Hansard, 1967-06-29

Under the provisions of clause 2 (d) of Article 30 of the Constitution of Singapore, I have granted permission to the following Members to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the period stated: - Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah) - from 1st June to 30th June, 1967. Mr Jek Yeun Thong (Queenstown), Minister for Labour - from 4th to 30th June, 1967. Dr Goh Keng Swee (Kreta Ayer), Minister of Defence - from 21st to 30th June, 1967. (P. COOMARASWAMY) Speaker. Parliament of Singapore

I have been informed by the President that, on the days stated, he assented to the following Bills: - 26th May, 1967 (i) Control of Imports and Exports (Amendment) Bill: and (ii) Intestate Succession Bill. 29th May, 1967 (i) Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill; and (ii) Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill. (P. COOMARASWAMY) Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister of Defence what actions were taken in the recent disturbances and demonstrations in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 49 lightning processions/demonstrations organised by the Barisan Sosialis and Left-wing unions were reported between 1st January, 1967, and 25th June, 1967. The monthly breakdown of figures is as follows: - January Procession 1 February " 1 March " 3 April " 10 May " 14 June " 15; Demonstrations 5. The police made contact in 32 separate incidents, resulting in the arrest of a total of 505 persons. A total of 432 persons were charged in court. Seventeen persons were served with expulsion orders as they are non-citizens. The police deployed strong foot and mobile patrols in likely areas in order to prevent processions from taking place. Troops of the Reserve Unit supplemented these patrols in patrolling these areas and taking action against illegal processions/demonstrations. The police showed great restraint in carrying out their responsibilities with minimum force, despite physical violence inflicted on them. Stones, bottles, wooden staves and lighted torches were hurled at the police by members o the illegal processions, resulting in injury to several police officers. Preventive police action is being taken and patrols are constantly on the alert against damage to property or acts of vandalism.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, what action will he taken against those who wilfully damage the Court room?

I believe the Member is referring to the incident which occurred in the Court yesterday. I am sure that the -

Mr Wee, if you are referring to incidents that occurred in Court as part of the proceedings, I may have to rule you out of order.

That is what I thought - that the Member was asking that question.

Could the Member please repeat his question slowly?

(In Malay): I would like to ask what action will be taken against those who wilfully damage a court of law?

Mr Wee, the question does not relate to the proceedings itself, but relates apparently to activities in Court in the course of the proceedings. These activities themselves are not, to my knowledge, the subject of court proceedings, and so you are at liberty to answer the question.

As the Member is aware, the police have taken the necessary measures to prevent any untoward incidents in the Court, and whichever persons are apprehended for criminal acts committed at the time, they, of course, will be dealt with according to the law.

asked the Minister of Defence how much public property was damaged by anti-national elements between January, 1967, and 20th June, 1967, and what are the measures taken for the protection of public property.

Mr Speaker, Sir, damage to public property caused by anti-national elements is as follows: -

asked the Minister for Finance how many house numbers were allotted in the Jalan Kayu Constituency between 1st January, 1965, and 30th April, 1967.

Mr Speaker, Sir, altogether there were a total of 444 house numbers allotted in the Jalan Kayu Constituency during the period under review. Of these, 187 were for permanent houses and 257 for temporary ones.

asked the Minister for Finance whether the present practice in international tenders for supplies to the Government, whereby the lowest local tender, which does not overbid the lowest foreign tender by more than 10 per cent, is accepted by the Government in preference to the latter, is sufficiently conducive to the promotion of local industries, and if he will consider increasing such preference margin to enable local industries to compete more favourably with foreign industries which may be in receipt of a generous subsidy from their governments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to express my appreciation to the Member for Telok Blangah who has shown concern for the survival of local industries in order that our workers would not lose their jobs as a result of unfair foreign competition in public tenders and purchases. I would like to clarify that our preferential purchase margin is not a straightforward single percentage figure. The margin varies from 5 to well over 10 per cent, depending upon a number of factors, namely, the size of tender contract, the cost of local production, the level of import duty, and the elements of subsidy or dumping price in imported goods. By a careful consideration of all these factors by those in Government and statutory bodies responsible for public purchases, an adequate preferential margin is then worked out to ensure that local manufacturers' interests are promoted and, at the same time, public bodies are safeguarded against unscrupulous manufacturers who may take advantage of our preferential purchase policy. There may, however, be cases whereby the local cost of production is genuinely high. In such a case the preferential margin may be raised. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government keeps under constant review its preferential purchasing policy. The Economic Development Board is represented when tenders of the Government as well as statutory bodies are considered. Administratively, Government departments as well as statutory bodies have to submit monthly returns showing their purchases of local and foreign products to the Economic Development Board. Such departments and statutory bodies are asked to justify in detail purchases of foreign products when local substitutes are available. In this way, Sir, the Government gives every opportunity to local industries to supply the requirements of Government and statutory bodies.

asked the Minister for Finance, in the application of the recent Modification of Laws (Constitution of Singapore) (No. 2) Order, 1967, to civil servants, what is the policy of the Government in respect of those civil servants who are eligible for Singapore Citizenship under the new proviso to clause (1) of Article 57 of the Constitution but refuse to acquire Singapore Citizenship.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a normal requirement that all candidates for permanent appointment to the public service must be Singapore citizens or persons eligible for Singapore citizenship at the time of application for appointment, although Malaysian citizens of outstanding qualities are accepted into the higher grades of the public service in Divisions I and II. With the relaxation of the residential qualification for Singapore citizenship through the recent Modification of Law (Constitution of Singapore) (No. 2) Order, the Government expects all non-Singapore citizens in the public service to apply for Singapore citizenship as soon as they become eligible. There is at present no intention to require those who refuse to seek Singapore citizenship to leave the service. This may, however, jeopardise their prospects of promotion as they may have to be excluded from some jobs which are security-sensitive and would have to be held by Singapore citizens who are required to be loyal to the Republic.

asked the Minister for Finance what steps he proposes to take or has taken against the dumping of foreign wheat-waste, such as bran and pollard, in Singapore to protect the local flour-milling industry in the disposal of its waste products.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the present moment the Government does not intend to impose restrictions on the import of wheat-waste like bran and pollard, as both the two local producers have no difficulty at all in selling their entire output of such products in the local market. Although there has been a decline in the price of imported wheat bran and pollard, the local producers cannot be said to be seriously affected since they are already earning very healthy profits from the sale of wheat flour, their main product.

asked the Minister for Finance whether the Currency Board has presented or proposes to present the first issues of the new currency to dignitaries in Singapore, and if so, at whose cost or expense.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a complete set of the new Singapore notes is worth $1,166. The Currency Board has not presented anyone with a set of the new notes, nor does it propose to spend public money in this way.

asked the Minister for Finance, in view of complaints made by the public of impoliteness, bureaucratic attitude and slowness in carrying out their duties by civil servants in various Government departments, if he will set up a "Watch-dog Committee" to make instant investigations whenever complaints are received.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is already in existence a Central Complaints Bureau to deal with complaints from the public against civil servants. This Bureau was established in October 1961 for the purpose of investigating complaints and suggestions from members of the public, and to inform complainants of the outcome of their complaints or suggestions. The Bureau is staffed by a Director, three supervisors, five investigating officers, ten inspectors, and other ancillary staff, and is able to deal with complaints fairly promptly. The establishment of a "Watch-dog Committee", therefore, would serve no purpose except to duplicate the functions of the Bureau.

asked the Minister for Finance, in view of the present acute shortage of good first-class hotel accommodation in the Republic which is impeding the development and growth of tourism in Singapore, whether he is aware that the incentives offered to private developers for the projects under urban re-development are not sufficiently attractive for would-be investors, and if he will also consider income tax relief incentives similar to those granted to pioneer industries in order to encourage the building of more good first-class tourist hotels in the Republic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is still too early to conclude whether the incentives offered to private enterprise for the projects under urban redevelopment are or are not sufficiently attractive. First reports indicate that the projects have generated tremendous interest from investors locally and abroad. The question whether additional incentives are necessary to encourage the development of first-class hotels is being studied by my Ministry.

asked the Minister for Finance how many persons in the Import and Export Section of the Trade Division were involved in alleged corrupt activities during the recent reorganisation of that Section; if he will reveal the names of such persons; and what disciplinary action has been taken.

Mr Speaker, Sir, investigations conducted recently in the Import and Export Section of the Trade Division indicate corrupt practices on the part of certain officers in that Section. As investigations are still being conducted by the C.P.I.B., it is not possible at this stage to disclose details. But I can assure the House that stern and speedy disciplinary action will be taken against officers at the completion of the investigations if they are found to be guilty. When investigations have been completed, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will make a statement.

asked the Minister for Labour (a) if he will give the monthly returns of migration between Singapore and Malaysia and the breakdown in this movement of persons according to ethnic, religious and age groups; (b) whether such persons moving into Singapore who change addresses are given the Singapore non-citizen (blue) identity cards; and (c) who are the persons who get non-citizen (blue) identity cards and how man) such cards have been issued to date.

Mr Speaker, Sir: (a) Before I answer the hon. Member's question, I have to point out that the National Registration Office does not keep a record of figures of migration between Singapore and Malaysia by religious groups. The figures by ethnic and age groups are available from the 1st April, 1966, onwards. The statistical table* (* Appendix I, cols. 71-2.) which I submit herewith for circulation gives a distribution by race and age groups of 12,371 Malaysian identity card holders who have reported a change to Singapore addresses during the period 1st April, 1966, to 31st May, 1967. [Statistical Table handed to Clerk] APPENDIX I(Cols 0071-0072) Of the 12,371 persons who moved from West Malaysia to Singapore during this period, 9,827 were Chinese, 1,243 Malays, 1,137 Indians and Pakistanis, and 164 of other races. You will see from the table that the biggest number that came to Singapore was the age group of 16 to 29 years. This accounted for 8,098 persons of whom 6,491 were Chinese, 973 Malays, 572 Indians and Pakistanis, and 62 of other races. We have no doubt that they came to Singapore solely for the purpose of looking for jobs and better prospects. In addition to the 12,371 Malaysian identity card holders who have changed to Singapore addresses, there were 1,182 Malaysian identity card holders who have changed to Singapore identity cards. All of them were Singapore citizens. During the same period only 1,673 persons have moved from Singapore to Malaysia. This comprised 838 Singapore identity card holders who have changed to Malaysian identity cards, and 835 Singapore identity card holders who have changed to Malaysian addresses. The above figures showed that there was an immigration surplus to Singapore during the period April 1966 to May 1967 of 11,880 persons. (b) Malaysian identity card holders who have reported a change of addresses are not issued with Singapore non-citizen identity cards. Section 24 (f) of the National Registration Regulation, 1966, exempts persons holding valid Malaysian identity cards from registering for the Singapore identity cards. These people are, therefore, not issued with Singapore non-citizen identity cards. They are, however, required to report to the Commissioner of National Registration their place of residence within 40 days of their arrival in Singapore and for every subsequent change of residence in Singapore. (c) During the period of re-registration of the population from 5th May, 1966, to 31st January, 1967, non-citizens who are permanent residents and who are in possession of valid identity cards issued or deemed to be issued under the provisions of the Registry of Persons Ordinance, 1955, have to apply to be reregistered under the National Registration Act, 1965. These persons are issued with the new non-citizen plastic laminated blue identity cards. Up to the 28th June, 1967, 156,665 non-citizen identity cards have been issued.

asked the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs (a) the total number of old books in the National Library which had to be rebound during the last five years and the total expenditure involved; and (b) what is done with the old books which are beyond repair and what was the number of such books during the last five years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the total number of old books in the National Library which had to be rebound during the last five years and the total expenditure involved are as follows: 1962... 3,036 volumes costing $ 7,762.70; 1963... 36,771 volumes costing $77,095.80; 1964... 17,588 volumes costing $41,496.80; 1965... 24,740 volumes costing $63.692.50; 1966... 23,923 volumes costing $65,013.

00. These figures exclude the output of the National Library's own binding apprentice appointed in December 1963, which is as follows: 1964... 3,444 volumes 1965... 4,754 " 1966... 3,726 " ------ Total 11,924 " ====== In regard to the second part of the question, books which are beyond repair are condemned for destruction and burnt at the Kolam Ayer incinerator. The number of such books during the last five years is - unfortunately, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have no figures for 1962 and 1963 - estimated to be around 46,588; for 1964, 18,873; 1965, 11,034; and 1966, 11,179.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether replacements have been ordered for those books which were destroyed, or will there be a literature drain if replacements have not been ordered?

Sir, most of the books destroyed by the National Library have been replaced, but not one hundred per cent of them, because, firstly, some of the books destroyed were regarded as no longer of value to the readers, and, secondly, some of the books destroyed are already out of print and no further copies or editions are available.

asked the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs (a) what was the total collection of books in each of the official languages in the National Library as at 31st December, 1966; and (b) what percentages of the votes allocated for the purchase of books in 1965 and 1966 were expended.

Sir, the total collection of books in each of the official languages in the National Library as at 31st December last year is as follows: Malay... 33,018 Chinese... 65,468 Tamil... 18,264 English... 168,955 ------- Total... 285,705. ======= With regard to part (b) of the question, 100 per cent of the votes allocated for the purchase of books in 1965 and 1966 were expended.

asked the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs (a) whether there is any difficulty in obtaining Chinese, Malay and Tamil books for the National Library; (b) what are the sources for the purchase of such books; and (c) what was the cost in local currency per rupee of the Indian price for purchases made in Singapore of Tamil books published in India before devaluation of the Indian rupee and what is the present such cost.

Sir, there is some difficulty in obtaining Chinese, Malay and Tamil books as not many Chinese, Malay and Tamil books are published annually compared with English books. So selection is limited and some subjects are not well represented, for example, science and technology. Few bibliographies, book lists, catalogues and other buying aids are available. Some Chinese books published in China do not conform to our local requirements. During the Indonesian confrontation it was not possible to obtain Indonesian publications. Poor physical quality of the books, for example, paper, ink, binding and illustrations, means that books in these languages do not last very long even when rebound and have to be frequently replaced. Such books are purchased from local and overseas booksellers. With regard to the rate between the local dollar and the rupee before the devaluation of the Indian rupee, the cost of Tamil books was 80 cents to one rupee and the present rate is 70 cents to one rupee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is it true that the Ministry of Culture depends on a certain individual by the name of Jeyadawat to get Tamil books for the National Library?

Sir, that is not true. The Ministry of Culture is not dependent on anybody. In fact, we have a list of agents and publishers and, depending on the availability of catalogues and bibliographies, we order the books as we deem fit from whichever source available.

asked the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs if he will consider the planting of more shrubs and flowering plants along roads and at roundabouts to enhance their beauty and the beauty of the City as a whole.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to assure the hon. Member that consideration is being given to the planting of shrubs and flowering plants along our roads and at roundabouts to enhance the appearance of the city. Thus, for example, last year flower boxes were placed on the road dividers along Collyer Quay, flowering shrubs were planted in the open space in front of Clifford Pier, and the overhead pedestrian bridge was decorated with flowering shrubs and plants. Recently the roundabout at Empress Place has been replanted with flowers, flowering shrubs and plants. I should like to take this opportunity to mention a special tree planting scheme which is being organised by the Ministry of National Development which will include, among other things, the planting of flowers, shrubs, such as bougainvillaea, on traffic islands, road dividers and other roundabout open spaces all over the island. The scheme will begin with the Airport Road as the first phase.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development what is the total cost of the works on the canal at the junction of Tampines and Upper Serangoon Roads and whether railings will be erected along both sides of the canal to prevent children falling in.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the total cost of the concrete-lined canal is approximately $271,000. The canal extends from Tampines Circus along Tampines Road to the Bridge at the 7th milestone and is about 3,165 feet long. Along the first 800 feet from Tampines Circus to Jalan Hock Chye junction where the adjacent lands are highly developed and pedestrians numerous, two horizontal rails will be provided as protective barriers on both sides of the canal. Along the rest of the canal down stream from Jalan Hock Chye, no protective barriers will be provided since the lands being drained are little developed and there is an existing side table which is fairly wide. Work on this project started in June 1966 and is expected to be completed in about November this year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Minister tell me the cost of the railings that have been erected?

I am afraid I have not got the particulars of the cost of the railings, but I will be happy to send them on to the Member for Punggol.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he can state the reasons for the recent floods in areas which were not subject to floods some years back, and what steps will be taken to prevent further flooding in such areas.

The main reason for the widespread recent flooding in areas which were not subject to floods some years back was the exceptionally heavy rainfall. About 8.4 inches of rain were recorded over a period of 24 hours on the 11th of January this year. This was followed by 6.4 inches of rain over a period of six hours on the next day. Again, about 7.4 inches of rain fell over a period of 24 hours on the 17th of February this year. These figures exceed the maximum rainfall of not more than 4 inches per day recorded in Singapore ever since 1931. This exceptionally heavy rainfall coincided with high tide and caused the floods. Other reasons for the flooding were: The outlet drains at Bukit Timah Canal, Sungei Whampoa, Sungei Kallang, Geylang Serai and New Bridge Road/South Bridge Road areas are inadequate to serve the catchment runoff. Previously many low-lying areas and vacant lands served as ponding and storage areas for heavy rainfall. But these areas have been filled and developed, and thus cause greater run-off into streams and drains which become inadequate to cope with this additional discharge. In the densely populated areas, rubbish and other waste materials are dumped indiscriminately into the drains, thus preventing the free flow of water especially in covered drains. Measures have already been taken to alleviate the flooding in Bukit Timah, Sungei Whampoa and Sungei Kallang catchments by (1) the Bukit Timah flood alleviation scheme, Phase 1; (2) the Sungei Whampoa improvement scheme; and (3) the Sungei Kallang improvement scheme. Work on all three schemes is already in progress. New measures to alleviate flooding are being planned for 1968 in the Boon Tat Street and Alexandra Canal catchments. The Public Works Department has had a drainage scheme to alleviate flooding in Geylang Serai since 1960, but has not been able to implement it because of squatters. The Ministry of Health and the Public Works Department are together taking action to remove the concrete slabs covering some drains in the city areas to prevent these drains from being choked with rubbish.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development (i) the number of persons on the register as at 31st May, 1967, for the purchase of flats under the Housing and Development Board home ownership scheme; (ii) the number of flats (giving the type, cost and location) expected to be available for sale by the end of 1967; and (iii) the number of flats sold since the inception of the scheme, and of these, the number paid for by cash and the number by monthly instalments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as at 31st May, 1967, 1,663 outstanding applicants have been registered for the purchase of flats under the Housing and Development Board home ownership for the people scheme. The number of flats expected to be available for sale by the end of 1967 is as follows: - Toa Payoh, Neighbourhood 2, Contract 7 - 19-storey buildings Expected date of completion: July 1967. Three rooms improved type at $7,500 per unit. Altogether 228 units. Toa Payoh, Neighbourhood 3, Contract 3 - 16-storey buildings Expected date of completion: December 1967. All three rooms improved type at $7,500 per unit. Altogether 576 units. Toa Payoh, Neighbourhood 4, Contract 2 - 10-storey buildings Expected date of completion: October 1967. All three rooms improved type at $7,500 per unit. Altogether 200 units Toa Payoh, Neighbourhood 4, Contract 5 - 10-storey buildings Expected date of completion: November 1967. All three rooms improved type at $7,500 per unit. Altogether 360 units Bukit Ho Swee, Phase III, Contact 10 - 16-storey buildings Expected date of completion: December 1967. All three rooms improved type at $6,300 per unit. Altogether 400 units Since the inception of the scheme, 4,955 flats have been sold. Of these, 259 units were paid for by cash and 4,696 by monthly instalments.

asked the Minister of State (Prime Minister's Department) whether he is aware of the reasons for the resignation of the former Registrar of Vehicles after having held the post for only 5½ months.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Leembruggen, a Superscale Grade `G' officer in the Administrative Service, who has just left the Singapore Civil Service, had previously resigned on two occasions. First, in 1961 when he was persuaded to stay in the service, and, second, in 1962 when he changed his mind after tendering his resignation. In November 1966, he was invited to appear before the Public Service Commission for promotion. He was, however, then holidaying in the United Kingdom and did not attend the interview. Special arrangements were made subsequently to interview him on his return from the United Kingdom. The Commission found Mr Leembruggen suitable for promotion from Superscale Grade `G' to Permanent Secretary, Superscale Grade `C' -a double promotion. However, he was willing to accept this promotion on condition he was placed senior to certain other Permanent Secretaries who had been promoted before him. This was an unacceptable condition as there was no provision in Establishment rules to allow officers to upset seniority in pursuit of personal feuds and rivalries with fellow officers. As a result, Mr Leembruggen turned down the offer of promotion and asked to be removed from his acting Permanent Secretaryship. He was therefore transferred as Registrar of Vehicles, a Grade `G' post. He has now resigned.

3.10 p.m.

"to provide for the establishment and maintenance of the Vigilante Corps and for purposes connected therewith", recommendation of President signified (Mr E. W. Barker); presented by the Minister of State of Defence (Mr Wee Toon Boon) (for the Minister of Defence); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Moneylenders Ordinance, 1959 (No. 58 of 1959)", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Barker; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to repeal the Public Authorities Protection Ordinance, 1948, of Malaysia (No. 19 of 1948)", presented by Mr Barker; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Development Fund Ordinance, 1959 (No. 52 of 1959)', 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 establish a National Records Centre for the purpose of providing for the custody and preservation of public records of Singapore", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs (Inche Othman Bin Wok); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

3.14 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 132 of the Revised Edition)." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of this Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

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

Yes, Sir. Typed copies of the Bill distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill that is now before the House has been introduced by Government in order to bring about certain amendments to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to bail. As in all countries that have inherited their systems of law and criminal justice from the English legal system, an accused person is presumed innocent until he has been convicted of the offence with which he has been charged. From this fundamental precept, there follows the equally fundamental rule which can be regarded as one of the cornerstones of every administration that practises democracy, namely, the right to bail which is accorded to every accused person awaiting trial. And so in constitutional laws governing the procedure in all criminal trials, we find rules ensuring the offer of bail to every accused person who stands charged with an offence. However, as hon. Members of the House will appreciate, all these fundamental precepts would be made a mockery of if they were to be applied as absolute rules unbending and regardless of circumstances, variations, or situations that must occur in any given case. And so even in the Criminal Procedure Code as it now stands, there are exceptions where bail must be refused altogether - for example, in cases of murder and treason and such like offences. Again there are cases where the offer of bail is not as of right but at the discretion of the court, and, lastly, a third category comprising the majority of offences in which bail is offered as of right to accused persons pending trial. One could therefore say that as a general rule our Criminal Procedure Code requires that bail be offered as of right to the alleged criminal. And this is even so in regard to offences against public tranquillity which are grouped together under Chapter VIII of Schedule A to the Code. All such offences like rioting and unlawful assembly are bailable as of right. This, in effect, means that the accused person must be offered bail, irrespective of the difficulties that might be faced by the prosecution in their efforts to get up their case by reason of the accused being let out free and irrespective of the number of times the accused person continues to commit the same offence whilst awaiting trial for the offence with which he has been charged. The experience of the last few months of rioting and destruction of public and private property in the Republic has emphasised the inadequacies of certain of the present provisions in our rules of procedure requiring the offer of bail as of right. Persons charged under section 144 for joining an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons must, in accordance with our present rules of procedure, be offered bail as of right. Again, persons charged under section 145 for joining or continuing in an unlawful assembly, knowing that it has been commanded to disperse, are likewise to be offered bail. The offer of bail is again obligatory and must be made to persons charged with rioting or rioting armed with deadly weapons or with offences committed by one of their number whilst they form part of an unlawful assembly, or hiring or engaging or employing persons to take part in an unlawful assembly. Again, persons who knowingly join or continue in an assembly of five or more persons after it has been commanded to disperse, are treated in exactly the same way as persons charged with assaulting or obstructing public servants when suppressing a riot. Such persons under the existing law will have to be offered bail even though there is the likelihood that they would continue to commit the same offences whilst awaiting trial. Persons who wantonly give provocation with intent to cause a riot, are entitled as of right to bail, even if a riot ensues, and no amount of objections on the part of the law enforcement officers can confer upon the court the right to refuse bail. All those accused of such offences which militate against a well-ordered society are bailable and to the extent of denying even the courts who are given the authority and jurisdiction to decide upon their guilt or otherwise, the right to consider whether or not in the particular circumstances in any given case, bail should be refused. But ever since the Barisan Sosialis decided to carry out their struggle outside Parliament and to abjure the constitutional process, Communist Front members have mounted a campaign to disrupt law and order in our society as evidenced by their demonstrations in the streets and their wanton destruction of both public and private property. The Government cannot afford to ignore this organised threat to the public peace, and recent events have emphasised the need to tighten our laws in respect of bail. The Police have evidence to show that those who have been charged with rioting and destruction of property have, after their being charged in court and let out on bail, gone back to commit the very same crimes for which they had already been charged. The Government owes a duty to the people of Singapore to ensure that such lawless gangs of hooligans, whatever their ideologies and whatever their political persuasions may be, should not be allowed to take advantage of the liberalism of our democratic system to undermine democracy itself. These present rules which were devised during an era of comparative peace and quiet must not be allowed to be abused by those who seek to destroy the very basis and fabric of our society whilst sheltering under the benefit of the very laws they so flagrantly flout. The provisions in this Bill have been designed to correct these apparent defects in our procedural laws. The amendments contained in this Bill will therefore make the offences I have mentioned earlier non-bailable. And I wish to make it clear that this does not mean that bail would automatically be refused to accused persons charged with offences against the public tranquillity. This will merely mean that the courts will now be given a discretion to allow or to refuse bail according to the circumstances of each case. The result of these amendments would be, in other words, to confer upon the court jurisdiction to refuse bail in respect of these offences when heretofore the offer of bail was obligatory and no amount of objections on the part of the prosecution would make any difference. Mr Speaker, Sir, as you know, the terms "bailable" and "non-bailable" have acquired special technical meanings in our laws and these specialised meanings have been derived from those basic fundamental precepts that I have enunciated at the beginning of my speech to the House. Offences that are termed "bailable" are those where the general rule is that an accused person must be offered bail. And offences that are termed "non-bailable" merely mean that those charged with these offences are still entitled to apply for bail but each and every application will have to be considered according to its merits. In regard to non-bailable offences, if having regard to all the circumstances of the case the court arrives at the conclusion that the interests of the community at large must prevail over those of the individual, then it may refuse bail in respect of such offences. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is always reluctant to take any Bill on a Certificate of Urgency through three Readings in one day. But yesterday's disgraceful events outside and inside a Magistrate's Court in Singapore are without a doubt very good reasons for taking this Bill through three stages today. Some of those who had been given bail and had under the terms of their bail to appear before the Court yesterday misbehaved not only outside but, judging by mere reports in the newspapers, inside the Court as well. They behaved in a manner unheard of in the history of our Courts.

Mr Barker, can I have an assurance that their behaviour is not the subject of a charge?

I am just finishing, Sir,I was going to say that meanwhile investigations are proceeding, and I wish to make no further comments at this stage on what transpired except that surely any Court in such circumstances should be given at least the discretion to refuse bail. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.32 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, touching on the speech made by the Minister for Law and on the Bill introduced by him, I would like to express my full support for both his speech and the Bill. In our newly independent country there have been many incidents which would justify the passing of this kind of law. The original purpose of the law is not to ask people to commit any offences and then to bind them by the stipulations of the law. The law is meant only to prevent the commission of any offences by anyone who disregards common interests or the security of the nation. So in passing the law, the preventive side should also be emphasised. But in the existing law, namely, the Criminal Procedure Code, there are certain loopholes which any intending offender may use to commit certain offences, and when they are prosecuted in Court they can seek the provisions of the law to get bail, and thus be free to commit further offences. So this provision of the right of bail would benefit them by giving them another opportunity to commit further offences. The time allowed them outside the Court before trial is used by them to commit further offences and to jeopardise the interests of the public. From this we can see that more and more people will be encouraged to take advantage of the loopholes in the existing law. Since our country is not a Communist country, we cannot see the type of mass open trial of people such as that prevailing in Communist countries. But we can see incidents where people have committed various types of offences And if such people were brought to Court, there would be a scene which would not be nice to look at. On such an occasion the law may be at a loss to deal with them. So in legislating we must also pay attention to further aspects relating to the protection of the people. Some people may think that the result of the trial may not be of any significance to them. As long as these offenders can be bailed out, they will continue to commit offences as before. So if we were to retain the old provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code without any amendment, we would be encouraging such people and not protecting the people as a whole. And the law would not be able to meet our obligation to protect the people. We can also see that most of these offenders are still young. Our present younger generation are growing up and receiving education, and they are subject to various influences. In introducing this amendment Bill, we should bear in mind the magnanimity of the law, because we know that the law is meant to protect our people and not really to punish the offenders only. If we do not direct our law to a specific field, then we may allow a situation to develop when we may have to deal with one case on one day and on another day those convicted may want to create more disturbances and commit more serious crimes, if these people are emotional, they may want to burn down a community centre without any regard to whether or not there are any parents or children inside the building. Furthermore, these people have no regard for such inanimate objects as traffic lights and community centres which are made from materials. So if these inanimate objects can be destroyed, then, of course, living objects can also be destroyed by them. If we do not promptly take action to correct the present situation which is worsening, then in future we may be at a loss to deal with even more serious offences. We should be alert to all such possibilities. I feel that the Criminal Procedure Code needs some amendment, such as what our Minister has just proposed. This amendment is directed at the interests of the people of Singapore and should receive their full support. They should understand the motives and purpose of this amendment Bill. Maybe it would cause unhappiness to some people, because their potential activities might be curbed thereby. But I believe that all patriotic people should sincerely accept this amendment Bill. Sir, I support it. 3.44 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that the anti-national elements in our Republic are abusing the democratic system and that they have been discarded by the people in general. Mr Speaker, these anti-national elements are committing political suicide. They are on the brink of bankruptcy and are without proper leadership. They are now in despair and have almost become desperadoes. So they resort to violence in order to achieve their aims. They behave like mad dogs barking at and biting people in the streets. Their behaviour causes great distress to the people who think that they are really pathetic. Mr Speaker, Sir, admittedly in a country which practises parliamentary democracy, personal liberty is of great value. The rights of the individual must be respected. We all concede this point. But we must also realise that personal liberty and personal rights must not go against the interest of the social order and the national security. Our people have the right of freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of thought without interference. But all these freedoms do not mean that we can allow the anti-national elements to create chaos. These are not absolute freedoms, but are freedoms relative to the national interest. So we must not allow these ill-behaved anti-national elements to create collective violence and commit acts of hooliganism in the Republic of Singapore. Mr Speaker, in the past few months various incidents have shown beyond all doubt that a small minority of anti-national elements have some plans which they intend to carry out stage by stage in order to cause damage and create chaos in our society. They are causing great damage to public property which is paid for at the expense of the rate-payers and the general public. They have no regard for public property. They carry on their so-called struggle outside Parliament. Mr Speaker, we also know that in many constituencies in our Republic there are certain remote areas which are quite favourable for anti-national elements to carry out their nefarious activities. It is in these areas that their activities are rife. They go on a rampage in these places, resorting to violence, hooliganism and even sometimes committing acts of robbery. Mr Speaker, under cover of darkness, these people cause great damage to public property by using axes and other weapons. These happen in out-of-the-way places and away from the arm of the law. We know that the people in the rural areas are quite appreciative of the value of the recreational opportunities given to them through the community centres. They all make use of the services provided by these centres. But, unfortunately, it is often these areas where the anti-national elements are active. They damage telephone posts, television sets, tables and chairs and other property in the community centres. Their irrational and barbarous acts have aroused the indignation of the people. Be that as it may, Mr Speaker, the people by themselves are quite helpless and so action must be taken to curb the activities of these anti-national elements. Their violence must he restricted and confined and, if possible, prevented. Mr Speaker, if the law in Singapore is inadequate to deal with them, if no preventive measures are available under the existing law, then I believe the situation will be further exploited by these anti-national elements. Their violence will be further intensified because of the loopholes in our laws. Mr Speaker, we are aware that recently there have been frequent occurrences involving young people who have been misguided and misled by the anti-national elements and they have somewhat imitated the cultural revolution that is going on in Red China now. Carrying red flags, they rampaged all over the streets of Singapore, shouting slogans and causing damage everywhere. In addition, they caused traffic jams and great damage to traffic lights. They have also damaged the property of people by burning vehicles in the streets. All this disregard for the rule of law and the interest of the public should never be condoned or connived at. Strict action must be taken to deal with such misbehaviour and violence. Otherwise Singapore will become an anarchic State and representative government will have failed in its duty towards the people. Therefore, as a representative Government having the mandate of the people, we have the responsibility - a great responsibility, indeed, Mr Speaker - to ensure that there is social order and happiness among our people. In other words, we must take all possible action to protect the people, their property and their lives from these anti-national elements. This is our solemn duty. In order that there is peace in our country and to ensure that the people of Singapore are able to continue their normal way of life, I fully support this amendment Bill. I believe it will go a long way towards preventing further damage and violence by the anti-national elements. They will not be able to stay at large under the protective cover of bail to carry out further damage and create more chaos in our State. The area of this small island Republic of Singapore is only 225 square miles. It is not a place for those who know only how to shout Communist slogans. Our new Republic wants to go forward and become viable. We are taking all possible action to develop our country - building multi-storey flats and schools, improving the traffic system and erecting more traffic lights - so as to enhance our standard of living. So we cannot allow these hooligans and anti-national elements to put a spoke in our wheel. Finally, Mr Speaker, let me reiterate my full support for this amendment Bill. 3.54 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, on those of us who have made the Republic of Singapore their Republic and who have no cause to come to any headlong collision with the law, this Bill, which seeks to amend the Criminal Procedure Code, will have no effect. To those who are responsible for the maintenance of law and order, and the Government in particular, these changes appear to be necessary, if only to ensure that all of us who claim the protection of the law may not he deprived of this right. The law as it now stands has not been amended for a very long time. But what has been provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code has during the course of the last few weeks been found to be quite inadequate. It would appear that the Criminal Procedure Code, as it is, lays down the general rule that there must be an offer of bail to all persons charged with any criminal offence for the period that such person is awaiting trial. The right of bail always exists, provided the court is satisfied that sufficient guarantees can be provided to ensure the appearance of the accused person in court on the day of his trial.

4.00 p.m. In other words, any person charged with a criminal offence is given bail. In this respect, not all the provisions in the law are altered. The only changes contemplated lie in regard to the courts who can now refuse bail if they are satisfied, for example, that the accused is likely to interfere with evidence or with witnesses for the prosecution, or that he is likely to commit the same or other criminal offences during the period he is on bail. The need to amend the provisions relating to bail in respect of these offences, which after all have been devised to ensure that public peace and order is maintained, cannot be overemphasised. These changes in the law, as far as I can see, make no radical departure from the generally recognised principles of fair trial and equal protection under the law. A man charged is still presumed innocent if he is allowed bail. There are people who have been charged and who, during the period they are on bail and before their trial, are likely to commit the same offence which will disturb public peace and destroy public property. As an example, I read in today's Straits Times an incident which occurred yesterday. Persons who were on bail damaged public property to the extent that the magistrate, who was trying them, was unable `to do anything good for the Republic so that law and order may prevail. If I were the magistrate yesterday, I would have pressed the button and called for the Reserve Unit to arrest them and charge them again. But, unfortunately, I was not the magistrate. Sir, the judicial authority must he satisfied that if bail is granted, the accused will not interfere with evidence nor with the witnesses for the prosecution, and that he will not commit a further criminal offence. The results achieved by these amendments should not in any way prejudice any of the democratic principles of the rule of law that one finds in all the declarations on human rights and criminal procedure codes. The fundamental rights of the individual under the law should be safeguarded as always. So we must not think only of those who offend the law and forget about the rest of our people who are law-abiding and who have a right to claim the protection of the law. This aspect of the matter will no doubt be taken into consideration by the court in deciding whether to grant bail or not. The court is merely given the discretion to allow or to refuse bail. As one concerned with the liberty of the individual as well as the security of the Republic, and as one who is desirous of seeing that the rule of law is not defeated by its very provisions on procedure, I would not hesitate to give my wholehearted support for these changes in the law. In my view, these changes are necessary and appear to be a fair and proper manner of achieving what must be the desired object of a well administered country, namely, an effective means of ensuring that law and order prevails and that the well-being of its citizens is in no way impaired. 4.08 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I fully support the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill. In the present circumstances and for the sake of respecting our national dignity, public interest, political security, economic prosperity and social order, and in order to allow our two million people to live in peace, I feel it is necessary to amend the present law. We know that the purpose of the amendment Bill is not to allow those who carry out anti-national, destructive and sabotage activities to avail themselves of the bail provided in the law and come out free and be able to carry out such activities again. The Minister has said that some people on bail have continued to commit the same offence for which they are prosecuted. From this we can see that it is necessary to amend the present law relating to bail granted to a person who is accused of a certain offence. So this is a pressing problem for us. Ours is a responsible government which looks after the interests of the people. We have the trust laid upon us by the general masses and we should try our best to rule the country and serve the people well. Recently the anti-national Barisan Sosialis have carried out a series of riots and demonstrations, causing social disorder with a view to disrupting the peace and good order of our society and hindering our economic and industrial development. They hope by such acts to destroy our democratic system and create a situation in which our economy will become bankrupt and the people will be dissatisfied, so that the time may be ripe for them to engage in their so-called revolution. Sir, their actions are obviously very sinister. They hope that there would be disorder and general chaos in the Republic, and they want to put a stop to the national security, peace and prosperity which we are now enjoying. In fact, the peace, prosperity and happiness of our country has been the result of the arduous work and efforts of our Government, with the co-operation of the people. We can say that Singapore is the most peaceful and prosperous country in South-East Asia. In order to preserve the national prosperity and peace and interests of the people, we, the Government, have a responsibility to see that such anti-national elements cannot carry on with their activities, such as damaging public property, breaking of street lights, upsetting rubbish bins and various other acts. Such barbaric and uncultured acts have caused great indignation among the people. Therefore, today before this House there is this Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill under a Certificate of Urgency. I feel that all the people expect this Bill to be passed quickly in order to deal with the situation. Sir, as for the families of those who have been prosecuted for their recent offences, I feel that they would also welcome this amendment Bill because, as parents or as relatives of such people, their children may become useful and law-abiding citizens and live in the proper way with the passing of this Bill into law.

4.14 p.m. I support this Bill because it will enable such offenders to repent and turn over a new leaf. In fact, those people who are misled by the Barisan Sosialis into participating in various anti-national activities are young people. They have been excited and fooled by the Barisan's high tune and revolutionary slogans. They go out into the streets to carry out revolutionary actions, chanting slogans and yelling abusive language. But when the police patrol cars arrive, these brave revolutionaries do not carry out their struggle constitutionally but they throw stones at the police and disperse. From all this, we can see that most of the members of this so-called voluntary vanguard have been fooled into taking part in such illegal activities. But when they meet the police, they take to their heels as quickly as possible! The Barisan Sosialis have announced that they will carry on with the struggle outside Parliament by instituting what they call the "Anti Three Harms Campaign" in order to overthrow the P.A.P, and establish their own regime. But what is surprising is that their engineered demonstrations and parades have never been successful. In fact, they have roused the indignation of the masses because, firstly, they destroy community centres which render good services to the people, especially those in the rural areas; secondly, they beat up teachers, and this is a very great moral offence; thirdly, they smash up traffic lights, and this is detrimental to public interest; and, fourthly, they overturn rubbish bins, and this is a health offence. So when they say that they are committing rebellious acts against the Government, they are, in fact, carrying out ridiculous activities which are detrimental to the people. All activities which are against law and order are activities which are detrimental to the interest and well-being of the people. The Barisan Sosialis will only succeed in isolating themselves from the people. I, therefore, hope that the policy planners of the Barisan Sosialis will think twice about their present policies and check themselves in time from committing suicide by such actions. 4.19 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to give my full support to this amendment Bill moved by the Minister for Law and National Development. Sir, it is a pity that this Bill should have been tabled today. It should have been tabled much earlier when anti-national elements went on a wild rampage to destroy public property and caused fear and insecurity to the people of the Republic. Sir, the agitators behind such wild mobs are cowards. They remain behind plotting and prodding young innocent school children to agitate against all sorts of amendments introduced in Parliament. Actually, it is a disguise. Some time ago, the Barisan Sosialis decided to take up the political struggle outside Parliament when they called on their Members to resign. To me, this is an evil design. They hope to build up an atmosphere on which the pro-Communists and Communists hope to capitalise and ultimately seize power on an unconstitutional basis. Regarding the riots that have taken place over the last few months, one can easily see that young innocent school children are being used - children who have too low a mentality to distinguish between right and wrong and between what can be done and what cannot be done. One can also see that the real persons behind such acts of vandalism should come forward and not stay behind and merely act as operators. I brand these persons as sheer cowards. They try to provoke our police. I was told that in the incident yesterday outside the premises of the Fourth Magistrate's Court our police officers were not only jeered at but were also kicked with the aim of provoking them into stronger action against innocent children who were being made use of by sinister people behind the scenes. These people had hoped that our law enforcement officers would be provoked into losing their patience and turning on the children. But far from it, I am glad to note that these officers, in spite of extreme provocation, acted with great restraint and did not lose their nerve. If the agitators had succeeded and a good number of young innocent students had been injured in yesterday's incident - and this is what they had wanted to see - they would have said to foreign correspondents and cameramen, "There you are, the P.A.P. Government is bad and dictatorial. It uses strong-armed tactics on these innocent children who are fighting for a good cause." Such techniques are not uncommon, and if I remember well, there were similar incidents a couple of years ago when the Chinese system of education was slightly modified. Our former Minister for Education, who is now the Minister for Health, was besieged in his own office by students who had prevented him from coming to this Assembly. But we were cool and patient in the handling of such students and in the end justice prevailed and we were proved to be right. As I have said, students have been used by the pro-Communists and Communists to further their ends. Their main objective is to cause incidents which they hope will culminate in a revolutionary atmosphere so that they can achieve their ends. I do not think that the people of Singapore are with them, Far from it - many have come to me and asked, "What are these chaps doing? They behave like hooligans. Why does the Government not deal firmly with them? They are giving us a bad name. Ours is a democratic country where the practice of democracy is still sustained." I think the agitators will do well to get it into their thick heads that the P.A.P. Government will never wilt under any provocation whatsoever. There must be law and order in our society. Lawlessness will not be tolerated, and until these people get this into them, they should think twice. For that reason, I would urge that further amendments should be introduced so as to empower the Government to deal more firmly with such agitators. Sir, I beg to support the Bill. 4.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill which seeks to deprive offenders of their automatic right to bail when arrested for unlawful gathering and for offences of rioting. The House today is not discussing the theory of liberty or the abstract rights of the individual. We are facing a situation in which a small band of political bankrupts has openly declared that it will take to street violence as its form of struggle, the irony of which is that it is supposed to be struggling for democracy. In the name of democracy, are we supposed to allow social wreckers to stage lightning attacks on lamp posts, traffic lights, bus stands and community centres? And then when the police comes they immediately seek the shelter of anonymity in the innocent pasar malam crowd of shoppers. Are we to allow such social perverts the right to automatic bail, in the legal term, "bailable as of right", so that they can be released for further hit-and-hide ventures or to terrorise witnesses from giving evidence? Our clear duty today is to see that our people can go about without fear, that our facilities erected at public expense are not damaged, and that our law enforcing officers are not handcuffed. For the past month, owing to the prevailing uncertain conditions existing in certain countries in this region, substantial investment funds have flown from there. Some of the funds landed here. In my role as a businessman and a manufacturer, I have come across many instances where these overseas funds are seeking investments here. This House knows only too well that we need every cent of those funds for investment, if we are to solve our unemployment problem. Unfortunately, this is not sufficiently realised by those misguided few who, by committing such acts, destroy their own chances of employment. To these misguided few, I say, please think carefully; our country, our people, and our Government are doing everything possible to industrialise in order to create more job opportunities. By taking to street violence, you are scaring away foreign investors as well as local entrepreneurs. This means that there will be less factories which, in turn, means that you may remain jobless. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the present technological age, we need anything between $20,000 and $100,000 to create one job. Massive investments are needed. Hooliganism must stop if we are to retain and attract investments. Our duty today is not only to preserve law and order but also at the same time to increase job opportunities. The surest way to do so is to diminish the rights of those who violate the rights of others. There can be no question of right when rights are abused by a minority to destroy the rights of the majority. I sincerely hope that the day will not come when we may have to take away completely the possibility of bail for those who are bent on wrecking our society. At the moment, the least we can do is to deprive these social wreckers of the automatic right of bail. 4.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst I generally am, not in favour of Bills being introduced on a Certificate of Urgency, I must support the Minister for Law and National Development in this case. In view of the recent increasing demonstrations and unlawful activities by anti-nationalist elements, I readily appreciate that urgent provisions are required to deal with these agitators and demonstrators. Just this morning we read in the newspapers of the disturbances both outside and inside a Magistrate's Court. We: have heard in this House this very afternoon the statement of the Minister of State of Defence that since January this year unlawful assemblies and demonstrations have increased month by month. We have also heard from the Minister introducing the Bill that there was evidence that some of the demonstrators charged under the Penal Code while on bail were again committing the same offences. And, Mr Speaker, Sir, in my constituency of Choa Chua Kang, a brand-new community centre built by the people in my constituency out of their own money was tarred and painted on with slogans by anti-nationalist elements. This lack of respect for public property and for law and order requires urgent measures to deal with it. The changes proposed in the Bill are nothing unusual, Mr Speaker, Sir. In what little time I had, I did a little research and found that originally under the Criminal Procedure Code offences under section 143 of the Penal Code and cognate offences were bailable. In 1957, however, these offences were made non-bailable by amending Ordinance 29 of 1957. But in 1960, these same offences were again made bailable by Ordinance 18 of 1960. Therefore, there is nothing new in this amending Bill at all. It is just a question of making provisions to deal with the special circumstances that are obtaining in Singapore at this particular moment. The Minister has also explained to us the legal meaning of "non-bailable". It does not mean that a person so charged under this particular section of the Penal Code cannot get bail at all. It only means that instead of the automatic right to bail the person charged would have to make out a case for bail. This does not infringe on the fundamental liberty of the subject and in no way detracts from the subject's fundamental right to a fair trial and equality before the law. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. 4.44 p.m.

Sir, I stand up to support the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill. During the past few months there have been incidents of rioting, unlawful assemblies, vandalism, processions, and demonstrations organised and instigated by the Barisan Sosialis. Such open defiance of the law by these anti-national elements should be stopped at all costs. Sir, as you know, the prosperity and survival of the nation depend very much on the political stability and preservation of peace and good order. Any good citizen will detest such despicable acts of open defiance of the law. As is known to all, Sir, the tactics of Communists everywhere are to create confusion and chaos in a country and then topple and take over the administration if the situation gets out of hand, The incidents in the Magistrate's Court yesterday will suffice to prove their evil design, which was to challenge the authority of the magistrate. We should not allow this to happen. We should stand firm and safeguard the interest of our law-abiding citizens by tightening up our existing laws against those anti-national elements who are up to no good and who wish to wreck the security of the country. Since the boycott by the Barisan Sosialis Members of Parliament and their subsequent resignations from Parliament, the Barisan Sosialis have openly declared their determination to carry out their so-called struggle in the streets outside Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are Red Guards in the People's Republic of China, Here in our Republic we have what I would like to call them in Mandarin Hon liu man, which literally means Red hooligans, as they deserve to be called. These anti-national elements are now out in the streets defying not only police orders and obstructing the duties of the law officers, but also damaging public property. They have gone even further now -they damage even private properties belonging to law-abiding citizens. This is indeed most contemptible and despicable. Mr Speaker, Sir, this House should ask the Government to take drastic action against these anti-national elements and stamp them out once and for all. Sir, Government action alone will not be sufficient. There must be co-operation from the public. There is much that the law-abiding citizens can do in helping to put an end to this open defiance of the law. The public should not regard this as a matter for the Government to solve when, in fact, their daily livelihood and interests are directly involved and their future jeopardised. Civic organisations or registered societies should come out and openly condemn such acts. At least it will have a deterrent effect in that these anti-national elements will not think that their lawless acts have the support of the public. Sir, I would like to conclude by saying that our laws must be respected and not challenged, and that law and order must be maintained at all costs. Sir, I give my support to this Bill. 4.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems shameful that in this matter of rowdyism, destruction of public property and lawlessness, the only voice of protest loud enough to be heard in this island comes from Members of this House, What has happened to our community leaders and the rest of our good citizens? Are they going to stay silent and stay in the background in matters of such civic importance and let a handful of citizens speak for them? Do they not have as much right to this land of ours as the hon. Members of this House? Are our worthy citizens going to stand on the pavement and watch whenever such acts of public misbehaviour and violence are being carried out? Are they not worried that these acts of violence might easily jeopardise the future of our young Republic? We know, Mr Speaker, Sir, that almost a hundred per cent of our population disapprove of and condemn such acts of civic disruption, and I feel it is time that the leaders of our community came out and joined with this House in openly denouncing such acts against the public peace. I, therefore, congratulate the Hon. Minister for Law and National Development on getting the Criminal Procedure Code amended, as I feel every loyal citizen of Singapore will support it. 4.53 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Back-benchers for expressing their support of this Bill at such short notice. It has been reassuring and gratifying. In the same way I am confident that our citizens outside this House, all of them except for a very small minority, want to live in peace and harmony and will certainly support the provisions of this Bill.

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

4.56 p.m.

Mr Barker, I suggest that we take the First Reading of the' Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill immediately before the suspension for tea. That will give Members half an hour to study the Bill.

Very well, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance (Chapter 131 of the Revised Edition)". Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

After the suspension, Sir, Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the. President in respect of the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

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

Yes. Typed copies of the Bill distributed to hon. Members.

I think this will be a convenient time to suspend the sitting. I will therefore suspend the sitting of the House and take the Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.58 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL (Cont.) Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance to ensure that there may not be any confusion as to what the true intent and purport of that section is. Section 7, as it now stands, reads as follows: `Where any application made to any criminal court by or on behalf of any person charged with a scheduled offence in respect of the release on bail of such person is opposed by the Public Prosecutor or a Deputy Public Prosecutor the court to which such application is made shall, unless it is the High Court, refer such application for the decision of the High Court or a Judge and, until such decision has been obtained, shall remand such person in custody.' The need to amend this section has been brought about by a case decided in the High Court in 1955. The court then held that the words in section 7, as it now stands, are not sufficiently clear and that the Legislature could not have intended to abrogate the substantive right to bail which has to be offered where the offence is bailable as of right, and that this was so despite the fact that such an offence has been listed in the Schedule to the Ordinance. Accordingly, to remove any doubts as to the actual intent of its application and to allow the Prosecutor to remove issues relating to bail from the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts to the High Court in regard to both bailable and non-bailable offences, the amendments have been introduced. According to this new amendment, section 7 will apply notwithstanding the provisions relating to bail that are to be found in the Criminal Procedure Code. In other words, the procedure will prevail, whatever the substantive rights may be. So that whether an offence with which an accused person is charged is bailable or non-bailable, once the Public Prosecutor or the Deputy Public Prosecutor opposes an application for bail, the matter will be taken up to the High Court for its decision. Substantive rights to bail are in no way jeopardised - only the forum is changed. I would like to emphasize that only those offences that are listed in the Schedule to the Ordinance, and these include only certain offences in the Penal Code that have been listed some years ago, would be affected. In short, it does no more than seek to amplify the wording of section 7 which the High Court in 1955 had regarded as insufficiently clear. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 5.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main purpose of this Bill is to create the appointment of a Deputy Chairman for the National Theatre Trust. Under the existing National Theatre Trust Ordinance, the Board of Trustees is made up of a Chairman and at least six other Trustees. The appointment of a Deputy Chairman will, therefore, increase the number of Trustees to at least eight members in all. The Deputy Chairman is to act as Chairman of the Trust in the absence of the Chairman. This will facilitate the business of the Trust to be conducted when, for one reason or another, the Chairman is absent. The Bill also provides for the reduction of the period of tenure of office of Trustees appointed to the National Theatre Trust from six years to three years, or for such lesser time as the Minister may think fit. The reduction of the period of tenure of Trustees is considered opportune now that the National Theatre has been set up. It is also in line with the tenure of office of members of other statutory boards. The other clauses of the Bill are merely consequential, amending the term "Malayan" culture to "National" culture and substituting the term "Parliament" for "Legislative Assembly". Sir, I beg to move.

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 Lee Khoon Choy]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." An Ad Hoc Scientific Committee was formed in February last year to advise the Government on problems of science and technology. During the one year of its existence, the Committee has given valuable advice in different fields. Subcommittees were formed to study problems of water utilisation and water pollution, to make an appraisal of available literature on the desalination of sea water in conjunction with the generation of electric power, and to survey available scientific and technical manpower in the State. The Committee also made recommendations on the teaching of science at pre-University level, studied the equipment requirements of the Nutrition Laboratory and Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory of the Department of Primary Production, and collected data for U.N.E.S.C.O. on research facilities in Singapore. The experience of the Committee during the past year has revealed that, because of its non-official status, it was handicapped in carrying out its work through lack of budgetary support and could not have access to confidential official data. The purpose of this Bill is to remedy these deficiencies and to give such a scientific advisory body official status. The functions of the Scientific Council will be to investigate problems of a technical nature which are of interest to the Government, to report on matters involving scientific and technological research and development, to study how industrial development can be promoted by the effective training and utilisation of scientific and technological manpower, and to establish official relations with other scientific organisations. In modern societies it is not cultural values alone that are the attributes of civilisation. Civilisation is now also associated with the presence or absence of those utilities which make living more comfortable and which have been made possible by technical inventions such as a ready supply of electric power, a working telephone system, modern sanitation and so on. But all these utilities would not be possible if we do not have the technical manpower to organise or maintain them. We are fortunate that we have in Singapore well over 2,000 scientists, engineers and technologists. Of these, about two-thirds are practising their professions in either the public or private sector and the remaining one-third are teaching in the schools. In the past this wealth of talent has not been as fully utilised as it should be nor has it taken a leadership role in Singapore's social development because of the absence of an organisation which can co-ordinate their activities or stimulate them to creative endeavour in different fields. It is my hope that the Science Council and the Singapore Academy of Science will be able to fill this vacuum. The popular image of the scientist is that of an absent-minded and impractical person lost among his test-tubes and other laboratory paraphernalia and equally lost when confronted with real-life problems of this work-a-day world. This is an image which our scientists should discard and take on instead the role of a man of action, No doubt there will be problems of a purely technical nature which will require the attention of the back-room boys, but scientists and engineers can be more effective if they can also comprehend the relationship between technological innovation and economics and develop a flair for administration. Scientists by virtue of their training in analytical and deductive processes can quickly grasp the essentials of a problem and understand its nexus with other problems. Our local scientists can take heart that it is this endowment which qualified a well-known British professor of anatomy, an expert on monkeys and apes, to act as chief scientific adviser to the British Secretary of State for Defence. Singapore will not need scientists or engineers to build atom bombs, but we will need them for the many practical problems which face us in our task to make this island a viable State. With the concentration of talent that we have in Singapore, we can be assured that our economic and social development can take place in a purposeful direction and that we will not arrive at our goal by a painful process of trial and error or by expensive rule-of-thumb methods. Sir, I beg to move.

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. -[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.52 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to amend section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1966, which provides that applications for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council shall be made to the Appellate Court within six weeks from the date on which the decision appealed against was given or within such further time as may be allowed by the Appellate Court. The Rules Committee set up under the provisions of the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964, considered that these provisions under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1966, should be amended to provide the normal period for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to be more than six weeks, as at present provided, which is too short a time for practitioners to consider whether to take the matter further on appeal to the Judicial Committee, a step which would not ordinarily be taken without considerable deliberation. The Committee therefore recommended, and the Government accepted, that this subsection be amended to provide for the period within which to apply for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to be three months instead. And in cases where complicated issues have to be considered, the parties should not he tied down even to this extended period of three months provided always they are able to satisfy the Appellate Court to exercise its discretion in the appellant's favour. Such an extension of period would, however, be given only in special circumstances, as has been made clear in the Bill, and that above all the Appellate Court considers it reasonable to do so after taking into consideration all the circumstances in the case. The amendment is, in substance, a return to the position we were in before Malaysia when under section 36, subsection (2) of the Courts Ordinance, which is now repealed, leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee could be made within six months from the date of the decision appealed against. It must, most obviously, have been felt when the period was reduced to six weeks that the required period of six months was too long and had the effect of delaying the final prosecution of an appeal. Sir, the United Kingdom Government have been consulted on this amendment and they have not expressed any views to the contrary. Practitioners in Singapore who are behind this move to amend the provisions of section 4 of the Act have expressed their support for this Bill. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 5.59 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to make two amendments to the Legal Profession Act, 1966. These amendments are considered necessary both by the Government and by those most concerned with the functioning and operation of this Act, namely, the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society. Although subsection (1) of section 82 of the Legal Profession Act, 1966, as it now stands, is reasonably clear in regard to its intent, it has given rise to a possible interpretation of permitting two solicitors in the same firm acting for both the vendor and the purchaser of property. It is, therefore, considered desirable that the subsection be amended in order to remove all possible doubts therein. The effect of this new amendment will be to prohibit solicitors in the same firm from acting separately for both the vendor and the purchaser in any one transaction for the sale and purchase of property. As an interim measure, and in order to enable solicitors who had uncompleted contracts on their hands at the date of the coming into operation of the Act to complete the contracts, and to save purchasers from having to incur the additional cost of employing another solicitor, a new subsection (5) to section 82 of the Act has been introduced. This provision would take care of those transactions where the contract of sale was entered into prior to the 11th day of February, 1967, the day when the provisions to be amended came into operation. Mr Speaker, Sir, as with most Bills which are tabled in this House, this Bill was sent in advance to the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society for their comments, it is a great pity that the members of the Committee of the Society did not take more pains to point out the defects in the Act. I am very reluctant to move amendments to any Bill which has become law only a few months ago, and I hope that in future when we send draft Bills to the Society for their comments, they will take more pains when looking into the provisions of the Bills. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 6.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker. Sir, the present Bill seeks to amend only section 82 of the Legal Profession Act on the question of solicitors in the same firm doing work for both the purchaser and the vendor in a sale of immovable property developed by a housing developer under a housing development. If we accept the premise - and I do accept the premise - that both vendor and purchaser in a sale of immovable property should be represented separately, I think that this is a logical amendment to section 82 of the Legal Profession Act. I think the Minister for Law and National Development is quite right in saying that had the Bar Committee, as it was then called, taken more pains over the Legal Profession Bill which was sent to it for consideration before that Bill was passed in December last year, this amending Bill would probably not have been necessary. Possibly as an afterthought, the present Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society had appointed a sub-committee to review the Legal Profession Act. This sub-committee reported some time ago and made suggestions on amendments to a great many sections of this Act. I am not too sure whether the present amending Bill is the result of the recommendations of this sub-committee, but in its report to the Advocates and Solicitors Society, section 82 was recommended to be amended in exactly the same terms. It is a great pity that other amendments recommended by this sub-committee had not been taken into account by the Government. The explanation may be that there was no time. The Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill was, in fact, read the First time on the 24th May, 1967, whereas the sub-committee did not report to the Advocates and Solicitors Society until quite recently. As I have said, this sub-committee recommended various amendments and I wish particularly to draw attention to sections 54 and 55 of the Legal Profession Act. Section 54 provides for the election of eight members of seven years' standing and two members of less than seven years' standing to the Advocates and Solicitors Society. Section 55 provides that members of the Advocates and Solicitors Society of seven years' standing can only vote for candidates of similar standing, and that members of under seven years' standing are similarly restricted to voting only for candidates of under seven years' standing. Section 55 is particularly unfortunate. It injects an element of inequality into an otherwise ancient and honourable society where all members are equal and are considered as brothers in the law. The sub-committee of the Advocates and Solicitors Society recommended that this section be now repealed and that there should be only one electoral roll, and I am glad of this recommendation. It is unfortunate that the Government has not seen fit to incorporate this amendment into the present amending Bill. Section 54, as I have said, provides for eight members of seven years' standing as against two of less than seven years' standing. The sub-committee of the Advocates and Solicitors Society now recommends that the number of seniors, as we call them, should be reduced to six. This section is not particularly a democratic section, seeing that members of the Society of seven years' standing form a minority of the legal profession. But apart from the fact that it is not quite democratic, it gives the impression that lawyers of less than seven years' standing are not capable of handling their own affairs. This does not speak well for the profession and does not inspire confidence -

Mr Tang, in view of my own connection with this piece of legislation in its very early days, I have been very reluctant to call you to order. But I am beginning to have a feeling that your present speech should have been made on the Bill debated last December. The provisions to which you are now referring are not part of this Bill, and your comments are irrelevant and out of order. You are at liberty now to speak only on the clauses in the present Bill.

As you please, Mr Speaker, Sir. My point is that it is rather unfortunate that the Government does not take this opportunity to incorporate other amendments into the Legal Profession Act -amendments which have, in fact, been recommended by the sub-committee appointed by the Advocates and Solicitors Society to consider and make recommendations on the Legal Profession Act. Apart from this, Mr Speaker, Sir, I accept the premise that purchasers and vendors should be separately represented. It is, therefore, logical that this amendment should come about, and I support it. 6.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me tell the hon. Member for Choa Chu Kang that the amendments which he proposes and which he says were recommended by a sub-committee of the Advocates and Solicitors Society have not reached me. Sir, if I may speak briefly in reply to him, this Act was first read in this House in December last year. Prior to its introduction, the Bar Committee, as it then was, was consulted and, in fact, it approved of all the provisions in this Bill. But apparently the Bar Committee did not, as I had expected it should have, consult its own members. But even so, if any member of the Bar had any complaint about this Bill, he could have raised his objections through the hon. Member for Choa Chu Kang in between the First Reading and the Second and Third Readings of the Bill which took place, I believe, about 12 to 14 days later. If only members of the Bar read the newspapers to ascertain what is happening in this House, then their suggestions and recommendations will certainly be given careful consideration in this House. But after the Bill has been tabled and taken through its Second and Third Readings and then enacted as law, it is a bit too late to grumble about the unfairness of the Bill in respect of certain provisions. The younger lawyers are apparently going against the older lawyers. I state my position here quite clearly. On a Bill which deals with any profession, we must consult the profession, and naturally we consult the committee in charge, and it is the duty of that committee to consult its members. If it does not, it is time to change the committee. But having consulted them and having got their support and approval and having passed the Bill, I am most reluctant to come to this House again and make amendment after amendment. I agreed to these two amendments because they are essential. Any other amendment which is not essential must wait. The Bill having been passed, we propose to let it run for a year or maybe more to see how it works. And it is only thereafter that we will pass other amendments.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 6.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill will have the effect of amending section 5 of the Official Secrets Ordinance (Chapter 84). Section 5 of the Ordinance makes it an offence for any person wrongfully to communicate information set out in the section or to retain such information in the circumstances mentioned therein. The amendment brought about by the Bill make it an offence under this section for any person who, having signed an undertaking not to serve any foreign power or government on his leaving the service of the Government of Singapore, acts in breach of such undertaking. Any such person who has signed an undertaking shall be presumed to be in possession or in control of such information as has been set out in subsection (1) of section 5 of the Ordinance, and to have unlawfully communicated such information to a foreign power, thus contravening the provisions of section 5 of the Ordinance when he acts in breach of the undertaking. It is not only public officers in the Government service who may be required to sign this undertaking; but any person who has acquired any such information or thing as is described in subsection (1) of section 5 of the Official Secrets Ordinance in the course of his work with the Government, or for the Government, may thus be required to give this undertaking. If anyone is in possession of such information or thing and acts in breach of this undertaking not to be employed or to enter into the service of any foreign power or government, he will be presumed to have communicated such information or thing wrongfully and to have acted contrary to section 5 of the Ordinance the moment he breaks the undertaking. The purpose of this Bill is clear. It is to ensure that information or knowledge obtained in the course of one's employment or service in the Government of Singapore shall not be made use of by the person who has gained such information or thing in the course of his official functions after he has left the Government or its service, Unusual though this provision may appear to be, I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that the necessity for this law to be in our statute books cannot be more emphasised than at this present stage of our development as an independent nation. The Bill does nothing more than provide a further means of ensuring that public security should not be jeopardised by such persons parting with such information or allowing themselves to be made use of by foreign powers or their agencies for purposes that may prove inimical to the interest of our nation. The Official Secrets Act is an Act designed to ensure that the official secrets of the nation are not parted with for the benefit of any foreign power. One of the ways in which such information may be passed over to a foreign power is through this avenue of disclosure by the State's former employees, especially those who have held sensitive positions of trust. This new provision, it is hoped, will be effective in preventing such information from getting into the hands of any foreign power. It is, however, to be noted that not everyone who has served the Government in positions of trust will thus be affected, but only those whose positions in the Government or in the service of the Government are such as would allow them access to information or who would have acquired information which, in the interest of the security of the nation, must be protected and kept within the State. The undertaking will be in terms as fair as the Government can be expected to agree to, in that the period of the inability to work will be confined to foreign powers or governments or their agencies, and will be varied according to the sort of appointment the person affected last held and will, in all instances, be only for a reasonable period of time after he has left the service of the Government. Furthermore, in the case where an undertaking is signed and the required permission to work with a foreign government or its agency refused, the Government will on its part offer to the person who is thus prevented from working for the foreign government or its agency alternative employment of a kind that will not be to that person's disadvantage in so far as it relates to remuneration when compared with his last appointment with the Singapore Government. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 6.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The law relating to trusts and trustees at present enforced in Singapore is contained in the Trustee Ordinance, 1949, as amended, and the Trustee Investment Act, 1965, both of Malaysia. The interpretation of the aforesaid enactments has caused a certain amount of difficulty since Singapore separated from Malaysia in August 1965, It is, therefore, considered desirable to have new legislation on those matters relating to trusts and trustees. The Bill seeks to consolidate and reenact the statutory law dealing with trusts and trustees with certain amendments and additions. In the main, it follows closely the provisions of the former Trustees Ordinance (Cap. 34) of Singapore repealed by the Trustee Investment Act, 1965, of Malaysia which extended the provisions of the Federal Trustee Ordinance, 1949, to Singapore. No substantive change has been made to the provisions of the former Ordinance. The Malaysian Trustee Investment Act, 1965, also gives new powers of investment to trustees and imposes certain duties on them in choosing investments. Most of the provisions contained therein have been incorporated into this Bill. As it is proposed to empower trustees to invest in authorised unit trust schemes, the expressions "authorised unit trust scheme" and "unit trust scheme" are defined. Clause 4 of the Bill defines the authorised investments for trust funds, and this follows in general the investments appearing in section 4 of the Malaysian Trustee Ordinance, 1949, as amended. Part VI of the Bill seeks to introduce statutory provisions relating to charitable trusts. Clause 66 empowers the Public Trustee to administer the property of charitable trusts which are for the time being without trustees. Clause 67 contains provisions to prevent the invalidation of a trust by reason that the trust funds are directed to be applied for non-charitable and invalid purposes as well as for some charitable purposes. This clause follows recent legislation in the United Kingdom and Australia to validate certain imperfect charitable trusts. The rest of Part VI of the Bill incorporates in the main the provisions of the Trustees (Incorporation) Ordinance. 1952, of Malaysia which provides for the incorporation of the trustees of bodies or associations established for charitable or public purposes. The trustees incorporated pursuant to this Part shall file with the Public Trustee their accounts annually. The First Schedule empowers the Minister by order to declare a unit trust scheme to be an authorised trust scheme and also to appoint inspectors to investigate and report on the administration of any unit trust scheme. Such controls are necessary if unit trust schemes are to be allowed to be authorised investments. The provisions contained in the First Schedule follow in general the provisions contained in sections 12 and 17 and the First Schedule of the Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Act, 1958, of the United Kingdom. Sir, the Bill has been referred and agreed to by the then Singapore Bar Committee, now the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society. Sir, I beg to move.

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 Barker]. Bill considered in Committee.

6.36 p.m. Clause 1 -

The citation date has to be changed from 1966 to 1967. This will be done. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, line 6, to leave out "Malayan" and insert "Singapore". The amendment is necessary consequent on the issue of our own currency. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 to 88 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. First Schedule -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 51, line 38, to leave out "Malayan" and insert "Singapore"; and In page 51, line 40, to leave out "Malayan" and insert "Singapore". These amendments are again necessary consequent on the issue of our own currency. Amendments agreed to. Amendment made: In page 53, lines 13 to 20, to leave out the whole of paragraph 4. -[Mr Barker].

Sir, I beg to move, In page 53, lines 24 to 27, to leave out the whole of paragraph 6.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to give us the reasons why the provisions for audit in any trust scheme should be left out.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I reassure the Member for Choa Chu Kang that, whilst leaving them out in this Bill, we certainly do not intend that there should be no audit. As the Member is aware, there is a similar provision being made in the Companies Bill which is now before the Select Committee and which will be back in this House very soon. In view of the provisions in the new Companies Bill, these two provisions are considered redundant. Amendment agreed to.

The renumbering of paragraphs consequential upon the deletion of paragraphs 4 and 6 will be done. In page 53, line 32, the word "Unit" spelt with a capital "U" is a clerical error, as the word used in the Schedule itself is spelt with a small "u". This correction will also be made. First Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Second Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed. 6.48 p.m.

Resolved, "That at its rising this day Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." -[Mr Lim Kim San].

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the past few months, I have noted with gratification that various Ministers of our Government have gone on record to the effect that Singapore is in favour of regional economic co-operation. The distinct impression given is that the greater the scope for such a common market, the more Singapore is in favour of it. From the trade unionists' viewpoint, this makes a welcome change from the headlines in the newspapers about warnings given by the Government to the trade unionists and workers of Singapore that they must first learn the A B C of economics and must not endanger the economy of Singapore by making exorbitant demands on the employers. From my experience as the Executive Secretary of the Pioneer Industries Employees' Union, I can assure Members of this House that the average wage-level prevailing among the pioneer industries is the lowest in Singapore. This is only an incidental point, but it lends emphasis to my contention that the workers in the pioneer industries recognise the gravity of the economic dilemma of Singapore by restraining themselves in order that the pioneer industries may remain viable and competitive in the international market.

6.50 p.m. I have said that the Singapore Government has made references to the desirability of regional economic co-operation. The success of our industrialisation project does not depend only on the workers in the pioneer industries being reasonable in relation to their demands for better wages and working conditions, but also on the industrialists' ability to find outlets for their products. It is high time that Members of this House were told that, if the industries in Singapore find difficulty in disposing of their products, it is not because the high cost of labour in Singapore has helped to price the industrial products of Singapore out of the international market, but because of other factors. One is the trade barriers erected by foreign countries out of political or economic consideration. Another is the psychology of the consumer who prefers to stick to well-known brands of goods. Even in Singapore, our local consumers prefer the imported brands to the locally manufactured brands when the goods concerned are identical in every respect except the brand name. I do not seek to minimise the fact that the cost of labour has a direct bearing on the cost of the final product, or that the cost of labour in Singapore may be higher than that prevailing in countries such as Malaysia, Taiwan and South Korea which have the same ambition to industrialise their economy just as we do in Singapore. But the real reason, I think, why our industries are not able to expand as fast as was expected is the smallness of the domestic market in Singapore. Singapore, an island Republic of 220 square miles with barely two million population, generally speaking, does not have a domestic market large enough to work any modern industry at its optimum level. The wage level of labour has no direct bearing on the optimum size of any industry. On the contrary, the higher the wage-level may be, the more conducive it may be to an industry reaching an optimum level of production because of the greater purchasing power of the workers. This is by the way; but my point is that in the absence of a sizable domestic market, it is vital that we find an international market to serve as an extension to our local market. One of the ways in which we can develop such an international market to offset the sheer physical limitations of our domestic market is to have a common market arrangement with our neighbouring countries. I appreciate that there are many difficulties in the way of concluding a satisfactory common market arrangement, as the participating countries may have widely different interests. Even during the two years when Singapore was in Malaysia, we could not arrive at a common market arrangement which was provided for in the Malaysia Agreement. When the machinery was finally set up for a common market. Singapore was expelled from Malaysia and that was the end of the expectation of a common market between Singapore and Malaysia. Considering the many difficulties that are in the way of the formation of a common market, I envisage that the problem of having a broader market than is provided for by our domestic market may be resolved by a series of bilateral trade pacts between Singapore and other interested countries. It is encouraging to note that fruitful efforts are being made by Singapore in this direction. I have in mind the bilateral trade agreements made by Singapore with Russia, Rumania, Bulgaria and other Eastern European countries. I am sure it is also the fervent wish of all Members of this House that the Singapore Government should continue to succeed in its efforts to reach bilateral trade agreements with as many countries as possible. In this context, I must express my considerable surprise that there has been no trade agreement with one country in particular with which we have considerable trade. I refer to the Republic of China which, as you know, Sir, last year supplied to us $217 million worth of various forms of manufactured goods, while taking from us in return not more than a few million dollars worth of rubber and other commodities. This is a most unfavourable flow of trade between the two countries, particularly in view of the fact that the goods supplied by China are similar to those which are being manufactured by our pioneer industries in Singapore. This trade with China is a double tragedy in the sense that we are losing valuable foreign exchange to China and that these Chinese goods are undercutting the products that are being made in Singapore. The reason why China is able to sell its goods at fantastically low prices, which may have no relation to the cost of production, is perhaps that it wants to obtain foreign exchange -

On a point of order. Sir. Can the Member for Telok Blangah speak a little slower, as I think the Interpreters are finding it difficult to follow him?

Will the Member speak a little slower so that the Interpreters can translate?

For the benefit of the Member for Delta, I will repeat what I have just said. The reason why China is able to sell its goods at fantastically low prices, which may have no relation to the cost of production, is perhaps that it wants to obtain foreign exchange at any cost. While we sympathise with China's efforts to obtain scarce foreign exchange, the survival of Singapore must take precedence. I hope the Government will take firm steps to have bilateral trade agreements with countries such as China with which we are having a disadvantageous balance of trade. If we cannot make countries such as China buy more from us, then we must impose trade quotas and tariffs to discourage such countries from selling more to us. I am of the opinion that a severe curtailment of the import of Chinese goods will not prejudice the welfare of Singapore, as our own industries can supply a similar range of products. It is necessary for Singapore to put its relationship with our neighbouring countries on a business-like basis. In saying so, I have in mind that the attitude of certain foreign governments toward Singapore is not founded on a rational policy of mutual co-existence but on purely emotional reaction towards the existence of Singapore as an independent socialist Republic. In such circumstances, I repeat, pending a common market arrangement between Singapore and other interested foreign countries, some attempts must be made to equalise the flow of trade between Singapore and other countries, especially those countries who are selling more than buying from us. Otherwise, we will have the most undesirable situation in Singapore where we have sacrificed our scant capital in creating and developing our capacity for industrial production which will grind to a halt through our having insufficient outlets for our industrial products. 7.01 p.m.

Sir, I welcome the constructive attitude of the hon. Member for Telok Blangah and I am glad to be given an opportunity to explain in more detail the efforts being made by the Government to increase our market. However, before proceeding, I would like to take up one point which the hon. Member has mentioned. It is not the high cost of labour alone that will price an industrial product out of the international market. There are also other factors. No one will dispute the contention that cost of labour is not the only factor influencing the competitiveness of a country's products. However, the cost of labour is one of the more important factors. Wages are never too high "per se". They may only be too high in comparison with what is paid in other competing countries. As has been very rightly pointed out by the hon. Member for Telok Blangah, we have to compete with products from Korea, Taiwan and Japan, where the wages may be lower than those prevailing in Singapore. It could be argued, of course, that in other countries, for instance, the United States of America, wages paid are much higher than those in Singapore. It has never been disputed that a large market is the primary factor for the success of our industrialisation programme, and steps have been taken and will continue to be taken to enlarge the market for Singapore goods. The market for Singapore goods can be divided into two parts -

7.05 p.m. There are some dangers, too, such as the danger of being included in a region which would not offer us what we hope to find as a market and may damage our relations with other parts of the world, or endanger our entrepot trade. We have to be very careful in this field, perhaps more careful than countries which do not have such a large entrepot trade as Singapore has. However, the Export Promotion Centre, which was formed specifically with the objective of finding an expanding market for Singapore goods, and the Ministry of Finance are continuously and carefully studying all possibilities which may materialise and to take advantage of such opportunities and situations. We have already concluded trade agreements with the U.S.S.R., Rumania, Poland, and other countries. We are sending trade missions to these countries in August this year. This mission will comprise 30 persons, including businessmen and officials, They will go to seven Eastern European countries to consolidate the results obtained by the first negotiations held in Singapore. To publicise Singapore products in the international market, the Export Promotion Centre has started an active campaign in the foreign Press. Singapore has been widely advertised in at least two important magazines circulating in the European market. Singapore is also participating actively in foreign exhibitions and fairs where it is considered that there are possibilities of expanding its market by such participation. In one or two months' time, our Export Promotion Centre will be sending industrialists to Zambia where opportunities of finding markets for Singapore products are good. Our efforts in promoting exports of domestic products are showing results. In 1963 $277 million worth of domestic goods were exported. This increased to $345 million in 1965 and $400 million in 1966, To encourage export-orientated industries, I have in my last Budget speech announced fiscal incentives for such industries. Results should show in 1968. I have also set up a working party to study schemes for export credit insurance which will be an important tool at the disposal of our exporters. With regard to the hon. Member's comments on trade with China, Members should bear in mind that we cannot always work solely on the principle that we will only trade with countries which buy an equivalent amount of goods from us. A trade deficit with one country is often counter-balanced by a trade surplus with another. That is how international trade works. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to assure the hon. Member that we are quite aware of the dangers of dumping, and where goods similar to those that are manufactured in Singapore are being dumped here, active steps will be taken to see that our local industries are not endangered. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes past Seven o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed. APPENDIX I(Cols 0071-0072)