is also being maintained at present with the Factories Inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour through the Environmental Health Branch of the Ministry in making available the Health Officer with the Diploma in Industrial Health on a part-time basis to advise on medical aspects of factories inspection. Furthermore, two consultants, one from the World Health Organisation and the other from the international Labour Organisation, are due to arrive in Singapore this year to advise Government on the proposed pattern of development of industrial health; in particular, how the specialised aspects of industrial health should be organised and developed. Only when more staff are being trained in the different aspects of industrial health can a full-fledged industrial Health Service be brought into being, and every effort is being made to bring this about as soon as possible.

asked the Minister for Health if he is satisfied with the supervision exercised over the contract workmen who clean drains at Kampong Chia Heng as the drains there are choked with rubbish and the environmental conditions are not conducive to the health of the residents in that Kampong.

It is admitted that there was no supervision of contract workmen last month (February 1967) who were responsible for the cleansing and desilting of the large anti-malarial drain which runs through Kampong Chia Heng off Thomson Road, near the junction with Newton Road. There were two main reasons for this lack of supervision. Firstly, there was an unfortunate delay of one month in the award of the tender to Poh Construction Co., which should have been made with effect from the 1st of January, 1967, but was not finalised till the 1st of February, 1967, thus resulting in the accumulation of silt, etc. for one month. Secondly, because of the three-day wild-cat strike by the Public Daily-Rated Cleansing Workers' Union on the 1st of February, 1967, the supervisory staff of the Public Cleansing Department had their hands full in pursuing with re-organisation of the Public Cleansing Service, and were therefore not in the position to supervise the contract workmen for this and other drains, but supervisory work commenced with effect from the 1st of March this year. The backlog of silt in the anti-malarial drain passing through Kampong Chia Heng has since been removed, and I can assure the Member for Moulmein that there are adequate provisions in the tender contracts to penalise contractors for unsatisfactory work. In clause 13 of the contract, the Ministry has the power to request the contractor to increase his work force within 24 hours and to deal with any complaint without extra claim on the Ministry, and if this is not rectified within seven days, the Ministry can deal with the matter and bill the contractor for the extra cost involved. And in clause 35, if work is still unsatisfactory, the Ministry has the power to make deductions against monthly dues.

asked the Minister for Finance how many Government pensioners there are in Singapore and whether their pensions are assessed to be sufficient to see them through their daily needs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the total number of Government pensioners at present is 8,710. Of these, 3,035 are living in Singapore. The amount which a pensioner will receive on retirement depends on his length of service and his last drawn salary. The maximum which an officer may receive as pension is equal to two-thirds of his last drawn salary. To qualify for this, he will have to complete a length of service of 33 1/3 years. Since most Government officers join the civil service for a career, most officers will, on retirement, have completed a length of service fairly close to the number necessary to qualify for the maximum. The question of whether such pension is sufficient to see a pensioner through his daily needs can best be assessed by comparing his income and commitments before and after his retirement. A serving officer will have to meet from his salary his personal expenditure, the expenditure of his family, and to have a small saving. After retirement, his personal expenditure should fall. His family expenditure should also fall since some, if not all his children would by then be grown up and be no longer dependent on him. He is not expected to save from his pension. Thus, his expenditure should fall by at least one-third or more. As already explained, his income on retirement will be reduced by about one-third. Since this fall is matched by a corresponding fall in his expenditure, a pensioner is expected to be no worse off than before his retirement. There are some officers who opt to commute a quarter of their pension for a lump sum payment as gratuity on retirement. In such cases, the amount of pension payable will be reduced by a quarter. The reduced amount payable monthly will then be about half his last drawn salary. This may then be found insufficient. Officers who require a higher monthly income from their pension, therefore, should not opt for a gratuity. The choice is theirs.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he will take steps to improve the rendering in Chinese of the names of certain roads and streets as shown on the street name-boards.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a general rule, it is desirable to avoid translations into various languages as both literal and phonetic translations are often misleading. The practice since 1961 has been to give names in Roman characters to avoid complications in finding houses or premises. There are instances where, through usage, the name of a street in Chinese is quite unrelated to the version in English. It would, therefore, be desirable to allow the community to use such names as become familiar through practice rather than to provide for literal and phonetic translations. If the hon. Member has any specific suggestions as to the rendering in Chinese of particular roads, these would be considered.

May I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance is aware that the literal translation of "Raffles Place" is Raffles being abusive or impolite, and also whether he is taking steps to have that remedied?

I do not know the Chinese Language, Sir.

A further supplementary question, Sir. Now that I have informed the Parliamentary Secretary that the literal translation of "Raffles Place" does mean Raffles being impolite or being abusive - "Lai fu si Buli", "Buli" meaning "impolite" - will he now consider taking steps to remedy the situation?

We will look into it.

asked the Minister for Labour to give the numbers, up to the latest convenient date, of persons (a) who have applied for work permits: (b) who have been given work permits: (c) whose applications for work permits have been rejected; and (d) whose applications were still under consideration on that date.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I have been asked by the Minister to reply. As at the 28th February this year, the total number of persons who had applied for work permits was 77,249. The total number of persons who had been given work permits was 57,223. The total number of applications rejected was 5,908. The total number of applications still under consideration was 1,837.

2.49 p.m.

"to amend the Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance (Chapter 214 of the Revised Edition)". presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Lim Kim San); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to provide for the incorporation of the Ngee Ann College and for matters connected therewith", presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Ong Pang Boon); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Under the existing Undesirable Publications Ordinance (Chapter 124) there are two major aspects in the control of undesirable publications of various nature. The first is that of banning these undesirable publications under section 3, and the second, that of detaining these under sections 10 and 11. Concerning the first aspect, that of banning, the existing Ordinance does not provide for effective control of these undesirable publications in that by the time the action of banning such publications is being effected by Gazette Notification, numerous copies of such publications could have been sold or distributed. In addition, no provision is made for an effective means of curbing the sale of undesirable publications in the many roadside stalls which channel these publications to members of the public, and there is no way of checking the printing machines which produce, quite easily and under cover, undesirable publications from time to time. Concerning the second aspect, that of detention under the existing Ordinance, this can only be effected at the Customs, post offices, airport and other check points where importers have to declare their consignments of publications and produce samples for examination before their sale to the public. But in some cases such publications are not declared and are intercepted at the check points, as a result of our random examination. These are detained. There is, however, no provision in the Ordinance to detain undesirable publications which have evaded these check points or smuggled into the Republic through the Causeway or other clandestine channels. We have no power to detain these if they are found on sale in the Republic. To cope with this situation, clause 12 is introduced. This is the new and only significant amendment made to the existing Ordinance. This reads: `(1) A Controller may authorise any police officer not below the rank of Inspector to enter and search any premises or place where he has reasonable cause to believe any publication prejudicial to public safety or public interest in Singapore is likely to be found, and to seize such publication so found. (2) A Controller may detain such publication for so long as he deems necessary and may in his absolute discretion destroy or cause to be destroyed such publication so detained.' The Undesirable Publications Ordinance is repealed and is re-enacted with the amendments to make it more tidy, in view of the many amendments effected in the past. I wish to assure the House that the Government will operate this new authority with the greatest responsibility and discretion. There is provision for any aggrieved person or persons to appeal against such act to the Minister under section 15 of this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, when he introduced the Undesirable Publications Bill, whether he has noticed that in Singapore there is another kind of publication based on profit-making, and profit-making alone. Because of this, these publishers are doing business with very undesirable motives. They resort to all sorts of names to canvass for advertisements from various commercial houses. After the advertisements have been canvassed, there are only enough copies of the publications for distribution among the advertisers. Members of the public, including the Minister himself, will not be able to read such publications. This kind of publication is often used to deceive businessmen in Singapore and to swindle them of their money. So if there is no provision in this Bill to restrict or control such illegal or unlawful activities, then those who are desirous of advertising in good publications will meet with sonic trouble in future and will hesitate to advertise. I do not know whether the Minister has paid any attention to this matter.

In the past few years, there have, in fact, been some advertisements published particularly in certain Chinese newspapers under different headings, such as "Love", "How to Make Love" ---- write to Box No. so and so at certain addresses. The advertisements are in small size - at $5 or $8 per square inch or so. I wonder if the Minister has taken any steps to do anything about it.

Mr Speaker. Sir, legislation in the field of censorship is notoriously difficult, and so is the administration of the law. This is partly because no community is ever reasonably unanimous as to what it requires in the way of censorship, whether political or moral. The degree of frankness allowed in literature varies from place to place, from decade to decade, .and from person to person. I am particularly concerned here with publications classified as undesirable on moral grounds. However well laws against such publications, that is, obscene or pornographic publications, may be framed, they will always be open to abuse by reactionary authoritarianism, fanatical puritanism, official stupidity, and sensationalism of the Press. In the field of films, there is a safeguard against such abuses, as there is a Film Appeals Committee which can review, on appeal, films banned or cut by the Film Censor. But for books there is no Board of Appeal, although this Bill allows for an appeal to be made against the decision of the Controller of Publications to the Minister. The opportunity should now be taken to review and improve the legislation so that the final decision is not left to one man, but can be made by a Board of Appeal which should take into account particularly the special needs of libraries or restricted classes of persons who need to have available certain publications in the interest of scholarship or research. I, therefore, propose that a Board of Appeal be set up to review, on appeal, publications which have been declared morally undesirable by the Controller of Publications. It may also be advisable to give the Board power to review the categories of undesirable publications, that is, whether they are undesirable on political or on moral grounds. I shall say more about the constitution of this Board when we come to the Committee stage on clause 15 of the Bill. As far as legal liability goes, publishers are primarily responsible for the matter and the manner of publications. Printers, authors and booksellers should, therefore, be relieved of responsibility for undesirable publications. Booksellers cannot be expected to read all they sell, nor are they necessarily qualified to assess the legal propriety of a book, and they should only be penalised if they conduct their business in a way calculated to make a salacious appeal. Any form of censorship must take into account the fact that it is generally unwise to make publications attractive by labelling them forbidden fruit. As standards of education and discrimination rise, society itself would shun pornography and obscenity in publications which have no merit but sell in quantity.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have already given my views in Parliament on an earlier Bill on the subject of society. I am also of the opinion that this Undesirable Publications Bill is belated. The reason for my saying so is that undesirable events had already occurred in 1964. We have made this announcement so that our people can live in peace and can make progress. We know there are publications which are trying to destroy the unity of the people. I do not wish to identify these publications as we already know them. The reports in these publications are not truthful and are designed to mislead their readers. This misrepresentation may lead to the readers having no faith in them. If this Bill had been submitted before 1964, I believe the undesirable incidents which occurred in 1964 would not have taken place. Mr Speaker, I gave my views on this subject when we debated on the Budget. The reports or articles in these publications are not true. We do not wish them to be misrepresented or twisted so that the people may be misled and thus a misunderstanding can arise. It is our duty to safeguard the well-being of our people. Therefore, every article that is published must be truthful in order to bring about healthy and constructive criticisms from the people for the progress of our own country. Finally, I congratulate the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs on the introduction of this Bill. With the stringent control exercised by this Bill, our people will be able to read articles which can bring about healthy and constructive criticisms in the interests of our country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Member for Choa Chu Kang for his suggestions and observations on the Bill. As you are aware, Sir, in the original Undesirable Publications Ordinance, the appeal was to the Minister and it is not our intention to change it otherwise. In other Ordinances, such as the Immigration Ordinance, the Women's Charter, the Women's and Girls' Protection Ordinance, the appeal is to the Minister and not to the court. There are, of course, Boards that make the final decision without further reference to the court, for example, the decision of the Committee of Appeal under the Cinematograph Films Ordinance. That is the final authority, after which there is no further appeal to the Minister. The Undesirable Publications Ordinance is different. As in the case of films, all the members of the Appeal Committee can view the film at the same time, but in the case of publications. Each member of the Appeal Committee must go through the book individually. This will result in long delays which are not desirable. We are setting up a Committee to advise the Minister on whether certain books should be banned, and this should serve the purpose. It is proposed that the committee should comprise five persons who are experts. When it operates, I can assure the hon. Member for Choa Chu Kang that it will look into and consider the suggestions he has made. I would also like to inform him that great literary classics are never banned, even if they are on sex. Current foreign books, if they are published by reputable firms and are acknowledged by literary critics, are also not banned. Sir, books on birth control are not banned, as the Ministry of Culture itself prints such books for the Public Health Division of the Ministry of Health and the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board for free distribution to the public. Nude pictures, if they are in photographic art books or in paintings, are never banned if they are real works of art and are not calculated to show nudity in its vulgar form with the intention to corrupt the minds of the young. As regards the National Library and the University Library, banned books are available there and are released to academic personnel for research and other purposes subject to certain safeguards. Such books are also available in the Registry of Publications of the Ministry for the use of such people on application. On the questions raised by the Member for Bukit Merah and the Member for Tampines, we have so far not received any complaints on the subject. If more facts are available, we will, of course, look into them. As for the comments made by the Member for Kampong Kapor, my answer is, it is better late than never.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Inche Othman Wok]. Bill considered in Committee.

3.14 p.m. Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. 3.15 p.m. Clause 6 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 42, to leave out "Customs Officer" and insert "Assistant Superintendent of Customs and Excise". Sir, the titles of "Customs Officer" and "Revenue Officer" in the Customs Ordinance, 1960, were changed to "Assistant Superintendent of Customs and Excise" and "Customs Officer" respectively. As the rank of "Customs Officer" is the lowest in the Customs service, the expression "below the rank of Customs Officer" appearing in clause 6 (1) (b) of the Undesirable Publications Bill is obviously incorrect. The amendment substitutes "Assistant Superintendent of Customs and Excise" for "Customs Officer" as there is no other rank lower than "Customs Officer". Amendment agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 15 - Question proposed, "That clause 15 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to note that the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs is appointing a board to advise him when appeals are made to him regarding the banning and detention of books. Perhaps he would like to put forward, for the consideration and guidance of this board, certain fundamental principles in deciding whether or not a book which has been banned on moral grounds should continue to be banned. While I realise the force of the argument in leaving the final decision to the Minister where publications are banned on political grounds, there is a lot to be said, where publications are banned on moral grounds, for the final decision to be made by a board of appeal. Perhaps the Minister would reconsider his decision and, if possible, at this late hour, amend the Bill. I think the board - be it an appeals board or just a board to advise the Minister - should take into consideration:-

I will be happy to forward the suggestions to the committee.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.24 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact with certain amendments section 23 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955. As stated in the Explanatory Statement, the main object of the Bill is to make it unlawful for any workmen engaged in the very important essential services, namely, water, gas and electricity services, to go on strike at all, and similarly for the employer to lock-out any workmen engaged in these services. The prohibition by itself would appear to hon. Members to be a drastic step in curtailing the rights of trade unions to go on strike, but recent experience has made it necessary for the Government to take positive measures to ensure that the public are not held to ransom by a few irresponsible elements. Hon. Members will recall that in 1961, when the workers in the public utility services went on strike, British and Singapore Army technicians had to be brought in to man the essential services, as any failure in the water, electricity and gas supplies would not only mean a serious breakdown in the essentials of life, but also result in dangerous and serious damage to public property. The inexpert handling of electrical machinery and water pumping equipment and explosions by air getting into the gas main can cause extensive damage and havoc to the community. Further, a strike in these essential services would mean that the overall economic situation of Singapore and its economic future would be jeopardised. No government can allow any section of the population to cause such serious and irreparable damage to the country. As these services are part of the vital services of the country, no strikes will be permitted in these areas which are already designated as protected places under the security laws of Singapore. For a strike must mean that the Government has to use troops to carry out the duties of these workers, which would, in fact, mean the assumption of powers to break a strike through the use of uniformed personnel. Members will agree that this is highly undesirable. Government is not unsympathetic to the genuine grievances of the workers and, therefore, any future disputes in the public utility services will be resolved by the established machinery of negotiation, conciliation and arbitration under our industrial relations laws. Another special feature of the Bill is that no strike or lock-out shall take place in respect of the other essential services, unless a notice is given at least 14 days before such strike or lock-out, and such notice will expire at the end of 30 days from the date of the notice. The existing provisions in the law are not clear in regard to the notice period and the proposed amendments clarify the position. As stated in the Explanatory Statement, the proposed amendments provide that no strike or lock-out shall take place before the date of the strike or lock-out specified in the notice or during the pendency of certain proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960. Further, the penalties for offences under sections 26, 27 and 28 of the Ordinance have been increased and made uniform in line with the other Ordinances. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.28 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, by this Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill which has been submitted to Parliament today, I observe that the rights of the trade unionists have been eroded by the pro-labour government. Before the present ruling Party came to power, we, together with the trade union movement, struggled to put up a pro-labour government. As a result of our common struggle, we were successful. During the 1959 administration, with the support of the trade union movement, including that of the nationalist trade union movement, we managed to isolate the pro-Communist trade union movement. The members of the nationalist pro-labour movement are those who work in the Public Utilities Board and who have struggled hard to isolate the front-line trade union movement. But now, Mr Speaker, the workers of the P.U.B, are not permitted to go on strike when this Bill becomes law. I know the difficulties faced by the Government in their responsibility towards the people when essential workers go on strike, because they are responsible for the well-being and livelihood of the people. On the other hand, I do not think that the P.U.B, workers will go on strike on a matter which is not serious. If it is on a minor matter, I feel sure they will be prepared to come to a compromise rather than go on strike. But if it is a serious matter, the Government has power to refer it to the industrial Arbitration Court which will give its findings, in this honourable way, strikes can be avoided and this amendment to deter P.U.B. workers from going on strike is not necessary. Mr Speaker, Sir, some time ago the Singapore Telephone Board was confronted with a strike by the Union because the employers refused to negotiate with the Union on its claims for better wages and conditions of service. But before the 14 days' notice of strike expired, the Minister for Labour referred the matter to the Industrial Arbitration Court in order to prevent a strike from taking place. If he could avert a strike by the employees of the Singapore Telephone Board, which is discharging an essential service, I do not see why the Minister of Defence requires these amendments to prevent the essential workers of the P.U.B. from going on strike.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill proposes to amend, among other things, section 23 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955, by stipulating that no workman employed in the water services, gas services and electricity services shall go on strike or be locked out. The Government also, by Gazette Notification, require workers who are employed in banking services, broadcasting and television services, public bus transport and air services, to give 14 days' notice before they can go on strike. Up to now, there has been no such Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, I contend that such an amendment is uncalled for in view of the adequacy of the existing law which provides the Government with the right to refer trade disputes to arbitration if strike action in these services harms the interest of the community. It is appreciated that the employer of all the workers engaged in the water services, gas services and electricity services is the Public Utilities Board, which is a statutory Board, and which is subject to public control. It may be the argument of the Government, in advocating the abolition of strikes in these three essential services, that the employer of the workmen engaged therein is not likely to exploit the workers who are so rendered defenceless. While I do agree that this House possesses the means of ensuring that the employer of the workmen, from whom the right to strike is taken away, does not take unfair advantage of the situation, the fact remains that the right to strike has in the past served as a psychological deterrent to the Board and its senior employees from being too complacent in their dealings with their employees. While the Government may justify its proposal by claiming that the right to strike has been abused and exercised irresponsibly by workers in the three said services, this by itself is no justification for the total ban on strike by the workers in such services, if the Government is really concerned with the possibility that in the future, if it were not for such proposed ban on strike, the right to strike would be abused or be irresponsibly exercised by the workers in the three services, such a fear on the part of the Government is adequately safeguarded by the relevant provisions of the Trade Disputes Ordinance of 1960; section 3 (1) thereof reads as follows: `A strike shall be illegal if -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the amendment Bill which mainly seeks to prevent any employees from going on strike in the essential services or any employer from locking out the workers. If the workers of essential services have any disputes, they must give 14 days' notice of any industrial action to be taken. No lightning strike or lock-out will be allowed. The essential departments, such as the Water Department, the Gas Department and the Electricity Department of the P.U.B., are very important to the people. So it is necessary to have these provisions set out in the amendment Bill, as these essential services must be manned and maintained continuously because they are essential to the lively-hood of the people and the maintenance of the activities of the industrial and commercial sectors. They are important to the two million people of Singapore. So both the management and employees must not take any reckless action against the interests of the nation. I am also in support of the punishment to be meted out to those who have contravened the provisions of this amendment Bill. It is only in this way that we can ensure the enforcement of this Bill which is beneficial to the interests of the nation as a whole. I do not think there is any provision in the Bill that is against the policy of the Government, which is industrial peace with justice, and it does not cast any doubt on the sincerity of the Government as a fair and just employer and that it is a pro-labour government. If a worker wants to go on strike, he should give 14 days' notice. This does not negative his right to go on strike. One must be very clear about this. Therefore, whatever chaos that may arise out of a lightning strike will affect the whole nation. It is something like pulling one hair and your whole body will quiver. So I feel that the introduction of this Bill is not a measure aimed at suppressing the workers. Of course, those anti-national unions will, by all means, try to distort the intention of this Bill. This is not surprising, of course. But in the case of the democratic labour movement, in the form of the National Trades Union Congress, we must make them realise the true intention of the Government that is embodied in this Bill. They must understand that it is introduced to safeguard the interests of the nation without any prejudice to the basic rights of the trade union movement. Finally, I hope that this Bill will not be abused and that the Minister will assure this House that the Government will be very cautious in implementing its provisions. 3.47 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the object of this Bill is certainly to give an assurance that if employers want to have it out with the workers, the workers will not suffer. If it is really the intention of the Bill to protect public safety, the Government has already provided a building wherein the N.T.U.C. is housed. Firstly. I regret to say that I am obliged to mention my friends who are in the N.T.U.C. and whose responsibility is to educate the workers, to make them understand the Bill thoroughly, and to advise the Government. If the N.T.U.C. cannot give its co-operation to the management, who are the employers, and the workers, a dispute will certainly arise between them. The role of the N.T.U.C. is to educate the workers so that the strike weapon is used only against unscrupulous employers, and not to use it to cause hardship among the community or to make unfair demands on employers or the Government. This is the weapon in the hands of the workers. An example is the police officer. He is given a weapon but not to shoot at wrong-doers if his own life is not in danger. This weapon is for self-defence, and, as the hon. Member has said, the strike weapon should be similarly used. It is true that the Government is pro-labour. We have always implemented this policy. When we say "pro-labour", we must ponder awhile and look back to 1959. Since then how many labour disputes have been resolved by establishing two Industrial Arbitration Courts, in addition to the discretionary powers exercised by the Minister for Labour and also the advice of the N.T.U.C.? I do not wish to labour this point, Mr Speaker, but what I wish to say is that the leaders of the Public Daily-Rated Employees' Union, who are my own colleagues, are sincere in their struggle. But I feel that the leadership of the N.T.U.C. is not positive enough to say whether this can or cannot be done. When the N.T.U.C. receive a complaint, they must convene a general meeting or refer it to the Industrial Arbitration Court. If we allow an affiliated union to accuse us, then it follows that the other affiliated unions will take similar action. I think that is not the proper course of action to take. Before an issue is settled, we must be certain that that issue will help the workers themselves. There have been allegations that the Government is anti-Indian and that the N.T.U.C. is also anti-Indian. These are very serious allegations. The fact could be that the N.T.U.C. could not give a proper picture to its affiliates of what its struggle is. If the responsibility of the N.T.U.C. is really to guide the workers in order to uplift their living standard, I am quite sure that its struggle will be a success. I know that the problem of raising the living standard of the members of the Public Daily-Rated Employees' Union arose two years ago. Unfortunately, I am not a member of the Executive Committee of the N.T.U.C. The N.T.U.C. has not resolved this problem. It has not used its powers effectively so that the living standard of the workers in the Public Daily-Rated Employees' Union can be improved. The leaders of the N.T.U.C. and the affiliated union leaders have failed to discharge their duties to see that this issue could become a bigger issue so that whatever increase the Government has to pay would be commensurate with the work the workers perform. If I am allowed to speak on this matter, I can go on speaking for two days and two nights, Mr Speaker. Finally, in the trade union movement there are three problems as explained by the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C.: (1) To use the strike weapon in good faith; (2) To use it as a threat; (3) To use it to topple the Government. We must be able to distinguish between these three factors. If we choose to use the strike weapon to raise the living standard of the workers, we can use it by all means, no matter what happens. There is nothing to fear because the action we take is in line with our own principles. That is all, Mr Speaker. 3.57 p.m.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has been brought up for consideration. I am doubtful whether it is appropriate to bring it up at this time. This Government won the elections in 1959 mainly with the support of the workers. But it is slowly curtailing their interests. If we want to make this country prosperous, we will have to look after the interests of the workers. If we go on making laws and ignoring the workers who are the backbone of the country, we cannot bring them to the forefront. We are not blaming the Government for making laws, but we have to take the responsibility of implementing them. We have to bring in laws, or otherwise undesirable things will happen. But we have to think of ways of how to bring the laws into play. This amendment Bill will make slaves and also prisoners of the workers, as the Government is taking away their rights. If we go on doing this, we will regret it in future. The workers are citizens and they are also serving the country, and we have to give them some privileges. If we do not give them privileges, can we imagine what they will think of us? Why do strikes take place? If the workers are not getting the privileges they want, there will be strikes. If they get them, there is no need of any strike and there is no need for such laws. They will be more angry if we bring in laws like this. They will not be happy at all. There, is a law which says that there should be 14 days' notice of a strike. What will happen if they strike after the 14 days' notice? What will happen if they go on strike after serving such notice? The Government has to prepare for such an, eventuality. So I think this is not a suitable time and I am not supporting this Bill at this time. 4.02 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say a few words in support of the Bill. The Public Daily-Rated Employees' Federation Union, to which the gas, water and electricity workers' unions are affiliated, has recently shown by its action that it is a highly irresponsible union. The leaders of the union recently called out workers employed in the Cleansing Department in an illegal strike in furtherance of certain disputes of which the Industrial Arbitration Court had already taken cognizance, and in spite of the advice given by the N.T.U.C. We cannot allow such irresponsible unions to call wild-cat strikes in the vital services of the country. Water, gas and electricity services are vital to the day-to-day life of our people. These services must be provided, and continue to be provided to the public at all times; I repeat, at all times. Without these services, the whole community will suffer and the survival of our country will be seriously affected. We cannot allow such things to happen at this very vital stage of our development. Hon. Members know that I was in the Ministry of Health for about three and a half years and, therefore, am familiar with the work of the Daily-Rated Workers Union, especially the Cleansing Workers' Union. Rather than keep the city clean, some of the members were more engrossed in collecting old tin cans for sale. As a matter of fact, this is well known to all members of the public, including the union leaders. The workers were more interested in treble pay by working on Sundays and holidays, and for this purpose they absented themselves from work on normal working days.

4.05 p.m. There have also been instances of workers belonging to this union who went out to intimidate those members of the public who had lodged complaints against them for malingering. Although the union was fully aware of such happenings, it did not take any positive action to rectify matters. If the union were, on the other hand, responsible, it would have co-operated to ensure that the workers did a fair day's work for a fair day's wage. The hon. Member for Kampong Kembangan has said that the Government, in introducing an amendment to the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Bill, has become anti-union. This cannot be true in the face of the Government's contributions to the building up of a solid and strong trade union movement in this country. To the Member for Anson, I would say that Government is definitely not unsympathetic to the needs of the workers. But it must be recognised that a strike is a weapon which should only be used as a last resort, when all means of settlement of a trade dispute has failed. Strikes do not resolve trade disputes. We have a system of industrial relations in Singapore which ensures a fair deal to the workers. Our system of voluntary negotiations, conciliation and arbitration is provided for in the laws of our land to ensure that no worker is exploited. There should be no reason for workers to go on strike and this is even more so in the essential and vital services. The prohibition of strikes in the public utility services should not, therefore, adversely affect the rights of workers. In fact, the workers in these services will be protected so that they will not be misled or exploited by irresponsible elements who control the destiny of their unions. It is the duty of every loyal citizen to see that our survival is not threatened by irresponsible elements. We have to see that not only is our economy kept going, but also ensure that it expands. Water, electricity and gas are vital necessities of life, and Government has to ensure that these basic necessities are not denied to the people. The prohibition of strikes in these services is to ensure that these vital services are available at all times and that the people are not held to ransom by the irresponsible acts of a few union leaders who abuse freedom of action in a democratic society. The hon. Member for Bras Basah has said that the Minister can refer disputes to arbitration under the present legislation. I would like to ask him, does he not know, as I have mentioned earlier, of the recent case of the wild-cat strike called by one union even though the Minister had already referred the dispute to arbitration? We have included the banking services as an essential service because banking is a very important financial institution in the economy of the country. Of late the Singapore Bank Employees Union has shown signs of irresponsibility by suddenly calling on its members to work to rule, to refuse overtime work and even to go on strike over minor issues. These have caused disruptions not only in the bank services but also jammed up the clearing of cheques, and this gives Singapore a bad image. This union has on more than one occasion taken industrial action to pressurise the banks into giving in to their demands at a time when banking is doing its best business, such as before certain festivals like the Chinese New Year. These actions are highly deplorable because they not only affect the banks themselves but also members of the public and the economy of the country. The inclusion of the banking services as an essential service does not prevent the union from taking strike action. But before doing so, they have to give 14 days' strike notice so that the banks could make alternative arrangements to serve the public and ensure that the economic activities of the country do' not come to a standstill. With regard to the broadcasting and television services, these are vital media of transmission of news, entertainment and information of public interest. There should also be no qualms about the inclusion of public bus transport and air services in the list of essential services. In fact, the Singapore Traction Company Employees Union gave 14 days' strike notice although they were not required to do so when they threatened to go on strike last year. Public bus transport is very essential especially to the thousands of school children and office workers who depend on it. As regards air services, Singapore is at the cross-roads of international air traffic. Malaysia/Singapore Airlines is providing ground and catering facilities for many airlines and it is essential that these services are not disrupted by sudden strike action by the workers.

4.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the few Members who have participated in the debate have raised the point, firstly, that by amending this Bill we have gone contrary to our pro-labour policy, and, secondly, that this amendment Bill denies the workers the right to strike. Firstly, Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Government had not devised a pro-labour policy, I am sure there would have been much squabbling between employers and employees during the period while we are in the Government. Secondly, we know that in the country the workers constitute a majority of the population and that they have played their part in the national interests and they should therefore be duly rewarded. In order to do that, the Government has, together with the trade unions and the employers, discussed and agreed to formulate the Industrial Arbitration Ordinance. Through this Ordinance we hope to maintain industrial peace with justice. But, unfortunately, as far as the Public Daily-Rated Employees Federation Union is concerned, they have not maintained the spirit of maintaining industrial peace with justice. They have always tried to hold the whole community to ransom in order to get something for their own selfish interest. We agree that if they have genuine grievances there is machinery for them to seek redress. But, unfortunately, Mr Speaker, Sir, as you have heard what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour has said, when the Government try to improve certain services so that the whole community can benefit from them, they are frustrated by the threat of a strike. A recent example of the irresponsibility of the Union is the strike carried out by the Cleansing Workers Union. As the Member for Anson has said just now, even with the amendment to the principal Ordinance, which requires the unions to serve 14 days' notice before a strike can take place, the matter has still to be resolved. That is exactly why the conciliation and arbitration machinery is there. Therefore, if the Union is responsible and has genuine grievances, I do not see why it should take the trouble to call a strike as a result of which not only the workers have to suffer but the whole country has to suffer. So if it is responsible, I would say we do not have to make this amendment. Mr Speaker. Sir, the trade unions under the present circumstances should not confine themselves to their narrow sectional interests. It has been mentioned that the Government and our Party have associated with the workers and have become what it is today. But at that time, the situation was different. We were not an independent country. We were still striving for political power so that we could run our own country for the benefit of our people. In the new situation now, the workers have their role to play and they must above all see that they contribute to the whole community. Of course, the Government can simply meet the demands of the unions. But we are the trustees of the public and, therefore, we have to look after the interests of the whole community and not a section of it. If we are to appease the unions, we can, of course, simply resolve the matter by conceding to their demands. But there is a limit to this. We are a Republic and have no natural resources. All of us know that we depend on our human resources to survive. Therefore, if industries do not expand and the economic situation does not improve, not only will the workers not get any improvement in their terms and conditions of service, but they themselves will probably have no work, or their dependants and friends will not be able to find jobs too. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe we are not dictatorial in our labour policy, but I have just mentioned that in order to refute the allegation that ours is an anti-labour policy and that we are denying the workers their right to strike. I believe no one will swallow the false allegations made by my few colleagues just now. Question put. An hon. Member: Division. The House divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 7; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. A. Rahim Ishak. Govindaswamy, P. Ang Nam Piau. Ho See Beng. Barker, E. W. Lim Guan Hoo. Buang bin Omar Mohd. Ariff bin Junid. Suradi. Chan Chee Seng. Devan Nair, Mrs Chan Choy Siong, Bernard Rodrigues. Madam. Sim Boon Woo. Chor Yeok Eng. Chow Chiok Hock. Fong Sip Chee. Goh Keng Swee. Gonzales, R. A. Abstention. Ho Cheng Choon. Nil. Ho Kah Leong. Jek Yuen Thong. Absent. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Teck Him. Chan Sun Wing. Lim Cheng Lock. Chew Chin Han. Lim Kim San. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Soo Peng. Wong Soon Fong. Lingsam, S. V. Yaacob bin Mahmud Awang. Mohamed. Ng Kah Ting. Ng Yeow Chong. Ong Pang Boon. Othman bin Wok. Rahamat bin Kenap. Ayes - contd. Rajaratnam, S. Rajoo, S. Ramaswamy, S. Selvadurai, P. Sia Kah Hui. Tang See Chim. Tay Boon Too. Tea Hup Teck. Teong Eng Siong. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yeoh Ghim Seng. Yang Nyuk Lin. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr Wee Toon Boon]. Bill considered in Committee.

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

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 2 is about essential services such as water, gas and electricity services. But sub-clause (2) makes no mention of the other essential services. In Government's view, how many categories of essential services are there? Perhaps, first, there are the three which are mentioned in sub-clause (1), i.e., water, gas and electricity services; in sub-clause (2) are the second category of essential services. Is there a third category of essential services? Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour has stated that, because of the wild-cat strike carried out by the Public Daily-Rated Cleansing Workers' Union, the Government has brought in amendments to the Bill that we have before us today. Why is it that workers in the Public Utilities Board are victimised on account of the strike carried out by the Public Daily-Rated Cleansing Workers' Union? I am of the opinion that the amendment to this clause 2 is contrary to the general interests of labour.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, essential services have been classified into many branches of services. However, in this instance, due to the irresponsibility of the Federation, the Government has to be more specific and bring in amendments to say specifically that employees of the water, gas and electricity services cannot go on strike. But the rest, as the Member has said, are not mentioned here. They have been mentioned either in the Gazette or in previous announcements. Question put, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill." An hon. Member: Division. The House divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 7; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. A. Rahim Ishak. Govindaswamy, P. Ang Nam Piau. Ho See Beng. Barker, E. W. Lim Guan Hoo Buang bin Omar Junid. Mohd Ariff bin Suradi Chan Chee Seng. Devan Nair, Mrs Chan Choy Siong, Bernard Rodrigues Madam. Sim Boon Woo Chor Yeok Eng. Chow Chiok Hock. Fong Sip Chee. Abstention Goh Keng Swee. Gonzales, R. A. Nil Ho Cheng Choon. Ho Kah Leong. Jek Yeun Thong. Absent. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Teck Him. Chan Sun Wing. Lim Cheng Lock. Chew Chin Han Lim Kim San. Lee Kuan Yew Lim Soo Peng. Wong Soon Fong. Lingam, S. V. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Mahmud Awang. Ng Kah Ting. Ng Yeow Chong. Ong Pang Boon. Othman bin Wok. Rahamat bin Kenap. Rajaratnam, S. Rajoo, S. Ramaswamy, S. Selvadurai, P. Sia Kah Hui. Tang See Chim. Tay Boon Too. Teo Hup Teck. Teong Eng Siong. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yeoh Ghim Seng. Yong Nyuk Lin. Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

4.36 p.m. Resolved, "That under Standing Order 10 (2) item 3 on the Order Paper for today be taken immediately after item 4." - [Dr Goh Keng Swee].

Order for Second Reading read. 4.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, for many years, the sole currency issuing authority in the territories now comprising Malaysia, Brunei and Singapore was the Board of Commissioners of Currency, Malaya and British Borneo. This has resulted from an Agreement made between the Governments of these territories, which Agreement also provides that the Board should cease to be the currency issuing authority should anyone of the Participating Governments give notice to that effect. In December 1964, the Government of the Federation of Malaysia lodged such a notice and as a result the Board will cease to issue currency in June this year. After separation, Singapore embarked on negotiations with the Malaysian Government regarding the use of a common currency in these two territories. The House will recall that at a sitting on the 26th August, I gave details of the negotiations and outlined events leading to the announcement made on 17th August that an agreement for a common currency and banking system could not be reached between the Singapore and Malaysian Governments. There has been much debate and discussion on this subject since then, and I do not propose to dwell on this any further. Suffice it to say that with the breakdown in negotiations, it now becomes necessary for us to take legal steps to enable Singapore to issue her own currency on 12th June, 1967. The objective of this Bill is, therefore, to set up a currency issuing authority for Singapore. On 26th August, 1966, I told the House that Singapore would continue with a Currency Board system. I further said that the new Singapore dollar will "at all times be backed 100 per cent by gold or foreign exchange assets and will remain fully convertible". The provisions of the Currency Bill now before the House fulfil both these requirements. I would now like to take the provisions of the Bill clause by clause and to draw the attention of Members of the House to the more salient features of the Bill. Clause 3 provides for the establishment of a Currency Board to be called "the Board of Commissioners of Currency, Singapore". The purpose of the Board is to issue currency notes and coins. In clause 4, the Board is made a body corporate, with its head office in Singapore, and with power to appoint agents and correspondents. Clause 5 enables the Board to employ officers for its business. The composition of the Board is given in clause 6, which provides for a Board of six members comprising the Chairman, who shall be the Minister responsible for Finance, and five other members, including a Deputy Chairman, to be appointed by the President. The Deputy Chairman will be a full-time official and will become the chief executive officer of the Board. The other four members will include representatives of local and foreign banks in Singapore, so that what we do in the Board will be known not only in Singapore but abroad as well. The Board is obliged by law to meet at least once a year, and on receipt of a request from at least two members of the Board, the Chairman is obliged to call a meeting as soon as practicable. The quorum for a meeting is three members. It will be noted that the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman have two votes each, whilst the other four members each has one vote. In an equality of votes, the Chairman would have the casting vote. It will no doubt be argued that this system of votes places the balance of par in the hands of the official members. It is our belief, however, that the structure of the Board allowing for appointment of four members from the private sector will provide for the maximum expression and balance of interests before decisions could be taken. However, when and where there is a genuine difference of opinion or of judgment among members of the Board, it is necessary for the Government, in the wider interests of the nation, to be able to make the ultimate decision with the use of the Chairman's casting vote. Thus, it is provided that the Government members, i.e., the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, will together have four votes and the other four members will together have the same number of votes with the Chairman having a casting vote in case of an equality of votes. In clause 8 are listed the conditions under which members of the Board are automatically disqualified. In clause 9 are outlined obligations of Board members in deliberations of the Board where the member has an interest. Clause 10 ensures that members and employees of the Board do not make use of information they acquire in the course of their functions for their own private use or for purposes other than for the performance of their duties under this Act. Clause 11 establishes the unit of currency for Singapore which will be called the Singapore dollar and which will be divided into 100 cents. In clause 12 is stated the par value of the Singapore dollar which will be 0.290299 grammes of fine gold. This is equivalent to 2s. 4d, in sterling. It will be seen, therefore, that the par value of the Singapore dollar will be the same as the par value of our present dollar. In clause 13, it is provided that on and after 12th June, unless validly provided for, all monetary obligations or transactions in Singapore shall be deemed to be expressed and recorded and settled in the Singapore dollar. This is to avoid confusion. Clause 14 gives the Board the sole right to issue currency notes and coins in Singapore. The legal tender status of these notes and coins is any amount for notes; and for coins, up to an amount not exceeding $10 in the case of coins of denominations of 50 cents and above; and up to an amount not exceeding $2 in the case of coins of a lower denomination. These provisions arc similar to those in the present Currency Board system. Sub-clauses (3) and (4) of this clause are transitional provisions, providing that the notes and coins of the present Currency Board shall continue to be legal tender in Singapore in the amounts as mentioned above until demonetised. Such demonetisation will require the approval of the President and has to be published in the Gazette. Clause 16 of the Bill ensures that the new Singapore currency notes and coins are fully and automatically convertible into sterling. This is identical with the provisions to be found in the present Currency Board system. Clause 17 provides that the Board may at its discretion redeem and issue currency notes and coins against gold and other foreign currencies. In clause 18 are spelt out the details of how procedures of redemption and issues of currency notes and coins are to be effected by the Board. In clauses 23, 24 and 25 are detailed the backing and types of assets that will be held by the Board as a backing for the currency it has issued. Clause 23 sets up a Fund to be called the Currency Fund. The assets of the Fund form the backing for the currency issued by the Board. The provisions of clause 25 (3) ensure that the value of the Fund is equivalent to the face value of the currency issued by the Board, i.e., there is 100 per cent cover for every Singapore dollar issued. Further, it is provided that the Fund shall consist of all external assets, the items of which are listed in clause 24. It will be seen that, apart from sterling, the Board is also empowered to hold other foreign assets and therefore have a more diversified portfolio of investments. This is an improvement compared with the present position where only sterling assets are held. It should also be noted that there are no provisions whatsoever for a fiduciary issue. Put simply, Mr Speaker, Sir, a fiduciary issue means the issue of currency with Singapore Government securities as backing and represents Government's borrowing from the Currency Fund. This, I may remind the House, is an even stricter provision than has been found in our present currency system which allows the present Board to have a fiduciary issue of $300 million. In addition, the provisions of clause 25 (3) and clause 26 guarantee the 100 per cent cover as any deficiency in the assets of the Currency Fund is automatically charged to the Consolidated Fund. Thus it will be seen that the Singapore dollar is at all times backed 100 per cent by foreign assets. In clauses 28 to 31 are miscellaneous provisions. Clause 28 provides for the financial year of the Board, which will be the calendar year. Clause 29 provides that the accounts of the Board shall be audited by the Director of Audit. Clause 30 requires the annual accounts and report of the Board to be transmitted to the President and thereafter published in the Gazette and laid before Parliament. The Board is also required to make Out quarterly returns of its currency notes and coins in circulation for publication in the Gazette and to publish half-yearly statements showing the liquid portion of its Fund and the assets of the Fund. Thus every member of the public will be in a position to know and verify for himself the value and worth of the Singapore dollar. In clauses 32 to 35 are transitional and repeal provisions. Clause 32 gives legal status to acts performed by the Government on behalf of the Board prior to its establishment. In clause 34, it is provided that the notes and coins of the present Currency Board shall be exchanged at par for the new Board's notes and coins. I would like, Mr Speaker, Sir, to add in conclusion that the Bill now before the House has been drafted in consultation with the Association of Banks in Singapore and Malaysia. This Association was formed when Singapore was in Malaysia, and still represents banks in Singapore. Many of the Association's suggestions have been accepted and incorporated in the Bill. It now remains for me to record the Government's appreciation of the careful and detailed manner in which the Association has contributed in finalising the Bill, which continues with a system, albeit old-fashioned to some, but which has given us one of the strongest and most stable currencies you can find anywhere. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are loath now to relinquish a method of currency issue which has stood us in good stead for so long. But if and when we find it imperative to make changes and amendments to the law in order to cope with the growing complexities and sophistication of the monetary system, we will not hesitate to do so. However, for the immediate future we believe confidence in the value of the Singapore dollar can and will be retained by a continuation of the Currency Board system with 100 per cent backing and without any fiduciary issue. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Perhaps this is a convenient time to suspend. I will suspend the sitting and resume at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.56 p.m, until 5.30 p.m.

Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m. Debate resumed.

At the suspension I proposed the Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In the absence of a debate, I will now put the Question.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 5.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I have the President's recommendation to proceed with the reading of the Bill. One of the difficulties confronting me as Minister of Defence is the novelty of my responsibility. There are no precedents to fall back upon. When one thinks of what elements should be taken into account in framing a meaningful defence policy for Singapore, one has to begin from first principles. A useful starting point is to ask oneself, why bother about defending Singapore at all? I am not being facetious in asking this question, for there are people, laymen as well as experts, who say that we should not. They tell you that the island is quite indefensible, and if there is a sustained major attack upon it, it is unlikely that, without major assistance from outside, Singapore can hold out. There are, however, excellent reasons why we should bother about defence. I believe that the people who hold the contrary view are mistaken. For the logical conclusion drawn from their premise must be that Singapore should revert to a colony or a satellite of whoever wishes to afford it protection. If you are in a completely vulnerable position, anyone disposed to do so can hold you to ransom and life for you will then become very tiresome. I consider it to be wrong to believe that there is nothing we can do or should do about defending ourselves, even though we cannot achieve complete invulnerability by our unaided efforts. In a sense, even the larger countries of the world today, other than the nuclear super powers, are indefensible. For instance, none of the European States can hope to survive a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union either singly or in combination. Yet this has not prevented them from spending enormous sums of money in defence. The two nuclear super powers have found themselves paralysed in a balance of terror and yet both continue to devote enormous resources to defence. One cannot but regret all this - that the keenest scientific minds today are devoted to discovering and developing more effective methods of mass destruction rather than trying to bring about more human happiness and progress -- but that is the world as we find it today, and for small States like ours, we have to accept the position as it is, not as we would like it. Singapore is not the smallest of the independent States, nor is it the poorest. One of the unexpected developments of the post-war world has been the proliferation of small States consequent on the process if decolonisation. Especially in the last ten years, large numbers of new States, often with artificial boundaries, small populations and dubious economies, have come into existence. If their present position is uncertain, their future prospects are even more doubtful. Small States are likely to be a great source of trouble in this world if they cannot look after themselves. If the management of their domestic affairs is so bad as to invite civil war and disorder, there is always the risk that larger States may be tempted to intervene. Where this happens to a small State situated in a strategic area, as, for instance, South Vietnam, the great super powers may get mixed up and the risk arises of escalation to something more dangerous than a local conflict. Therefore, unstable, badly managed and poorly defended small States pose a threat to the security and peace of the world. By the same token, if small States can manage their affairs efficiently and can raise sufficient defence forces to deter others from risky adventures by making them costly, then they would add to the stability and security of the whole region. The survival of small States within their original territorial boundaries has today much greater prospects of success than one would have thought from a cursory view of the situation. For the two nuclear super powers apparently are in favour of freezing existing boundaries as one method of reducing the danger of nuclear war between themselves by eliminating any temptation to be involved in quarrels between other nation-states. Where a small State is strategically situated, as Singapore is, it is important that it should maintain adequate defence forces. It goes without saying that the real security which we want can be found, not by our unaided efforts alone, but in an alliance with others. In the long term, Singapore should work towards the establishment of some kind of regional defence arrangement, possibly within a larger international framework. In this kind of regional defence alliance, we are likely to be a more valuable partner and hence can exert more influence, if we can make a defence contribution of some significance, rather than if we were to be utterly dependent on the arms of other States. There is another aspect to our defence effort. This is a contribution it can make to nation-building. Nothing creates loyalty and national consciousness more speedily and more thoroughly than participation in defence and membership of the armed forces. This has been the experience of other countries; there is no reason why it will not hold true in Singapore. The nation-building aspect of defence will be more significant if its participation is spread over all strata of society. This is possible only with some kind of national service. If we were to depend only on a standing army of professionals, then we would get so many soldiers and no more. The civilians remain spectators outside the orbit of the defence forces except for the small number who take part as part-time soldiers. One important side to the nation-building process is that there are not many members of our monied and intellectual elite who have grasped the elementary point that their status and position and wealth can be justified and maintained only if they undertake a responsibility in the defence of the nation consistent with their position. In a society like Britain where class distinctions are strong and traditional, you will find that up to very recently it has been the ruling class, the landed aristocracy, who have supplied the military and naval commanders, with whose exploits every school-boy in our English language schools is doubtless familiar. The British ruling class has never abdicated its right to govern through unwillingness to bear arms on behalf of the nation. Ours, of course, is a different kind of society with many regrettable weaknesses. Our intelligentsia and wealthy citizens would do well to read that part of Plato's "Republic" dealing with the inevitable decline of oligarchies of rich men whose sons are spoilt by easy living and whose flabbiness becomes obvious to the citizens whom they govern, so that they, the citizens, eventually decide to take over power from them and deprive them both of their wealth and their positions. It is not a coincidence that sons of the British elite, as part of their classical education in the public schools, are taught not only Plato but also, among other works, "The Peloponnesian War" of Thucydides. Only in this way do you create a breed that can govern an empire. Because of our own historical past, ours is a society which is deficient in many qualities, excelling only in the ability to get on in life whatever the regime - Japanese, British or P.A.P. Some of the valuable and indispensable qualities such as social discipline and moral values have unfortunately not been instilled in our education system to the extent that one would have wished. The result is a generation of young people who are largely amoral. They are easy victims of all kinds of ideas, passions and fads - be they the subversive doctrines of the Communist underground or the seductions of Beatle music and Beatnik philosophy. Such aberrations in human conduct may be accepted with equanimity in large and wealthy societies. But when we are trying to survive in a tight situation, there is very little place for harmful or even meaningless activities. At best, these are irrelevant eccentricities; at worst, they lead the young into a world of fantasy and make them unfit for the strenuous exertions that may lie ahead. It is against the background of such considerations that our National Service scheme has been worked out. A minority of the young men will be selected for a two-year full-time stint in the Army. Those selected for promotion to the officer grade will do three years. At the end of their military service, they will be emplaced in civilian occupations appropriate to their ability and qualifications. Sufficient numbers of such posts in Government service, the Statutory Boards and large private firms will be reserved for discharged National Servicemen. Legislation on this will be presented to Parliament shortly. We intend to select the pick of our youth, within each education grade, for the Army and there is no doubt that prospective employers will be very eager to obtain their services as they represent the best of our youth. Those not selected for the Army will be allocated to the People's Defence Force, the Vigilante Corps and the Special Constabulary. They will do part-time training during their off-work or off-study hours. This means that those who are now engaged in higher studies either in the Higher School Certificate classes or in the Universities will not have their studies upset. At the same time, it does not mean that by being posted now to the P.D.F., the Vigilante Corps or the Special Constabulary to do part-time training and work, they will not subsequently be called up for full-time military service on completion of their studies. There is need for quality in the Army, as in any other organisation, and the highly educated must do their duty along with the others. In all the four Branches of National Service - the full-time Army, the People's Defence Force, the Vigilante Corps and the Special Constabulary -National Servicemen will receive, in addition to technical training specific to their Branch, instruction in moral values. This will teach them what good citizenship means and explain to them the nature of their social responsibilities. It is my intention, when the training manuals on this subject have been drafted, to seek guidance of the Inter-Religious Council of the Republic, both on the content of moral instruction and on the method of implementation. I am sure that there is a substantial common ground among the great religions of the world, whose values, if imparted to our youth, will make them better men. Now a word about the mechanics of this exercise. The names, addresses, ages and other particulars of young men liable to national registration are known to the Government and, in fact, have been fed into the electronic computer in the Ministry of Finance. On the 17th of this month, i.e, in four days' time, pink cards which we call Registration Reminders will be sent by post to young men liable to registration. These cards will be sent to the last known address, but some of these cards may go astray in the rural areas there is no proper system in the numbering of houses, many of which were illegally constructed; and in the slums anything up to twenty families may share a house and letters often go astray. Therefore, if a young man does not get his pink reminder card in a week's time he should inquire at the nearest community centre. I may say, in passing, that not getting a reminder card is not a valid excuse for not registering. And all persons who do not register when they are liable to do so will, of course, be prosecuted. In the present exercise we are registering only those male youths horn between 1st January, 1949, and 30th June, 1949. There are approximately 9,000 of them. Those born after 30th June, 1949, will be registered in a later exercise this year. Sixteen days from 28th March to 18th April - have been set aside for registration and four registration centres will be in operation. The Central Manpower Base in Kallang will be open each day during this period from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. The Katong, Serangoon and Bukit Panjang District Offices will be open each day from 2 p.m. to 9 p.m. In the middle of May, medical examinations will take place and the final selection of who is to go into what Branch of National Service will be made in July. Enlistment notices informing young men in which Branch of National Service they will serve will be despatched as from the 11th of July. And National Service itself is scheduled to commence as from the 26th July this year. There are many complications in this exercise, as there are bound to be. I do not wish, to go into all of them. The Manpower Division of my Ministry has prepared a pamphlet which explains what those who are liable to National Service have to do. Five hundred members of the staff of the People's Association who work in the community centres have been briefed by the Ministry so as to enable them better to give guidance and answer questions about National Service. The booklet on National Service will be available at all community centres in the next few days. These pamphlets will also be distributed to schools. Any Association which wants copies of these pamphlets should apply to the Ministry of the Interior and Defence, Manpower Division, stating in what language or languages they wish to have them. At present, copies are available in English and Chinese. Copies in Malay and Tamil will be available shortly. Mr Speaker, Sir, with the passage of this legislation and its implementation, the Republic moves into a new era. Often in the past, people have listened to Ministers of the Government urging upon them the paramount need to build a rugged, closely-knit society. Some might have wondered what this meant and might have dismissed it as so much talk. Now they know that it is not merely talk. Behind the exhortation lies a concept - a vision if you like - of the new society that must emerge in this island if we want to retain all the good that we have built in the past and move on to greater achievements. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I rise in full support of this Bill. The introduction of this Bill is well timed, particularly at this juncture when there are four significant points. Firstly, this is a measure by which an independent country shoulders the responsibility to see that all its people will perform their duties as citizens. Secondly, this Bill will strengthen the defence structure of our Republic. It will also ensure that all our citizens in future will be able to shoulder the responsibility of national defence and prepare themselves for this task ahead. Thirdly, this Bill will educate and train our citizens and future generations in military consciousness and preparedness and defence responsibility, so that they will develop healthy and strong bodies and have a sense of discipline. Fourthly, this is a measure to ensure that a multi-racial society will march into a new era of a closely knit society with a new and rugged generation who can defend this country. I feel that one should be filled with pride to become a member of our Armed Forces. There is nobody against this with the exception of the Barisan Sosialis. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill provides various forms of military training on a full-time or part-time basis. Most of the training will be done on a part-time basis. Only about 10 per cent of the persons who are liable to be called up will undergo military training on a full-time basis for two years. This is very appropriate and suitable to the realities of this country. As we are a small Republic, it is the main responsibility of the Government to look after the affairs of the citizens. We have to undertake the economic construction of our country, which has limited resources, in order to ensure that our people can live happily. In view of this prerequisite, we have to look after our own survival. We have to make friends with all nations and, therefore, we adopt a neutral foreign policy. We are unable to set aside large sums of money for the purpose of maintaining a very large armed force. As a matter of fact, this would be an unrealistic and inappropriate measure to adopt. Mr Speaker, Sir, since this National Service (Amendment) Bill was introduced at the last sitting and publicised in the Press, we have received popular support from various quarters and leaders of the people. They are all of the view that it is a very realistic and far-sighted measure to adopt. Only the Barisan Sosialis are expressing their opposition to this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, an organisation like the Barisan Sosialis, which is anti-national, cannot be expected to do anything useful and beneficial to the country. If we expect this to happen, then it would be something like "fishing on a tree". Therefore, the people of Singapore should not have any regard for the Barisan Sosialis. But if the Barisan Sosialis can drastically change their present outlook and show that they are loyal to our country, then, of course, we shall treat them quite differently. Mr Speaker, Sir, we believe that the broad masses of the people fully support the National Service (Amendment) Bill. They will take practical steps to respond to the call of the Government, and will accept either full-time or part-time military training. In order that the implementation of this Bill will receive its proper effect, I hope that all those organisations which are loyal to the nation - be they civic organisations, Citizens Consultative Committees or any other organisations in Singapore --- will put aside some time to assist the Government by explaining the position to the people at large. Some publicity must be given by all these civic organisations, and steps must also be taken to ensure that the Barisan Sosialis do not distort the significance and intentions of the Bill so that its success will be ensured. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are clauses in the Bill which provide punishment for contravention of certain provisions, that is to say, those who fail to register themselves for national service shall be liable to terms of imprisonment or fine or both. This punishment is deterrent in nature and I hope that the Ministry concerned will properly carry out the publicity through the Press, Radio, Rediffusion and Television, so that nobody will contravene any of the regulations out of ignorance. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that as a Member of Parliament I have a duty to support the National Service (Amendment) Bill and air my views on it. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill not only concerns the interest of the people of Jalan Kayu but also the interest of all the people in the Republic. It is also a matter of life and death and involves the security of the nation. As a Member representing the people of Jalan Kayu, it is with great pleasure and pride that I speak on this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recall that in 1952, when the National Service Ordinance was introduced, it did not receive the popular support of the people in my constituency or the people at large. On the contrary, it was met with a certain degree of opposition from the people of my constituency. The reasons were very obvious. At that time, the people of Singapore were living in a colonial era. They were under colonial rule and were not imbued with national consciousness. For this reason, the people of my constituency and our country at large were under no obligation nor were they duty bound at that time to support national service in the interest of a foreign or colonial power. It was a very understandable argument at that time. Although this happened in Singapore only ten years ago, it cannot be denied that the people were right then in advancing such an argument. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will have noticed that the political situation in Singapore has changed completely during the last ten years. We have thrown off the shackles of colonial rule and have obtained independence. It is, therefore, necessary that our own people should defend our sovereignty. So the significance of national service has changed completely now because it is not in furtherance of the interest of any foreign or colonial power. On the contrary, national service is intended for the defence and protection of the people of a sovereign State. So this change in outlook and attitude towards national service is necessary. Our people must take pride in joining the People's Defence Force, the Special Constabulary, the Vigilante Corps and other services. These organisations have been set up in order to make sure that we can depend on our own strength to defend our independent country and the property and freedom of our people so that our sovereignty and independence will not be jeopardised by any aggressive foreign power or anti-national elements. So the good young people of our country must take pride in joining the national service. The National Service (Amendment) Bill is very significant in this respect. National service in the world - be it in France or any independent country which is neutral or otherwise- is a matter of necessity. For instance, in America, England, Russia, China and other countries, national service is implemented without any question, and even small countries like the Philippines, Thailand, Laos and neutral Switzerland have made provision for national service. Generally speaking, national service is a matter which concerns a citizen who has a duty to his own country. As a member of the Armed Forces of an independent country, I say that it is the duty of all citizens to protect and defend the country and the lives of the people. It is very much a matter of pride for everybody to do this. It is a matter of glory, I would say. Today Singapore is a fully independent, sovereign and integral State. Our people, I am sure, will take great pride in joining the various units for national service. In the past, we relied mainly on the Commonwealth and other friendly nations for our national defence and safety. But after independence and in the context of the present international situation, we must take note of the particular fact that England is now taking steps to cut down its troops in the Far East, including the withdrawal of its base in Singapore. This reduction will be planned stage by stage, and the time will come when there will be a complete withdrawal of British troops from Singapore. So we must not depend too much on Britain for our defence. We cannot deny that, for our own security, we must take certain steps in this direction. Of course, if necessary, we can also come to some kind of arrangement with friendly nations in the matter of defence. But between us, I say that the main task of looking after the defence and security of our country is a matter for the people of Singapore themselves to decide, so that we can protect our nation from invasion or being jeopardised by anti-national activists. Every responsible and loyal citizen of Singapore must protect his own country and the lives and property of the people from subversion. Under the old society there was a saying which goes like this: "Good iron is never used for making nails, and good men are never made into soldiers." This is quite a popular Chinese saying, but it is an old concept. Perhaps in the old days this saying had some significance. But in the present context, its significance has been completely lost. If good young men are not turned into soldiers, then it follows that the nation will have to depend on good-for-nothing people for its defence. So how can the national security be safeguarded? If good men are not turned into soldiers, then who will be there to defend and protect the independence of our country, the lives and property of our people? Mr Speaker, today to be in the army and fight does not mean that we fight only with spears and swords. It also entails the exercise of the mind. Some brain work is involved. So the task of defending the nation cannot very well be placed on the good-for-nothing people, but it must be placed on the useful citizens of our country, who have been disciplined and well-trained. These will be the people who will defend our country. I believe that the old concept that good men do not become soldiers must be discarded in toto. At a time when our nation is in need of people to defend its independence and security, we must all come out bravely and accept this challenge and responsibility. This is the time when good iron must be made into nails, and good men turned into soldiers. This is the new concept that must prevail in the present situation. To join the army is a matter of glory for everybody. The old concept must be completely discarded and replaced by the new concept. This is the pre-requisite and spirit which we must establish to ensure the successful formation of our defence force. Singapore is an oasis in South-east Asia, and there is no place other than Singapore capable of giving such a high standard of living to its people. Therefore, it is our good fortune to be able to live in a country like Singapore. As the Prime Minister has already said, our young people must always bear in mind that if we do not understand the necessity of defending our country, then whatever we do will be in vain and in the end we shall lose everything, and others will come and step into our shoes. This is what the Prime Minister has said, and it reminds us of the great responsibility of the youths of Singapore. They must understand and appreciate the realities of life. So at a time when our country is calling us to take up national service, we must come out bravely and take up the glorious task of defending and protecting our country. We must do our level best to shoulder our responsibility as citizens. To those who join the Army, Navy and Air Force, the Police Force, the Vigilante Corps, and the Special Constabulary, great glory goes to them. Mr Speaker, Sir, national service is needed not only to defend our country and deter foreign intervention and suppress internal subversion, but it also has a more significant and positive meaning. As we all know, our foreign policy is basically a non-aligned one. What we want is the maximum number of friends and the minimum number of enemies. Therefore, we have no intention whatsoever to invade other countries. But, on the other hand, we will not allow any other country to undermine our sovereignty or our territorial integrity. Therefore, the setting up of the Armed Forces is with a view to defending our country. We are definite about this. We are a young country and we must establish well-trained armed forces. This will take perhaps 10 or 20 years to accomplish. This is what our Prime Minister has said - that it will take about 5 to 7 years, or even 10 years, to complete this training programme. By that time we will be able to rely on ourselves to defend our country. At the same time, we will have laid down a firm foundation for a multi-racial society, because during the course of training the youths of various races will have the opportunity to live together, understand one another, and get to know their habits of living and their respective strong and weak points. In this way, a strong body corporate will be established. This is one of the main tasks of our nation-building and also one of the most significant features in the National Service (Amendment) Bill. In the task of nation-building we will be able to train and bring up a generation infused with national consciousness and patriotism. These young people will be able to understand one another, and so the national solidarity of our nation will be strengthened. After our younger generation, under the correct guidance of the Government, has been organised to meet the exigencies of a national emergency, they will certainly answer the call of the nation to defend our country with pride and glory and to ensure our national survival. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no doubt about the need for this National Service (Amendment) Bill. I believe it will receive the enthusiastic support of our people. In the past few years the people in Jalan Kayu and other constituencies have taken part in all activities, such as organising themselves into the Vigilante Corps, and have expressed a high degree of patriotism particularly during the confrontation. I believe this Bill will also receive the support of our young people. Therefore, I fully support it. Its successful implementation will certainly ensure the survival of our country. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Sembawang has said that when we implement this Bill, the Barisan Members would oppose it and would try their best to frustrate its implementation. This is true. But what we have done is correct. If we believe this, we can disregard their opposition. The people of our country are well aware of who their enemies are. In the recent by-election in Thomson, the Barisan Sosialis incited the people to cast blank votes. But the results showed that the people were not misled by them. There were only about 300 misguided people who were deceived by them. There were about 11,000 voters, and about 9,000 of them cast their votes for the P.A.P. This shows that what the Barisan Sosialis did in the past was not approved by the people. Therefore, this National Service (Amendment) Bill will be successfully implemented, no matter how the Barisan Sosialis try their best to sabotage it. I will try to fulfil my obligation to mobilise all the people within this age group to answer the call of the nation. 6.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will confine my remarks to some general aspects and leave the details of the Bill to my other colleagues. In order to appreciate the essence of the National Service (Amendment) Bill, I think we ought to make a brief survey of this part of the world because what goes on in South-east Asia is more than academic to Singapore, being the centre of this region. If you look around us, Mr Speaker, Sir, particularly on the military aspect, you will find that Singapore is indeed in a very peculiar situation.

6.32 p.m. Our Singapore Infantry Regiment, which was raised in 1957, is almost ten years old and saw action. Sir, we are only beginning to crawl. But the Indonesian Army is more than two decades old and has acquired a fair amount of combat experience. We do not know much about the Indonesian Navy and the Air Force because they are unknown qualities. Perhaps the only experience we think the Indonesian Navy can claim is piracy during the confrontation. There was an occasion when a disgruntled pilot directed his plane and his guns at the President's palace; and then, of course, the recent coup. If you go further north towards Communist China, the Chinese Liberation Army was developed from large groups of organised guerrillas into a well-established fighting force of more than 2.5 million. And if you were to mobilise each and every one in Singapore, young and old, you would only succeed in getting 1.89 million. The Chinese Army alone is more than the population of Singapore. More so, Sir, the Chinese Communist Army is the only military force in this part of the world that has the experience of fighting in international wars, particularly fighting the Allied Powers. And if you come down a little bit south, North and South Vietnam, they are still building and fighting at the same time. North and South Korea, for example, had similar experience and they were only slightly better off when compared with the Vietnamese. Even India, which is a neutral nation and has a very sizable standing army, is tied down to two border disputes with her neighbours. Closer to us, the Malaysian Army is still expanding, and it is said that they will build an initial target of at least 35 battalions, with full Commonwealth support. The experience of the Malaysian Army during the Emergency was indeed a hard-earned one. Are we in Singapore going to join in this armed rat race? What for? Who will benefit? Can we afford to raise and maintain a reasonably large army for our security? Or are we expanding the Armed Forces to provide employment opportunities, as some other country not very far from Singapore is doing? Sir, for over a hundred years, under British rule, we had been fed with a different language, a different way of life, and, most important of all, and perhaps the most upsetting thing of all, we had been made to evolve a very peculiar outlook and social assessment based on a philosophy and education system completely foreign to us. Those who were fortunate were given an education which was sufficient to serve the colonial administration but not good enough to question their colonial masters' right; except for a few, of course, to whom the British thought a higher education could be given in the motherland, so that they could be equipped with better knowledge, and then later on baited with high social position and security to serve the colonial interests. But there are many - perhaps most of the Ministers on the Front Bench - concerning whom the British regrettably admitted that their plans had misfired. Sir, defence was then not our business. We were free to make a living and go to any commercial enterprises provided the resultant benefits were to the British interest and in their favour. And none at that time regarded this place as our permanent home. Very few questioned the rights that were due to them. The question of security then was not our business too, because the security of Singapore meant the security of the colonial interest here. And so when the Japanese were nearing Singapore - not actually in Singapore - the British packed up and Singapore was handed over to the Japanese. They could get away because they had the Prince of Wales. What did we have? Our sampans? We could not get away. And where could we go? For the Chinese, back to China; the Indians back to India; and the Malays back to Indonesia? Sir, the lesson taught to us was that the British could pack up and scoot off and then return at a time when they felt it most opportune to do so. Sir, we were the unfortunate that were left behind to face the music of three years and eight months. Where were the British? The Australians fought well, the Indian Regiment fought well, and so did the Malay Regiment. Not the British. Our forefathers perhaps and our brothers were the ones that fought the Japanese. Sir, the Japanese taught us a lesson. [Interruption] I was five.

Order.

The lesson was that our stake is here, and not anywhere else. If you want to survive, stay here and fight. Sir, going back to recent history, the circumstances leading to our independence can be said to be very unique. Overnight we found ourselves masters of our own destiny, standing alone at the southern tip of the Asian continent. The first step was to establish ourselves internationally and make as many friends as we possibly could. Then came the big question mark: our security. Can we handle the job? How? With or without the British? The position of the British base here in Singapore is more than one of military consideration. But we cannot forever be dependent upon a foreign country for cur livelihood, more so our security. The British are beginning to have a re-appraisal of their defence arrangements east of Suez. For us, the British base here can be a very delicate and explosive political issue. And so we give ourselves a very thorough examination and post-mortem. With the almost immediate withdrawal of Malaysian troops and the Federal Reserve Unit, who forbade people singing Christmas hymns during Christmas time, we would have to more than fill up our security vacuum. This we did. But as a long-term policy, with the impending and eventual and inevitable withdrawal of foreign troops, we have to handle the job on our own. This will lead us to the question, what kind of army do we want to build up? How big should the Armed Forces be? And most important, against whom are we defending? Sir, let us tackle the last question first. Against whom are we defending? The established policy of the Government on foreign policy is non-alignment. India, too, professes a neutral foreign policy. Yet that does not prevent her from military conflicts with her neighbours, China and Pakistan. The disputes with Pakistan and China have created doubts in the minds of many as to the practicability of neutrality. Sweden and Switzerland, for instance, maintain a sizable army even when their foreign policy is neutral. Sir, we cannot take it for granted that nobody will harm us, that everything is well and good if we adopt a neutral foreign policy. Neutrality is meaningless without safeguards to our national integrity. Who will guarantee our territorial integrity?

6.44 p.m. In the past two decades the international boundaries of countries have changed and are still changing. For example, the 38th parallel in Korea and the 17th parallel in Vietnam are very artificial demarcations. The Thai/Cambodian border was the subject of a World Court decision. The West Irian, India and Pakistan, and India and China borders and many African countries are still disputing over their boundaries. Some of these are of military significance, but in our case it is more economic than political. Sir, we cannot afford to involve ourselves in power bloc conflicts in this part of the world. But we cannot, at the same time, be so ridiculously presumptuous that because we will not and cannot play the part of the aggressor, we need not therefore think about our defence. We cannot afford to maintain a large standing army and, therefore, our very small Armed Forces must be a very efficient one. That means that the duty and obligation to defend the country is open to a very small minority of those people who are serving in the regular forces. Others are indifferent. And the answer is national service so as not only to provide the means of defence but also to make it obligatory on the part of the people to defend their own interest and their own property. Sir, history has proved that no standing army in Asia can be demobilised. Once you raise an army, you have to maintain and feed it and even to expand it, for a general cannot be a general if you have not got an army division. Sir, this is particularly so when a country's independence is achieved through violent revolution, and after that the freedom fighters form the elite group of the nation's army and claim the right of place in society. After all, they fought for independence. Our situation in Singapore is unique in the sense that there is no front line in view of the smallness of our Republic. You cannot run from Pasir Panjang to Katong. In a nuclear war there will be no one left behind to build a memorial, because there will be no one left to pick up our bones. Even in a conventional war, you cannot run from east to west. It is a matter of 27 miles - 14 miles by 27 miles. There is no front line. Every inch of our territory is, in fact, a front line. Who is going to defend that? Sir, we cannot afford to have a soft-kneed new generation if we are to survive. And we hope through military training that we can build up a tough and rugged new generation that can make this country tick. The situation has changed in Singapore over the last decade or so. In the mid-l950s, national service was the subject of very violent protests from such categories of the population as hawkers, factory workers, shop assistants and students. Today, 10 years later, these are the same categories of people who are serving now in the Vigilante Corps, the Special Constabulary and, most important of all, in the People's Defence Force. The same categories who protested 10 years ago are the same people who now understand the mechanics of survival and they serve diligently in their respective arms. Shortly before the Japanese occupied Singapore, a great number of somewhat questionably able-bodied men and youths were "mobilised", handed with rifles and ordered to go oil to the so-called front. And all of us know what happened after that. With due respect to the people who fought so well shortly before 1942, we cannot afford to face a similar kind of situation - the situation of being caught unprepared. Some of the stories related to us now by the still surviving members of the then Volunteer Forces were that they thought they went for a picnic - and a "picnic" it was, Mr Speaker, Sir. Can we afford another such "picnic"? Are we to be caught again in a state of un-preparedness? As I have said, the fact that we cannot and will never attack others does not mean that we do not have to defend ourselves. National service has more important aspects than military. As the Prime Minister and earlier the Minister of Defence have said, it is through military training that we can build up a disciplined, well-organised, tough and rugged new generation. For if we are to give up this place, we had better know to whom we are giving our authority. If we give up ourselves, and the next generation with soft knees are prepared to compromise under the slightest pressure, then I say we had better pack up now. We have a right to guide ---- [Interruption].

Order.

We have a right and an obligation to guide and to help build up the next generation and to evolve a spirit of oneness. In the most advanced countries of the world, as my colleagues, the Member for Sembawang and the Member for Jalan Kayu have earlier mentioned, almost everyone of them has national service. In some countries, a deserter or one who evades national service will never in his life reveal this fact to his friend or even to his wife, for he regards this as shameful. Evasion of the responsibility to defend the nation is something that we have yet to put into the minds of our population. After all, military service is not purely military service. In the Army, one can learn a trade, the mechanics of repairing a car, fixing up wires, and possibly repairing a bridge. Therefore, in our new nation military service can be very important in one other aspect, i.e., to provide sufficient trained and, most important, disciplined men to fill up the vacancies in our industrial houses. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is oui duty to explain to the people that their obligation is to these 224 square miles -- 225 square miles at low tide - of territory and not somewhere else, not further north where a certain country exploded an atom bomb. Some of us in Singapore take particular pride in that, and not in any other country to which by sentiment or race we feel we are attached - Indonesia or India. Sir, to end our discussion today, ][ should like to quote a passage from the speech of the Minister of Defence made on the 29th of December last year at a passing-cut parade. Dr Goh then said: `Throughout man's long history, defence of the community has always been regarded as a novel duty. In the process of integrating the loose collection of peoples into a nation with a strong sense of identity, military service has played a significant role from the great city states of the 5th century B.C, to the 12th century continental super powers. We have seen how the development of national consciousness has been so often centred around service in the defence forces. In Singapore, we are not yet a closely-knit community. So many of our people are of recent migrant origin. All this goes towards creating a sense of value which is personal, self-centred with anti-social tendencies when a conflict arises between personal interests and social obligations. These are the values of the ruthless parvenu of society. We cannot hope to remove them over-night. But in the proces3 of creating a stronger national consciousness among our people, we will find that military service will play an increasingly important role as it has played in other nations and in other ages. This aspect of military service is at least as important as the purely defence consideration." 6.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, subject to your consent and the general assent of the House, under Standing Order 98 I beg to move, That notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 1 (5) , the Moment of Interruption at today's sitting be 7.00 p.m. instead of 8.00 p.m., and notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 1 (3) , the time appointed for the termination of the sitting be 7.30 p.m. instead of 8.30 p.m.

I give my consent. Do I have the general assent of the House that the Minister be permitted to move the motion he has just moved without notice? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 1 (5), the Moment of Interruption at today's sitting be 7.00 p.m. instead of 8.00 p.m. and notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 1 (3) , the time appointed for the termination of the sitting be 7.30 p.m. instead of 8.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Is there anyone who would like to catch my eye on this Bill at this stage? Mr Rodrigues.

Mr Speaker, Sir, several Members of this House have already stated their views on the National Service (Amendment) Bill, 1967. I wish to place on record my agreement in principle with the proposed amendments to the National Service Ordinance. I am of the view that some form of national service is essential to the well-being and security of Singapore. Even if there would never arise a situation where the persons who have been called up for military training are required to defend Singapore from any threat or danger, whether externally or internally, such period of national training would stand those persons in good stead. By reason of such training, they would be fortunate enough to receive training in leadership and responsibility towards their State. Thus Singapore would have at least a substantial number of its citizens who are physically fit and mentally keen to give the effective and strong leadership required in the future years of our Island Republic. I, however, have two comments to make in respect of the proposed Bill. I wish to refer ---

Mr Rodrigues, I think you are going a little too fast for the interpreters. Could you go a little slower, please?

I am afraid I cannot finish it today.

It does not matter. You can continue tomorrow.

I, however, have two comments to make in respect of the proposed Bill. I wish to draw the attention of this House to the proposed new section 21A wherein it is provided that an employer of any person placed in the national service reserve shall be responsible for the difference in the emoluments between such person's civilian and service emoluments. It is probably envisaged by this section 2lA that the employer pays the difference while the Government pays the service emoluments direct to such person. This section provides for persons who are placed in the national service reserve, but I am rather puzzled about the position of a person who is in full-time national service for the duration of the specified two-year period. It is likely that such a person might already be in the employment of a company or firm. I am not sure whether in the principal Ordinance any provision is made for the security of such person's employment and earnings for the period when they are receiving full-time military training. If no provision has been made, then I think it is essential that some amendment must be made to the principal Ordinance to safeguard the position of such person. Another point which I wish to bring to the attention of this House is that while the Ordinance provides for the security of jobs of persons placed in the national service reserve, no provision is made to the effect that no person placed in the national service reserve shall be prejudiced in his employment by reason only of the fact that they are placed on the national service reserve for the duration of such reserve services. I have in mind the possibility that a person placed on the national service reserve may be placed at a disadvantage in respect of promotion opportunities as a result of his military duties. Because of his military training requirements, he may not be able to carry out overtime work in his company --- 7.00 p.m.

Order. Moment of interruption. Pursuant to Standing Orders and the earlier resolution of this House, this is the Moment of Interruption. Dr Goh, would you like to move the adjournment?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the House to humiliatory articles on the Republic published in the Utusan Melayu. Because of the very lenient manner in which democracy is being enforced by the Singapore Government, the Utusan Melayu, a paper published in Malaya, recently had the temerity to outrage the sovereignty of our Republic by belittling the names and personalities of the Ministers of the Government of Singapore and of the President of the Republic of Singapore, by publishing humiliatory articles purposely exaggerated and given undue prominence in order to cause political tension between Malaysia and Singapore. This is a mischievous and dangerous act on the part of Utusan Melayu against Singapore which has emerged as a free and sovereign nation. The Utusan Melayu always publishes news as facts which have been twisted by Ahmad Haji Taff to excite communal feelings between the Malays and the non-Malays. Clarifications made by the leaders of the Singapore Government are invariably ignored and receive scant coverage in the columns of Utusan Melayu, and if they are published at all, they are twisted about. This is done purposely by Utusan Melayu for specific purposes. We, like the Utusan Melayu, know that Ahmad Haji Taff too acts as a spokesman of a foreign government and owes no allegiance to the State, for he cherishes the same objectives as those achieved by Dato Hamid Jumat and Tun Lim Yew Hock who have become Malaysian Ambassadors. Both of them were from Singapore and they were Singapore Ministers in the past, but they became frustrated with their political struggle in Singapore. Ahmad Haji Taff, too, is frustrated in the political arena in Singapore as a result of defeats in the general elections in the past - he was defeated twice in Tanglin and once in Geylang Serai in 1963; his colleagues too experienced severe defeat in that last election. The P.A.P. Government in Singapore took pity on him because of his defeats, and in order not to cause him further frustration, it appointed him as a Senator whilst Singapore was in Malaysia. It was only then that he had the privilege of sampling the cosiness of a chair in Dewan Negara. But, unfortunately, because of his own doings, the appointment of Senator enjoyed by Ahmad Haji Taff through the charity of the P.A.P. Government lasted for only two years, because Singapore became separated from Malaysia. And now there is no other alternative for him but to act as a spokesman of a foreign government in league with the Utusan Melayu and to twist and distort the speeches of the Ministers of the Singapore Government with the object and hope of obtaining a post like the posts obtained by Dato Hamid Jumat and Tun Lim Yew Hock. It is with this object in view that he, in collusion with Utusan Melayu, is going all out to instill in the Malays in Singapore a feeling of hatred towards the leaders of the Singapore Government through the columns of Utusan Melayu daily. On its part, the Utusan Melayu purposely exaggerates the news, all the more so if such news items can fan the flames of communalism. I am sure that we have not yet forgotten the incidents which took place in 1964 as a result of the publications in Utusan Melayu which then became an instigator that fanned the flames of communalism, culminating in a number of disturbances whereby many lives were sacrificed. When Singapore was separated from. Malaysia and became a free and sovereign nation, its position became more peaceful and prosperous. Be that as it may, the Utusan Melayu, which is published outside Singapore and allowed to circulate freely in Singapore, did not relent in its efforts to find ways and means to print news which can give rise to political tension between Malaysia and Singapore. For instance, in the issue of Utusan Melayu of the 13th of February, 1967, an article was published in big headlines and it was twisted by Ahmad Haji Taff. It set out the meaning and purpose of the speech of Inche Rahim Ishak, the Minister of State for Education in Singapore, in order to cause confusion among the Malays to the effect that Inche Rahim Ishak is a Malay leader of the P.A.P, who is anti-Malay and anti-Malay Rulers. Actually, the speech of Inche Rahim Ishak did not state that people of royal blood look on the Malays as dogs. etc. He mentioned the word "patek" which means "little dog". The Utusan Melayu has itself agreed that the word "patek" means "dog". In its issue of 31st December, 1966, the Utusan Melayu printed an article in bold headlines saying that the meaning of "patek" is "dog" and it was written by a language specialist in Malaysia. The heading of the article published by the Utusan Melayu clearly states that `patek" means "dog". If the Utusan Melayu itself agrees that "patek" means "dog", why then did it recently deny the meaning of that word, and why then did it and Ahmad Haji Taff kick up a fuss about the speech of Inche Rahim Ishak? The Utusan Melayu of 15th February, 1967, published an item in big headlines criticising Inche Rahim Ishak and the President of Singapore, Inche Yusof Bin Ishak. Its object was that the President of the Republic of Singapore is not fit to be called "Paduka Yang Mulia" because he is not of royal blood. It is possible that the Utusan Melayu does not understand or purposely does not wish to understand the terms "Paduka Yang Mulia" and "Kebawah Duli Yang Mahamulia". With the term "Paduka Yang Mulia" for the President of the Republic of Singapore, that is the reason why Singapore does not use the word "patek". I do not understand why the name of the President of the Republic of Singapore was made the object of attack by Utusan Melayu. I have read an editorial column of Utusan Melayu which mentioned President Soekarno, using the term "Paduka Yang Mulia". Is it that of late this was purposely twisted by Utusan Melayu in a campaign so that the Malays of Singapore will not centre their loyalty on the President and the Ministers of the Singapore Government? This is a mischievous and dangerous act by Utusan Melayu towards Singapore which has become a free and sovereign nation. The Government of Singapore should take a serious view of this and take action on the publication of such news items. Similarly, action should be taken against Ahmad Haji Taff for, like the Utusan Melayu, he acts as a spokesman of a foreign government for the purpose of inciting political tension between Malaysia and Singapore. In the interest of peace, happiness and prosperity of the people of Singapore, I urge that the Government demand an apology from both Utusan Melayu and Ahmad Haji Taff for what they have done, and should they fail to do so, the Government should take necessary action against both of them. 7.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to reply to the speech made by the Member for Geylang Serai in Malay. (In Malay): At the outset, let me explain to this House that it is true that the Utusan Melayu deliberately twisted and perverted the speech made by Inche Rahim Ishak, the Minister of State for Education. It was designed to stir up hatred and enrage the Malays both outside and within Singapore against Inche Rahim Ishak in particular and the Singapore Government in general. The Utusan Melayu has once again attempted to denounce the Singapore Government as being anti-Malay and anti-Malay Sultans, as, in fact, it did when Singapore was a part of Malaysia. Under the circumstances, the Utusan Melayu deliberately reported Inche Rahim's speech Out of context and perverted it. However, we all know Inche Rahim's speech did not in the least offend the position nor the status of the Malay Rulers. What he said in full concerned the progress achieved by the Malays in Singapore in the field of education with the various forms of assistance given to them by the Singapore Government since the P.A.P. assumed office in 1959. If it was true that Inche Rahim's speech offended and denigrated the status of the Malay Rulers, we would certainly have received a strong protest from the Malaysian Government. However, to date we have not received any such protest officially. The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, when challenged by Mr D. R. Seenivasagam in the Malaysian Parliament, stated that he did not wish to send a protest. We are all aware about Ahmad Haji Taff's tactics. He is the head of U.M.N.O. Singapore, an appointment made in Kuala Lumpur. He was not elected by members of U.M.N.O. Singapore, as is the case with political parties that practise democracy, but he was appointed by forces outside Singapore. It naturally follows that he feels that he is under a certain obligation to his benefactor and, of course, he comes Out in support of and exaggerates whatever his master says. Possibly there is some truth in what the Member for Geylang Serai has said - that Ahmad Haji Taff is aspiring to be an Ambassador, an ambition which his colleagues have realised, i.e., Hamid Jumat and Lim Yew Hock who have been given high appointments. Lim Yew Hock has suddenly become a poet recently. As the head appointed by outside forces, Ahmad Haji Taff is apprehensive that, when the day of judgment arrives, he will be ousted from UMNO. Singapore. So one way out of his dilemma is for him always to create a sense of uneasiness among the Malays in Singapore. In this way, by fishing in troubled waters, he hopes to cling to his position for as long as he can. But the Malays in Singapore, who have never been under feudalistic rule since 150 years ago, are not narrow-minded. Therefore, they turned a deaf ear to Ahmad Haji Taff's speech and the articles in Utusan Melayu written under a nom de plume. I understand that those articles were not, in fact, written by members of the public but by the staff of Utusan Melayu itself. I further understand that at an U.M.N.O, meeting held in Singapore recently, Ahmad Haji Taff condemned Malay organisations in Singapore for remaining silent and for not supporting Utusan Melayu. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a democratic socialist country. We are an open society. If Utusan Melayu and Ahmad Haji Taff were to live in a neighbouring country, they would certainly have been languishing in prison by now, detained under the internal security laws. But we will not resort to the internal security laws. We only invoke the internal security laws against the Communists who cannot be convicted in an open court, as they threaten witnesses with bodily harm. We have certain laws under which action may be taken for such offences. I refer to the Sedition Ordinance contained in the Internal Security Act. We are constantly giving serious attention to the news items and articles carried in Utusan Melayu which affect Singapore. When this daily paper runs foul of the law, then the Government will not hesitate to take firm action. A Utusan Melayu representative, in an interview with the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in September 1965, had already been provided with a copy of the Sedition Ordinance. Certainly this representative is not unaware that the provisions of the Sedition Ordinance are still in force in Singapore and can be enforced at any time if necessary. I wish to remind Utusan Melayu that in an interview with me on 30th September, 1965, in the Ministry of Culture, Singapore, its Managing Director; Dato Hussain Bin Noordin, gave an assurance to the Singapore Government to the effect that Utusan Melayu would not publish articles prejudicial to the peace and security of Singapore. He further said that Utusan Melayu would at all times make positive contributions by way of maintaining good relationship between Singapore and Malaysia. Dato Noordin also stated that he would accord his full co-Operation to bring about the successful creation of a just, prosperous, multi-racial and multi-religious society in Singapore. It is well and good for Utusan Melayu not to forget this undertaking.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes past Seven o'clock p.m.