Hansard, 1967-11-14

I have been informed by the President that, on the day stated, he assented to the following Bills:- 6th November, 1967 (i) Local Government Integration (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Rubber Association of Singapore (Incorporation) Bill; (iii) Stamp (Amendment) Bill; (iv) Singapore Army (Amendment) Bill; and (v) Police Force (Amendment) Bill. (P.COOMARASWAMY) Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

I have to inform hon. Members that I have received a complaint in writing under the provisions of paragraph (c) of Standing Order 92 (7) from Mr P. Selvadurai, Member for Bukit Panjang, alleging a breach of privilege of Parliament. The complaint refers to an editorial appearing in the issue for the 7th November, 1967, of the Sin Chew Jit Poh, a daily newspaper in the Chinese language. Having considered the matter under the provisions of that Standing Order, I was satisfied that parts of that editorial, which is the subject matter of the complaint, prima facie affect the privileges of Parliament and that the complaint has been raised at the earliest opportunity. Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Orders, I have referred the matter to the Committee of Privileges.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he is aware that citizens educated in the Chinese, Malay and Tamil language streams are not given equal opportunities for recruitment in Malaysia-Singapore Airlines in the Republic in accordance with the declared policy of the Government of providing equal opportunities for citizens educated in the four language streams and that advertisements for staff vacancies are not inserted in the Chinese, Malay and Tamil newspapers, and if he will look into the matter and take appropriate action to ensure that the Airlines act in accordance with the policy of the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Member to two facts in the context of which the particular problem he has raised should be viewed. The first is that the Singapore Government is only one of the shareholders of the Malaysia-Singapore Airlines. The second is that the Company is run on a strictly commercial basis and that recruitment of staff should have relevance to the requirements and efficiency of the enterprise. In the airline business, the company and its employees have to deal with firms and passengers not only from Singapore but from all over the world. The medium of communication has to be one of the international languages - in our particular case, English - if the M.S.A. is to hold its own in an extremely competitive business. Therefore, there is no question of discrimination between different language groups in the matter of recruitment. The criteria is whether the candidate has the specific qualifications demanded by the job. However, for the information of the hon. Member, there are nine senior staff and about 600 junior staff who have had part or most of their education in the Chinese, Malay or Tamil language streams. Only a few days ago, one of the accountant trainees selected for employment was from a Chinese High School and one of the two-system analysts selected was a graduate from Nanyang University. Conversely, a number of English-educated staff know Chinese, Malay or Tamil as well. Since it is essential, in the very nature of the airline business, for candidates to know English from whatever language stream they may come, they should have no difficulty reading vacancy announcements in English.

asked the Minister for Finance (a) how many officers in Divisions III and IV of the Government Service have been dismissed during the past twelve months on account of indebtedness; and (b) whether consideration is being or will be given to those with a long record of faithful service for further employment in view of the social problem which can result if those persons are unable to find employment in the private sector because of their having been dismissed from the Service.

Sir, during the past twelve months, 34 officers in Divisions III and IV of the Government Service have been dismissed and another two officers retired in the public interest on account of indebtedness. Consideration is given to cases deserving of sympathy, but in almost all these cases these persons have displayed a weakness of character such as to raise difficulties in their employment in positions of trust.

asked the Minister for Finance the reasons for the continued liberal income tax reliefs in respect of children up to as many as five, and if this is not inconsistent with the Government's policy on family planning.

Sir, the policy is neither liberal nor inconsistent with Government's encouragement of family planning. Originally, relief was given for up to nine children and the limit was reduced to five in 1965. Further reduction in the number of children entitled to relief will not improve matters. What is a matter for concern is whether those whose incomes are below the taxable range exercise due care in limiting their family size to what they can afford to maintain at a decent standard. Experience in other societies indicates that it is the poorest families who are most reluctant to limit family size.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs how many Singapore missions abroad have been established to-date and in which countries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in all, some 12 embassies and missions have been established abroad. They are Australia, Cambodia, Hongkong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Thailand, the United Arab Republic, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and the United States.

asked the Minister for Education what is the Government's view on the proposed introduction of sex education in some Mission secondary schools next year, and whether such subject will be introduced in other secondary schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Education has no objection to the proposed introduction of sex education in some Mission secondary schools next year outside the regular school time-table, provided such instruction is intended to prepare adolescents for a healthy sex life with due regard for its moral and ethical aspects. In other secondary schools, medical officers from the Ministry of Health and lecturers from the Department of Social Medicine and Public Health have on occasions been invited to give talks related to sex education. However, the Ministry has no plans for introducing sex education as part of the regular curriculum in secondary schools.

asked the Minister for Labour the number of persons, who had been eligible to vote in the 1959 and 1963 General Elections, who have been refused the red (Singapore Citizen) identity card.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are no records kept of persons eligible to vote in the 1959 and 1963 elections who were refused registration for citizen identity cards. The Member for Ulu Pandan is aware that the previous electoral registers were compiled from the counterfoils of the old identity cards. So long as a person is 21 years of age and above, and his place of birth is shown as Singapore on the old identity card, his name is automatically put on the electoral register. With the re-registration of the population for the new plastic laminated identity cards under the National Registration Act, we have cleaned up our records and have determined who are citizens and who are non-citizens. All who are Singapore citizens are issued with the new pink Singapore laminated identity cards.

Will the Minister consider the approval of applications for citizenship by those who do riot possess birth certificates but who voted during the last two general elections?

What those people who have no birth certificates have to do is to apply for citizenship and then submit whatever documentary evidence they have for the consideration of the Registrar of Citizens.

asked the Minister for Labour if he will consider setting up a committee to examine the feasibility of allowing members of the Central Provident Fund to use their contributions as down payments for the purchase of houses in order to promote home ownership among the lower income group and to recommend such amendments as are necessary to the Central Provident Fund Ordinance, 1955.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member's suggestion has already been given consideration before by my Ministry. For his information, there are 325,433 out of a total of 442,351 members of the Central Provident Fund who have a balance of less than $1,000. This constitutes 74 per cent of the C.P.F. membership. Further, 254,880 members have a balance of less than $500 in the Fund and this constitutes 58 per cent of the C.P.F. membership. The C.P.F. records also show that about 63 per cent of the persons currently contributing to the Fund earn $200 a month or less. These persons have their contributions paid in only by their employers. In view of the low balances held by the great majority of the members of the Fund, it is considered that no useful purpose would be served at present to set up such a committee.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will indicate when a water-borne sewerage system will be extended to the Upper Serangoon area, which is one of the most densely populated suburbs, so that the people of that area can enjoy the amenity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I answer the question, perhaps it is useful for me to explain briefly the Government policy on sewage schemes. The long-term objective of the Government is to provide services to the entire island Republic, including both developed and developing areas, but for practical purposes, having regard to the limitation of human and financial resources, it is necessary to plan out the development of sewage schemes in different phases according to the priority of the areas concerned. For example, the developed areas at Toa Payoh, Jurong, Kallang Basin and other similar big new town developments where new projects are taking place have to be accorded top priority in order that these new towns are provided with facilities in time for occupation. Priority is also accorded to areas on the basis of economic returns, such as the Braddell Road/Serangoon Gardens Scheme. All these schemes have, therefore, been included in the Second Development Plan. I regret to say that the Upper Serangoon area has not been given priority for inclusion in the Second Development Plan. However, when the sewage scheme for the Serangoon area is completed by 1970, it will be further extended to the Upper Serangoon area. Therefore, the Upper Serangoon area will be considered together with some other areas such as Thomson, Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Timah under the next Development Plan.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development what progress has been made in each of the fourteen projects under the Urban Renewal Scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in keeping with Government's policy of encouraging private participation in urban renewal, 14 sites with designated projects were offered to the public from the 15th June this year. Tenders for the leases of these sites closed on the 16th October this year. The tenders received were processed by a Tenders Sub-Committee comprising officials concerned with the technical and financial aspects of these projects. The Sub-Committee's recommendations were considered by a Ministerial committee of three who decided to accept seven tenders, particulars of which are set out in a table* (* Appendix, cols. 401-2.) which I propose, with your permission, Sir, to distribute to Members of the House. [Copies of the table handed in to the Clerk] APPENDIX TO ORAL ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.9 (Cols. 372-4) (Cols 0401-0402)

Order. Mr Barker, do you anticipate any supplementaries on this?

I have not finished, Sir, but I will be referring to this table shortly.

In that case, I will ask the Clerk to hand copies of the table to Members. [Copies of the table distributed to hon. Members.]

Members will see from the table which has been circulated that the total land premium offered is in the region of $8,728,000. The expected total investment in these seven projects will be in the region of $31½million, and the projected employment of persons, when these projects are completed, is expected to be in the region of 3,650 persons. Mr Speaker, Sir, our first exercise to promote private participation in urban renewal has met with an encouraging response and success. More important, the results have shown that investors have confidence and faith in the stability of the economy of our island Republic.

What does the Minister intend to do with the remaining seven projects?

Sir, some of these projects, for example, the three projects along the Golden Mile, attracted no tenders. We think the main reason is that these projects require capital in the region of $10 million to $15 million. Our plans for some of these projects are to get a group of - if I may call them - small investors together so that they can combine and perhaps take up some of these projects. I would add that the Government itself would be happy to share and take part with any group of investors who may be prepared to group together to undertake these projects.

Can the Minister inform the House how many tenders were received for all the projects, and how many tenders were received for each project?

In all, there were 14 sites which attracted 14 tenders altogether. The 14 tenders were only for 8 sites. In respect of the other 6 sites, not even one tender was received. Shortly, for the 8 sites which were tendered for, a few received just one tender, a few others two tenders, and a few others three tenders.

Can the Minister say whether the reclamation of the sea-bed opposite the Golden Mile will affect the popularity and demand of the Golden Mile?

The Member for Joo Chiat has something in what he says. I have said just now that the main reason, we think, for the lack of tenders for the Golden Mile projects is the huge capital required. But another reason is the one put forward by the Member for Joo Chiat. We have a scheme to reclaim the sea off the Esplanade, and perhaps this scheme is frightening away some investors who would not like to put up hotels and then find that the sea has gone back by 500 to 600 feet.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is this then not contradictory policy on the part of the Ministry of National Development? And what is the Minister going to do about it?

I see no contradiction in the policy, Sir. One is reclamation, and the other is an entirely different project. When you reclaim the sea, you get valuable land. And if these sites along the Golden Mile are not taken up after the reclamation, we will probably have better sites along the sea coast. As I have pointed out the other day to a Member here, reclamation does not mean that the sea coast disappears.

Does the Minister agree that the incentives were inadequate to attract the public to tender for the other projects?

I disagree with the Member. In my view, the incentives are more than sufficient to attract investment and, in fact, the incentives that we offer are the best in South-East Asia.

2.56 p.m.

"to amend and consolidate the laws relating to incentives for the establishment of pioneer industries and for economic expansion generally, by way of providing relief from income tax and to repeal the Pioneer Industries (Relief from Income Tax) Ordinance, 1959 (No. 1 of 1959) and the Industrial Expansion (Relief from Income Tax) Ordinance, 1959 (No. 2 of 1959)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Insurance Act, 1966 (No. 46 of 1966)", presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.57 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The object of the proposed amendment of the Printers and Publishers Ordinance (Cap. 196) is to enlarge the definition of "book" so that the main purpose of the Ordinance, which is to preserve all books and other publications printed or published in Singapore as part of the national literature by the National Library, will be better fulfilled. With the law as it stands, Mr Speaker, Sir, many publications are excluded from being deposited in the National Library. Such materials include Government publications which, although not exempt from deposit under the Ordinance, have sometimes not been sent to the National Library when they are published by agencies other than the Government Printer. Similarly, under the existing definition of "book", annuals and other reports, whether Government or otherwise, are not required to be deposited in the National Library. As such annuals and other reports are important sources of information which the National Library should have as a primary source to satisfy the informational needs of the citizens of Singapore as well as of outside researchers and scholars, the new definition of "book" has now been enlarged to include reports besides Government publications, graphic art forms, etc. Sir, the amendment of the definition of "book", thereby making the deposit of publications with the National Library as complete as possible, will also enable the compilation by the National Library of the catalogues of books published in Singapore to be comprehensive. And if the compilation of a national bibliography, as provided in section 6 of the Ordinance, is extended to all works printed or published in Singapore, it will not only facilitate information on current publications in Singapore, but will also provide welcome assistance to booksellers, publishers, printers, authors, and librarians both in Singapore and other countries which have a growing interest in acquiring Singapore publications. Sir, it has also been found that although the Ordinance puts the onus on the publisher to submit printed publications or books to the National Library, there is in the existing law no definition of the term "publisher". This omission has now been rectified by providing a definition of "publisher" in clause 2 of the Bill. With the new definition of "book" to include all publications, and in consideration of the publisher who may sometimes publish a limited number of copies of a particular work, clause 3 of the Bill reduces to five the number of copies of a publication to be deposited, as there is no longer a need to send a copy of such publication to the British Museum as has hitherto been done. To enable quicker registration of publications and subsequent listing in the national bibliography, clause 5 of the Bill amends section 6 of the principal Ordinance so that the publisher will furnish details of publications deposited within two weeks of deposit, instead of one month as under the existing law. Consequent on clause 4 of the Bill reducing the number of copies of every book or publication to be deposited under the Ordinance to five, clause 6 of the Bill amends section 7 to delete the requirement of sending catalogues of books to the Secretary of State and to the Trustees of the British Museum, a. practice dating back to old colonial times but which is no longer necessary with our new status as an independent nation. Finally, Sir, to encourage greater speed on the part of publishers in depositing their publications in the National Library and to provide details of publications deposited within two weeks of deposit instead of one month, clause 7 of the Bill raises the penalty for non-compliance with the provisions of the Ordinance from $500 to $1,000. 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 Fong Sip Chee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.06 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Singapore Parliament Elections Ordinance, Chapter 53, to provide for the preparation of the first registers of electors from the register maintained by the Commissioner of National Registration and to include in such electoral registers the names of all entitled persons who were on the first day of July 1967 citizens of Singapore and to whom identity cards were issued. The present registers of electors were first compiled nine years ago in 1958. In the past, any person who possessed an identity card showing his place of birth as Singapore, and who was ordinarily resident in Singapore on the first day of February in any year and was not less than 21 years of age on the first day of July of that year, was automatically included in the registers of electors. In the recent re-registration of persons, it was discovered that a number of identity cards had been forged. Further, a number of persons with identity cards showing their place of birth as Singapore were not given citizen's identity cards due to insufficient proof of Singapore citizenship. For these reasons, fresh registers of electors have to be compiled. The fresh registers will be compiled from the records of citizens maintained by the Commissioner of National Registration and will include only those entitled persons who on the first day of July 1967 were citizens of Singapore and to whom identity cards were issued. This would mean that those persons whose names had been expunged from the registers since 1959 under the provisions relating to compulsory voting, other than those who are now dead or have left the country, will have their names restored in the new registers, as they will be in possession of new citizen's identity cards. It is hoped that with the restoration of their names to the registers of voters without penalty, these citizens will exercise their civic duty of voting in the elections in future. However, the provision remains in the Ordinance to expunge the names of electors who fail to vote at any election, and to restore their names to the registers of electors only after payment of a fine of $5. If this measure proves inadequate, Government will consider amendments to the Ordinance to remove certain privileges of citizenship. For example, it may be provided that anybody seeking a Housing Board flat or social welfare relief or a place in school for their children, may in future have to show that they have performed their civic duty of voting in the elections and keeping their names alive in the electoral registers. The Bill also provides for the revision of the registers in each year following the year 1967 to be completed before the 31st day of December in that year. Past experience has shown that the deadline of 15th September for the completion of the annual revision of the electoral registers is impracticable. The proposed amendment will obviate the necessity for reference to be made to the Minister each year for permission to certify the registers on or before the 31st December of that year. This Bill will also make it an offence for any person to dissuade electors from voting between Nomination Day and Polling Day at any elections. At present such dissuasion is an offence only if it takes place on Polling Day. The amendment provides the same penalty for the offence as that provided in the Singapore Parliament Elections Ordinance for canvassing on Polling Day. Power is given to police officers to enter and search any premises or place in which they believe that the offence is being committed, and to arrest without warrant any person committing the offence in their presence. Mr Speaker, Sir, during the Bukit Merah by-election in January 1966, members of a certain political Party went from house to house in the constituency between Nomination Day and Polling Day attempting to persuade the electorate to cast blank or spoilt votes. Similar attempts were made in the subsequent Thomson by-election. Similar attempts will no doubt be made by subversive elements in future elections. It is, therefore, necessary that provision should be made to ensure that every citizen is given the opportunity of casting his vote without fear or interference. With the repeal of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, 1955, and its substitution by the National Registration Act, 1965, the Bill seeks to amend all references in the Singapore Parliament Elections Ordinance relating to the Registration of Persons Ordinance, 1955, to that of the National Registration Act, 1965, and to make certain amendments connected with the identity cards issued under the National Registration Act of 1965. The opportunity has been taken to revise some of the forms in, and to make certain other amendments to, the Singapore Parliament Elections Ordinance with a view to achieving greater clarity and explicitness in the expressions used in the Ordinance and thus providing for better administration of the provisions of the Ordinance. Question proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Singapore Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill. Sir, undoubtedly the introduction of this Bill at the previous sitting has been most timely. This is in keeping with the present situation because we know that in the past ten years the conditions in our population and society have been far different from those obtaining before. According to statistics, there were 1,445,900 persons in 1957, but there are 1,939,000 persons now -ten years later. This is an increase of 500,000 persons. According to the latest statistics, the number of electors in 1959 was 555,655. In 1963, it was 635,782; in 1966, it was 708,316. At present, the number of electors is ---

Mr Teong, I am having some doubts about the relevancy of your speech. What you are saying may perhaps be more relevant to the next Bill on the Order Paper.

(In Mandarin): Sir, if that is the case, I will say something briefly on this Bill. I feel that this Bill is very timely and is in keeping with the present situation, because there have been a lot of changes in our country. I also feel that after the amendment Bill relating to citizens is passed, the number of citizens in Singapore will be known definitely so that every general election will be conducted more successfully and smoothly. Therefore, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to bring out one or two points on this Bill. Although I believe that in principle this is a logical development from the compulsory voting that we have in Singapore, I am not very happy about the way in which clause 9 of this Bill in respect of section 78A (1) is drafted. The words that I refer to are found in the last but one sentence - " ... attempt to dissuade any person from giving his vote at the election." This may prevent a person from appealing to the voters not to cast their votes at elections, but it may not really stand in his way of asking them to go into the polling booths and cast their votes for all candidates, thereby spoiling the votes. Technically, that may be considered as giving a vote to some candidate at the election itself, or you can even appeal to the voters to go into the polling booths and spoil the votes. I wonder if this point can be looked into so that the prohibition that this amendment seeks to introduce is comprehensive indeed.

I have nothing further to add except to assure the Member for Bukit Panjang that we will consider his proposal. But for the moment, I intend to take the Bill through as presented in Parliament.

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.

3.24 p.m. Clauses 1 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 - Question proposed, "That clause 9 stand part of the Bill."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like clarification from the Minister on the new section 78A (4) in clause 9 of the Bill. Section 78A (4) reads as follows: `Any police officer may arrest without warrant any person offending in his view against any of the provisions of this section and take him as soon as practicable before a Magistrate's Court to be dealt with according to law.'. The words I wish clarification on appear in the second line - "in his view". Does this phrase mean "in the opinion" or "in the presence" of the police officer? Can the Minister clarify it and, if necessary, amend this new sub-section to make it clearer? Reading the subsection as a whole, I think it should be "in his presence".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not prepared at this stage to change "view" to "presence". The Ordinance has been drafted by the law officers of the Attorney-General's Department. Should the Member be correct in his submission, I will come back to Parliament and move the amendment. But I think he is well aware that though I am moving this Bill, it is a Bill that has been looked after by the Deputy Prime Minister. It has obtained his blessing and I am not prepared at this stage, as I have said, to move the amendment.

But can the Minister clarify?

What is it that the Member wants me to clarify? He has asked me a question and I have answered it.

Can the Minister clarify whether the words "in his view" mean "in his opinion" or "in his presence"?

The phrase includes the meaning "in his presence". It is for the Courts to construe the meaning, and if they construe "view" to mean "opinion" and we are wrong, we will come back.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." At the sitting of Parliament on the 31st October, Government announced in a White Paper (Cmd. 22 of 1967) the acceptance of the recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Delineation Committee with regard to the subdivision of 10 large constituencies and the creation of 8 new constituencies with consequential adjustments to 3 constituencies, and the decision to merge the electoral division of Southern Islands with the electoral divisions of Jurong, Pasir Panjang and Telok Blangah. The reasons for Government's acceptance of the recommendations of the said Committee were explained in the White Paper. The boundaries of the present 51 electoral divisions were demarcated in 1957 and have remained unchanged for the last 10 years. Due to major housing developments and urban renewal and large population shifts, the population ratios in the 51 constituencies have become quite disproportionate, and to ensure that there is more equal representation throughout all constituencies in the Republic, the 10 largest constituencies, with an electorate of more than 18,000 electors each, have been subdivided, resulting in the creation of 8 new constituencies. In deciding to merge Southern Islands with the mainland electoral divisions of Jurong, Pasir Panjang and Telok Blangah, the Government had in mind the desirability of eliminating the tendency for the Islands to develop into an isolated constituency. This division has a very low electorate, namely, 4,273 electors, and this number is likely to dwindle when more people shift to the city. These Islands would have a better chance of achieving a quicker rate of development after merger with the more developed constituencies of Jurong, Pasir Panjang and Telok Blangah, as in the case of the islands of Pulau Tekong and Pulau Ubin in the constituency of Changi. The number of electoral divisions will be increased from the present 51 to 58. The Singapore Parliament Elections Ordinance (Cap. 53) provides that each electoral division shall return one Member to serve in Parliament. The Constitution of Singapore stipulates a Parliamentary membership of 51 until other provision is made by law. Accordingly, it is necessary for a Bill to be passed to provide for an increase in the number of elected Members to Parliament. The Parliamentary Membership Bill provides that so much of clause (1) of Article 23 of the Constitution of Singapore as prescribes a limit of 51 on the number of elected Members shall cease to have effect, and that as from the time of the election of Members to serve in Parliament at the next general election, and hereafter until such time as other provision is made by law, Parliament shall consist of 58 elected Members. This Bill also provides that, for the purposes of the next general election, power is given for all things to be done under the Singapore Parliament Elections Ordinance as if Parliament already consisted of 58 elected Members. This would enable various matters to be carried out for the purposes of the next general elections; for example, the naming and delineation of the boundaries of electoral divisions by notification in the Gazette under section 8 of the Singapore Parliament Elections Ordinance, and the exhibition of the 1967 registers of electors for public inspection under section 10 of the same Ordinance. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.38 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opinion, the White Paper which was introduced in this Parliament on 31st October last is very fitting in the present situation in Singapore. Although Singapore is a small country, the number of inhabitants is proportionately large, consisting of various races and religions. I feel that the demarcation of every constituency should not be based on the size of the area but on the number of inhabitants. As Singapore has become the centre of attention of many countries, it can be said that Singapore can be likened to a beautiful woman who has caused others to be mad about her and people of other countries have left their homes to stay here forever. One of the responsibilities of the Government of Singapore is to give social assistance, and as such constituencies should be changed to increase the Parliamentary membership in order to balance the number of inhabitants with the constituencies from time to time. Every Member of Parliament does not only represent his constituency but also the inhabitants of that constituency. Also, he has not only the responsibility to attend sittings of Parliament but also the responsibility to help solve whatever difficulties his constituents are faced with. There are certain political Parties which use constituencies as a stepping stone to obtain seats for their candidates in Parliament where they can boast and behave like heroes but meantime ignoring the fate of their constituents. This had happened before the P.A.P. came to power, especially in the Geylang Serai constituency. I believe that the candidates of these political parties who were not elected to Parliament in the last elections are rather anxious about their future because of these changes. They know that they do not have the support of the people and therefore their future might be worse off than what they were in the last elections. That is why all this while they have been saying all sorts of things to confuse the minds of the people, particularly after the announcement of this White Paper on 31st October last. The tactics which they have carried out are the same as those of the Malayan Communist Party during the Emergency, and it is possible that we here would also be anxious if the Malayan Communist Party were also present in Singapore. However, for the good of the people, we should be firm in facing this situation. Considering the ever- increasing number of our population, the increase of Parliamentary constituencies is also necessary. This is to improve the work of Members of Parliament in their respective constituencies. Constituencies in Singapore are different from those in Malaysia which consist of jungle areas and inhabited by wild animals, with very few human beings living there. But in Singapore the situation is different because our constituencies are full of housing estates accommodating all races. This is a big problem for Singapore and should be borne in mind by the people and the political Parties. They should not work for personal gain but for the prosperity and safety of Singapore. Considering the recent changes in Singapore and the increase in population as time goes by, I support this White Paper. 3.45 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few years because of the increase in industrial development and the renewal of the urban areas, there has been an increase or shift in population in our country. In some places there are less people because they have gone to other housing estates, and in some areas, because of the former demarcation of constituencies, there is some inequality. Now we are going to divide the State into 58 constituencies. It is proper to do so. The division into 58 constituencies will make our work as Members of Parliament easier and more effective. We must know that Members of Parliament are elected not just for politics. Their main purpose is to serve the people. Otherwise the people will not support them. So more constituencies will mean that we have more Members of Parliament to serve the people better. Someone has asked, why is it necessary to divide the State into 58 constituencies? Is it for political interests? Or for what interest? What we say is that the division into 58 constituencies is to enable the Members of Parliament serve the people better. For the past few years the standard of political consciousness of the people has been raised under the present Government. Someone has said that having more constituencies will mean more expenditure. Our Members of Parliament get the lowest allowance in the world. Therefore, an increase of seven Members will mean a very little extra expenditure. Therefore, I hope that, in addition to the increase in constituencies, the number of Ministers should also increase so that they will serve the people better and more efficiently. 3.48 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Sir, I fully support the Parliamentary Membership Bill. The history of parliamentary democracy in our country is not long. It is only 12 years. Since 1955 there have been only local and partial elections. But judging from the healthy manifestation of progress of our parliamentary democracy, we are not less democratic compared with any other country. The success of our parliamentary democracy is due to two basic factors. First, our citizens have a rather high standard of political consciousness and they understand the true meaning of democracy. Second, in recent years, the Party to which I belong has made great achievements in nation-building and in various other spheres. As a result, the voters have more faith in democracy. Sir, with regard to the increase in constituencies, I feel that it is very apt and proper. As I have just pointed out, there has been a great increase in our population, and accordingly there are more voters. Judging by our present achievements in housing and other fields of activity, we have made great changes in recent years. At the moment, we have quite a number of satellite towns, such as Queenstown, Aljunied, Kallang, and Toa Payoh. Hence, the population in certain areas has increased. So if today our constituencies have the same boundaries, will that be in keeping with our present changes? In certain constituencies there will be more voters. For instance, in Queenstown at present there are more than 100,000 residents, but the number of voters in the last elections was 40,000. In Mountbatten there were 28,000 voters. In Delta there were 26,000 voters. Because of the shift in population, some constituencies will have more voters, whereas others will have less. For instance, in Geylang, Crawford and Havelock, the population is crowded there. If we do not make any adjustments in the boundaries of the constituencies, we may not be able to serve the people better. Sir, ours is a non-Communist democratic country. We have an enlightened policy of equal treatment for all streams of education and all races. This policy has welded our races together and is the basic factor in our nation-building. I believe we will soon set a very good example in South-East Asia as a democratic, multi-racial country. We will also set a leading example to all the multi-racial countries in the world. Sir, let me now consider certain views expressed by some of the Opposition Parties. I think their views are not constructive. For instance, U.M.N.O. have said that the Government has not allowed them any time to express their opinions. This is not true, because in a democratic country everybody has the right of free speech. Whether or not their views will be accepted by the Government will depend on whether they are constructive and whether they meet the wishes of the people. For instance, certain political parties want us to do away with parliamentary democracy. They do not want general elections. Does it mean that we are bound to accept their anti-national policy or views? I would ask them whether they have the interest of the people at heart, or whether they are just making noises before the general elections, and when the elections are over they will take to their heels. They will close up their party offices. Our people know these adventurers very well. The Singapore Chinese Party has suggested five points, one of which is to ask when the Government will hold general elections and also to give them sufficient time to prepare themselves. This would set the people guessing as to their true intention. But these people should not forget their past evil records which are well known. The people know they are adventurers. They cannot fool all the people all the time. As regards the Alliance Party, this is a Party that was discarded by the electorate in the 1959 and 1963 elections. So their policy is not new. One of their requests is to prolong the period for campaigning in the general elections. They think that by this they can get more people to support them. I would say that they are day-dreaming. We know that the support which a political party can get from the voters depends on whether they have served the people well and have an efficient democratic system. In other words, basically the question is whether they have come close to the people and have helped them to solve their problems and difficulties. If they have done so, then when the general elections come along, the people will vote for them on the basis of their record. If certain political parties normally close up their offices for the most part of the year, and in their branches not anyone of their members can be found, how can they expect anybody to vote for them? Naturally the masses will cast their votes in such a way as to wipe off such political rubbish from the political scene, such as the Lim Yew Hock regime and the anti-national elements -

Order. Mr Teong, I am afraid you are getting away from the scope of this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to increase the membership of Parliament from 51 to 58, and what Tun Lim Yew Hock did in the past has nothing whatsoever to do with this Bill.

(In Mandarin): Sir, thank you for your reminder. The Opposition Parties have made certain statements, so I feel that I must rebut their arguments. Now I would like to touch on the editorial in the Sin Chew Jit Poh on the 7th of ---

Mr Teong, I do not know whether you were here at half-past two this afternoon, but I made an announcement which contains a preliminary ruling by me on this editorial. I also stated that I have referred it to the Committee of Privileges which will consider the matter and I am afraid you are not permitted to say anything at all about that editorial at this stage.

(In Mandarin): Thank you for your direction. I have prepared my rebuttal to the editorial but I have no chance to do so now. Sir, finally, I feel that this amendment Bill to re-adjust the constituencies is in keeping with our changed conditions. The constituencies can be better developed and can serve the people better. This is something that should not be delayed. As a responsible Government, we must introduce this Bill at the present juncture. We cannot allow the present situation to continue because it will lead to chaos. If we are not doing what we are now doing, then it will mean that we are negligent. So any criticism of the change in the constituencies is baseless and malicious. On the other hand, I think this action on the part of the Government is most judicious and farsighted. It is a necessary step in the history of our parliamentary democracy.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, originally it was not my intention to speak on the Bill, but because in the process of increasing the Parliamentary membership by eight, and my constituency, the Southern Islands, is no more, that is why I am now speaking on this Bill. Of course, Mr Speaker, I have been working hard for the last four years in my constituency, i.e. Southern Islands, and I believe that in the next elections, I will be returned unopposed. Even if there is opposition, I believe I can beat my opponent with a majority vote. But because this constituency has been deleted, I am obliged to reiterate my stand that I fully support the Bill which has been tabled by the Government. A Member of Parliament will feel ashamed if he represents only 4,000 voters while other Members, like the Member for Queenstown, may represent more than 40,000 voters. The purpose of merging the Southern Islands into the three mainland constituencies of Jurong, Telok Blangah and Pasir Panjang is to reallocate the responsibilities of Members of Parliament. Hitherto, the inhabitants who occupy 22 islands of the Southern Islands have been looked after by only one Member of Parliament, but in future they will be looked after by three Members of Parliament. When I bring up the problems of the Southern Islanders, I find it difficult at times to gain support for the reason that I am the only representative. However, in future, if one Member of Parliament puts forward his proposals, he is sure to get the support of the other two Members of Parliament who represent the Southern Islands. Therefore, I feel that it is more to the advantage of the Southern Islanders to be represented by three Members of Parliament instead of one member of Parliament as at present. Although I may not be representing the Southern Islands in future, these three Members of Parliament will have to look after the 22 islands which are inhabited by a small number of voters. The expenses are high for only one Member of Parliament to look after the Southern Islanders, but it will be to their greater advantage if they are looked after by three Members of Parliament. I am of the opinion that if the Southern Islands are not merged with the mainland constituencies, the residents will be neglected especially if their Member of Parliament does not have good financial means. The reason is that he will incur an expenditure of about $30 for a visit to the Southern Islands, and hon. Members can estimate how much expenses will have to be incurred by a Member of Parliament who pays visits 7 or 8 times a month. If a Member of Parliament who gets an allowance of $500 a month were to incur expenditure for the purchase of petrol and an outboard motor and other incidental expenses, it would mean that he would not be able to visit his constituents regularly, as evidenced by the fact that my two predecessors in the Southern Islands had failed to discharge their duties. For that reason, people have been asking me about my stand. Once again, I reiterate my full support for the White Paper in the hope that the residents of the Southern Islands will be better looked after after the next elections.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, we will not compromise in our struggle. We will not budge from our stand of creating a prosperous, free, democratic and socialist Republic of Singapore. We believe that an increase in the number of Members of Parliament will better weld together our multi-racial population. This is our main aim and we will strive to the best of our ability to achieve it. Mr Speaker, Sir, as we all know, the total of 58 Members of Parliament is arrived at as follows: 51 plus 8 totals 59; 59 less 1 equals 58. The constituency which has been deleted is the Southern Islands.

4.05 p.m. The people of that constituency know one another very well. They live in peace and harmony and enjoy prosperity. As elected representatives, we have always striven to achieve this basic and fundamental aim. However, that particular constituency has been deleted. I share the same belief as that of the Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department, the Member for Southern Islands, that it would be better to have three Members of Parliament to cultivate a multi- racial spirit among the people of the Southern Islands. This will be the responsibility of the future Members of Parliament representing the Southern Islands. In addition to Geylang Serai, there will be another constituency, Kampong Ubi. Although the White Paper has been tabled and we will approve this Bill, I feel that Kampong Ubi is not a proper name in our progressive world and that it should be renamed, for instance, Geylang Bahru or Geylang Maju, because it is not our intension to recall the past. Sir, the increase in the number of Members of Parliament to 58 poses a question. First, the people will think that there are eight new constituencies to be won by political leaders in Singapore. I would like to express my view that the progress achieved in our Republic has necessitated an increase in the membership of Parliament. We are well aware that we will have to face trials and tribulations not only from political Parties in Singapore, but also from outside political ideologies, in order to fulfil the needs of our people. We must shoulder our responsibilities to the people and not think of our own benefit. When the people go to the polls, they will be the final arbiters. They will decide whether or not this increase is justified and whether or not the elected representatives will look after their interests.

Sir, may I thank the Members of the House who have spoken on the Bill for their views and their support?

4.13 p.m. In particular, I would like to thank the Member for Southern Islands who, though naturally sorry that his Islands will find no seat for him, has supported the Bill without any reservations. As to the Member who would rather have Kampong Ubi called Geylang Bahru or Geylang Maju, I do not see anything wrong in the name. There have been, in fact, some objections to the English names, for example, Alexandra and Macpherson, but these new constituencies have been named Alexandra and Macpherson for so long that all you have to do when you take a taxi is to say, "Alexandra" and the taxi- driver will bring you there. So these place names have grown up with the town and though they may be foreign names, we are certainly not ashamed to use them. As far as the Bill in general is concerned, I have only one more point to say and that is this: there have been criticisms that the purpose of this Bill is to "fix" the next election for the People's Action Party. Sir, whether the next election is for 51 seats or 58 seats will make no difference. I am confident that it will be a walk-over for the People's Action Party.

Hear, hear!

So on that note, Sir, may I end?

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. 4.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill now before Parliament seeks to make amendments to the Income Tax Ordinance that are necessary. Clause 2 alters the definition of "Accountant" to bring the legislation in line with the Singapore Society of Accountants Ordinance. Clause 3 amends section 20 of the Ordinance to allow more accurate adjustments of balancing allowances and charges on machinery and plant, where they are not used in Singapore but are used in another branch of the business outside the Republic. This is required because of the repeal of the combined income provisions which previously operated between Singapore and the States of Malaya. Clause 4 limits the right of election to adopt the written down value of plant and machinery in the case of controlled companies to cases where both the buyer and seller are chargeable under the Ordinance in Singapore. Otherwise, there is a danger of excessive depreciation where one of the parties is not within the tax jurisdiction of Singapore. This problem arises particularly where separate companies are now operating in Malaya and Singapore, where they previously operated as branches of the same organisation. Clause 5 is a minor correction to section 40. It is purely a technical amendment arising out of an earlier amendment to section 39. Clause 6 is an important variation in that it provides that the tax on interest earned by non- resident individuals on deposits held in Singapore banks will be 10 per cent. The intent is to make it more attractive for non-residents to invest monies in Singapore banks. This amendment is in accordance with the Budget speech made at the end of last year. Clause 7 provides that non-resident public entertainers and non-resident persons in employment in Singapore will be charged tax at 15 per cent of the normal rates applicable to residents instead of 40 per cent as is provided for in the law now. It is considered that a flat rate of 40 per cent causes hardship to persons who are in employment for less than 183 days a year, and it is hoped that this amendment will result in better quality entertainment and also facilitate industries and businesses in bringing out experts for short periods of time. Clauses 8, 9 and 10 are technical amendments relating to the recovery of monies like penalties, sums deducted from interest paid to non-residents, and sums due from companies which have declared dividends in excess of available taxed profits. Clause 11 makes minor variations to the list of exempted bodies contained in the First Schedule of the Ordinance. Sir, I beg to move.

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

I propose to suspend the sitting now, and take the Chair again at 5.00 p.m. Order, order. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.29 p.m. until 5.00 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.00 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill now before the House seeks to amend section 21 of the Minor Offences Ordinance. The amendment has been rendered necessary by reason of the inadequacy of the present penalties contained in the Minor Offences Ordinance for such offences as riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour within the precincts of a court house. Hon. Members will remember that a few months ago section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code was amended enhancing penalties which may be imposed for contempt of court where such contempt is committed in the face of the court. The very same reasons that had rendered necessary the amendment of section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code also made it necessary for Government to seek an amendment to section 21 of the Minor Offences Ordinance. This section, as it now stands, would make it an offence punishable with a mere $20 at the most in the first instance for such riotous behaviour in court that is not committed in the presence of a magistrate and would accordingly escape the provisions of section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Technically speaking, therefore, as the law now stands, riotous behaviour even in court before the magistrate comes on the Bench can only be punished under section 2] of the Minor Offences Ordinance which carries a fine not exceeding $20. This, as hon. Members will agree, is wholly out of proportion to the seriousness of such an offence. Indeed, the inadequacy of the penalty in this respect has been somewhat underlined in the recent disturbances in the magistrates' courts where the accused and their friends and their supporters have caused riotous and disorderly behaviour within the compound of the courts. In order that a sufficient deterrent may be imposed for such transgressions of the law, it has been thought appropriate that there should be corresponding increases in the penalties that may be imposed for such offences as for those where the misbehaviour is in the face of the court itself. Accordingly, therefore, it is now provided in this Bill to increase the penalties, in the case of a first conviction for riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour in the places specified in the Bill, to a fine not exceeding $250. The alternative punishment of imprisonment has also been correspondingly enhanced to a term not exceeding one month, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, the maximum fine is increased to a sum not exceeding $500 and imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. Section 21 as it now stands combines the offence of drunkenness and disorderly behaviour as a result of inebriety with disorderly behaviour that is intentional and calculated to bring about disrespect and contempt for the administration of the law. And the amendment that is to be brought about to the law accordingly seeks to separate these acts from the remainder of the provisions in the present section 21 of the Minor Offences Ordinance, and it is only where the riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour takes place in any public road or in any public place or place of public amusement or resort, or in the immediate vicinity of or in any court or public office, police station or place of worship, that the offence would attract such enhanced punishment contemplated by this Bill. The present Bill can be said to go hand in hand with the amendment to section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code in increasing penalties for those convicted of offences committed with the sole purpose of expressing their contempt and disrespect for the law. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to ask the Minister to clarify clause 3 with regard to the new section 2lB. "Any person ...". Does "Any person" also include a lawyer in court who misbehaves and who will also come within the provisions of this Ordinance?

Does any other Member wish to speak? None. Mr Barker.

"Any person" means what it says. It will include any lawyer. But this Bill covers offences not committed, as it were, in the face of the court. A lawyer could misbehave in the face of the court or in the precincts of a court house, and the fact that he is a lawyer will not give him any protection. If he is handling the case in court, then, of course, it is up to the magistrate to deal with him if he misbehaves, under the powers of contempt of court for contempt committed in the face of the court, which powers the magistrate has. Even before the recent amendments to these Ordinances, any lawyer misbehaving in court could be convicted for contempt of court by the magistrate or the judge hearing the case.

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.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." -[Mr Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes past Five o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed. APPENDIX TO ORAL ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.9 (Cols. 372-4) (Cols 0401-0402)