Hansard, 1968-05-21

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 for the periods stated:- Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar), Prime Minister - on 21st May, 1968. Mr S. Rajaratnam (Kampong Glam), Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour - from 1st to 8th June, 1968. (P. COOMARASWAMY) Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

I have to inform hon. Members that I communicated to the President the Address agreed to by resolution of this Parliament on the 15th of May, 1968. I have received a reply from the President acknowledging receipt of the kind message of Parliament transmitted to him.

asked The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour the total number of app1ications for citizenship received (i) between 1st January and 31st December, 1967; and (ii) between 1st January and 30th April, 1968; and what measures have been or are being taken 10 speed up the processing of applications.

Mr Speaker Sir, the total number of applications for citizenship received between 1st January and 31st December, 1967, was 32,337. The total number received between 1st January and 30th April, 1968, was 8,338. The hon. Member will appreciate that the grant of citizenship is a matter of privilege and not of right. A person who has the necessary residential qualifications will not automatically be granted Singapore citizenship. The hon. Member is aware that by the end of 1971 the British would have withdrawn from their bases. A great number of our citizens will lose their jobs. The complexity of our problems has been outlined by the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister in the recent series of Ministerial talks on the Crucial Years. In view of the run-down of the British forces and mounting unemployment, the Government has decided not to grant citizenship as freely as in the past. The number of cases that will be approved will now depend upon our economic position. A person who is granted citizenship must be able to make a positive contribution to the economic well-being of Singapore.

asked the Minister for Education whether investigations are conducted into allegations against teachers which are contained in anonymous letters addressed to him or to any official in his Ministry or brought to his Ministry's notice; and how many investigations of this kind were undertaken in 1967.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are no hard and fast rules in regard to the action to be taken arising from anonymous complaints. If the allegations are frivolous and obviously unfounded, the complaints are ignored. If they are of a serious nature and appear to be plausible, an investigation is carried out. If they are substantiated as a result of investigation, suitable remedial or disciplinary action is taken. If the results of the investigation show that the allegations are mischievous and unfounded, an attempt is made to trace the complainant and bring him to book. Such attempts have been successful in a number of cases although the complainants had written their letters anonymously and had given fictitious names and addresses. In 1967, no less than 189 investigations were carried out.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what has been the result of these 189 investigations? How many of them can be said to be warranted?

Mr Speaker, Sir, all these 189 complaints warranted investigations. Those which appeared to be frivolous and mischievous had already been ignored.

Is the Minister able to state whether this evidently undesirable practice in which the accuser is never present will be discontinued in order to prevent a decline in morale in the teaching profession?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have informed the House just now, 31 of these anonymous complaints were substantiated. There are various reasons why the complainants at times are not willing to disclose their identities. So long as we exercise caution, I think it is not necessary to discontinue this practice of taking up anonymous complaints which appear to be serious and also likely to be true.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will ascertain from the Public Utilities Board whether the Board plans to expand its sub-collection centre at the Lim Tua Tow Road Market, which is inadequate, or to set up additional such centres in the surrounding areas.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Utilities Board does not consider that the service provided by the existing sub-collection centre at the Lim Tua Tow Road Market is inadequate. This sub-collection centre was set up by the Board to serve 24.877 consumers residing around that area. Payments are made at the sub-collection centre on eight working days per month following the despatch of the consolidated bills to the consumers in that area. The past experience has been that out of the eight days, the Board normally receives very few payments on the first two days of the opening and the last day. Over the past four months, only an average of about 4,440 or 19 per cent of the consumers have availed themselves of this service. It appears that neither extension of the number of working days for this sub-collection centre or the setting up of additional centres in the surrounding areas seems necessary at this stage.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister indicate whether the Public Utilities Board is continuously looking into the question of setting up more sub-collection centres?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Board is continuously looking into the question of setting up more collection centres to facilitate payments by consumers. This includes the review of the present sub-collection facilities with a view to improving service to the public. In 1967, there were 11 sub-collection centres and five mobile collecting centres. In 1968, these were increased to 12 and 7 respectively.

Will the Minister give the House the location of these sub-collection centres and collection points of the mobile sub-collection centres?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are sub-collection centres at Rayman Market off Balestier Road, the old Kallang airport, Seng Poh Road Market, Joo Chiat Road Cleansing Depot, the Princess Estate Market (Queenstown), Queen's Crescent Market (Queensway), the Commonwealth Crescent Market, Serangoon District Office, Bukit Panjang District Office, Lim Tua Tow Road Market, and the junction of Aljunied and Geylang Roads at the electric showroom there. The mobile collection centres stop for collection at the junction of Jalan Eunos and Jalan Kuda, at the junction of Cheong Chin Nam Road and Chun Tin Road, the Sembawang Post Office, the Bedok Post Office and the Housing Estate at Pesiaran Keliling. Three more were added in 1968 - the Selegie House Car Park, the junction of Pasir Panjang Road and South Buona Vista Road and the junction of Thong Aik and Sembawang Roads.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether he will consider reducing the Temporary Permit fees for temporary structures like chicken-coops and pig-sties from the present $12 per annum to $2 per annum.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of National Development has given careful consideration to this matter and I have recently directed that, instead of an annual payment of $12, there should be just one payment of $12 for a temporary permit fee. This decision will come into force by way of a Gazette Notification.

Do the temporary permit fees cover temporary dwelling houses?

Yes, they do.

I thank the Minister.

Order.

2.44 p.m. Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day].

First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1968 contained in Paper Cmd. 3 of 1968. There is only one head of expenditure in the Paper. No notice of amendment has been received. The sum of $300,000 for Head 0201 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1968.

Question, "That the sum of $300,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1968 contained in Paper Cmd. 3 of 1968," put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported - "That the sum of $300,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1968 contained in Paper Cmd. 3 of 1968."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that Parliament doth the agree with the Committee on the said resolution.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.47 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill is an omnibus Bill which seeks to rectify the restrictive nature of existing legislation which limits the types of investments that may be made from funds of the Government. The existing legislation is over-restrictive on the types of investments that may be made so that the bulk of our funds have to be invested in trustee securities, and these are mainly fixed price gilt-edged securities. Under the current legislation we are not in a position to provide any long-term hedge against endemic inflation in countries where these funds are held. Under the proposed amendments, investments may be made in any form as may be approved by the President. This will allow greater flexibility in our investment policy, as it will be possible to attract investments which would not fall strictly within the category of fixed price gilt-edged securities to be held by the Government. The earlier outmoded restrictions on the investment of Government funds must be removed if Government is to follow a realistic and more effective investment policy with surplus funds. 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 Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.51 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, the Bill seeks to empower the Singapore Government to float loans in markets outside Singapore. Such loans could be floated either for the purposes of the Development Fund or for amortisation of another external loan. The maximum amount or amounts of the loan that may be floated will be approved by the President on the recommendation of the Minister. This is provided under clause 2 (3) of the Bill. For raising these external loans, the Minister is empowered under clause 4 (1) of the Bill to create and issue such securities as he thinks fit. The Minister may also determine under clause 4 (2) the terms and conditions as to repayment, redemption and other matters, including provision for a sinking fund to which the securities will be subject. Sir, this Bill seeks to provide Government with the enabling powers to borrow in external markets should the need arise. We have up till now floated loans in the domestic market to meet our development expenditure. With the accelerated British military withdrawal, our development expenditure will need to be increased in the years ahead. This necessitates increased borrowing and it is clearly in our interest to widen the market to include external ones. Having increased our range of options, it is then up to the Government to take advantage of money market conditions internally or externally, or both, in the best interests of the country. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.54 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that I am voicing the sentiments of this House when I say that Singapore, unlike some emerging countries, does not require foreign loans to live. Singapore only requires foreign loans to expand its economy more rapidly. The rate of Singapore's economic expansion has been such that it has been equalled only by a few countries in Asia, and even in the world. But circumstances are such that, especially in the next few years, Singapore needs to expand much more rapidly, and because of this need I welcome this Bill which will enable us to raise external loans. While I welcome the intention of this Bill, I feel that it is my duty to raise objections to some of the provisions in the Bill. If this Bill is passed into law as it stands, a blank cheque Bill, as it were, would be handed to the Finance Minister. I am sure no one in this House doubts that with the present Finance Minister at the helm of our economic ship, we will not run the risk of foundering. Everyone in this House is confident that he, armed with the wide powers conferred by this Bill, will not seek the easy way out when confronted by a shortage of cash. I am also sure that he will do his best to mobilise all domestic resources before attempting to borrow from abroad. But, we are not legislating for one man. What we are doing today is to consider a piece of legislation which will fit in with our structure and system of government for some time to come. As the Bill stands, the Finance Minister can raise any amount of money he likes from abroad and pay any rate of interest he likes on those loans. As I have said before, I am confident that the present Finance Minister will neither be foolish nor will he mortgage our future unnecessarily. But circumstances may change and the occupiers of posts may change. Are we then, and then only, to amend a piece of legislation which we pass now? Sir, I feel that there should be some safeguard that this House must retain for itself. I also feel that this House must set a limit to the amount the Minister may borrow, and if he requires more funds, he should seek authority again from this House. Similarly, I feel that this House must set a limit on the rate at which our Finance Minister can borrow. If he feels that he must pay higher rates, he should seek the specific authority of this House. Fortunately for us, our international credit rating is high and we do not have to pay interest rates as charged by the Market Street money-lenders for any external loans we seek to raise. But we still need to determine the rate of interest which this House must set as the limit on which the Finance Minister can borrow. I should like him to advise this House on the appropriate figure. Similarly, I should like him to advise this House on the limit he should be authorised to raise from external loans. 2.58 p.m.

I think the hon. Member really raises issues which are largely of theoretical and academic interest. First of all, he says that the Finance Minister can raise any amount of money in the overseas money markets. I think he is aware of the fact that most of the developing countries are not able to raise any loans in these overseas money markets because nobody will lend them any money. It is true, of course, that our credit rating is much better than that of the general run of developing countries, and one hopes that this credit rating will continue to be good. I do not think there is any advantage in raising any limit on loans that may be raised in overseas markets, for the simple reason that I do not expect these loans would be substantial and, in any event, any legislation on the limits of quantum of loans that may be floated does not really confer on Parliament any real control over the financial activities of the Government. When the limit is reached, then the Finance Minister will come to Parliament and ask for it to be raised. In fact, in regard to the limit on Treasury Bills which has been set by Parliament at $500 million, I shall soon be introducing a Bill to raise this limit to $1,000 million because we are fast approaching the limit of $500 million. As regards interest rates, here again this is determined by the rates of interest prevailing in money markets and by the credit rating which the borrower enjoys in the market. Rates of interest are at the moment pretty horrendous. For instance, if we are to borrow money on the New York market, say, a short-term loan of about five or six years, it is unlikely that we can borrow at an interest rate of less than eight per cent per year. Interest rates in continental money markets are slightly lower, but not all that much lower. In Frankfurt, we may be able to borrow at about 6¾ per cent, and in Switzerland possibly at 6¼ per cent. But these loans are not for the asking, because very prolonged and delicate negotiations have to be entered into between the Government and the lender or a consortium of lenders. What I intend to do really is to raise a small loan at an opportune time either in America or in Europe, not so much to use the money - because when you borrow at these rates of interest, it is going to be very difficult to justify expenditure on development on infrastructure at 7½ per cent, 8 per cent or even 6¾ per cent - but to introduce ourselves to the financial community of the world. I have been advised by various people that it is best to borrow money when you do not need it, because when you really need the money desperately you are unlikely to get it. At this time, when we are reasonably flush, it may be a good thing to raise the money either in New York, Frankfurt or Geneva, and to re-invest the money there possibly at a higher rate of interest. Actually, this is our plan and we are waiting for the right opportunity to put it into operation. Mr Lim Soo Peng rose -

Mr Lim, you cannot speak more than once on the Second Reading of the Bill. Mr Lim Soo Peng resumed his seat.

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 Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee.

3.04 p.m. Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 -

There is a correction to be made in the marginal note to clause 8. The reference to the Malaysian Act should be Act No. 22 of 1963 and not No. 1 of 1963. This correction will be made. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.07 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the Development Loan Act, 1967, to allow the Government to raise loans in the domestic market by the issue of bearer bonds. The bonds will be issued in such denominations and under such conditions as may be decided by the Government. Hitherto, the Government has been issuing only registered stock which requires registering on purchase and whenever the ownership of the stock is changed. Such stocks, therefore, appeal to a limited market and we have found that our past issues have been mainly subscribed by institutions who hold such stocks till maturity. To increase the attractiveness of our loan issues, the Government proposes to issue bearer bonds as well. These bonds are payable to bearer and transferable by delivery without endorsement or registration. The names of stockholders will not appear on the stock certificate, neither will a register of stockholders be kept, so that anonymity of subscribers will be preserved. Interest coupons will be attached to the bonds, and on each date when interest is due, such coupons may be cashed at the nearest bank or with the Registrar of Loans. It will be clear from this brief description that the administrative work involved will be reduced considerably. The provisions of the Development Loan Act, which require sinking funds to be established to meet redemption of a loan floated, will however continue to apply to bearer bonds issued under this Act. So, once a loan is floated, money to meet its redemption is automatically set aside each year. Such bearer bonds, when issued, will become negotiable instruments and we hope this will encourage greater public participation in the mobilisation of capital for development. 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 Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.14 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to establish the Jurong Town Corporation which will take over from the Economic Development Board all the latter's responsibilities in regard to the provision of facilities for the management of industrial estates, sites and flatted factories in Singapore. The Corporation will, in addition, provide amenities for the advancement of the well-being of the people living in such estates and sites. Upon its establishment, the staff of the Industrial Facilities Division, the Civil Engineering Division and other relevant Divisions of the Economic Development Board will be transferred to the Corporation. In taking over the property of the E.D.B., the Corporation will also be responsible for its liabilities. The Economic Development Board was formed in 1961 as the principal agency of the Government in promoting industrial growth. It was a novel and pioneering venture. We decided at that time - and events showed that the decision was a right one - that the E.D.B, should undertake a large number of functions related to its work of industrial promotion. One such function was the provision of industrial sites equipped with all the facilities needed by modern industry - roads, railways, wharves, industrial water, electricity, telephones and so on. One advantage of concentrating diverse functions in ore organisation is the convenience this offers to the potential investor. He need see only one agency to settle a large number of problems. The rapid expansion of the Economic Development Board and the experience its staff has gained over the years make necessary a review of this policy of concentration as against the dispersion of specialist functions into specialist agencies. The Government considers that the present time is appropriate to make a change in the structure of industrial promotion agencies and the advantages of creating a separate agency to look after industrial estates outweigh the advantages of retaining the present system of concentration of functions. The industrial estates, sites arid flatted factories to be transferred from the E.D.B, to the Jurong Town Corporation will include those in the Jurong Industrial Estate, Tanglin Halt, Redhill, Tiong Bahru, Kallang Basin, Kallang Park and Kranji. It is expected that the finance of the Corporation will be on a sound basis, but any financial shortfall, after taking into consideration its revenue from rentals, leases, and so on, will be made up by Government by way of grants and loans. Subject to Government's approval, the Corporation may also borrow money from the market. With adequate resources, the Corporation can provide for amenities for the well-being of the people working and living in the various industrial estates and sites to the extent which was not possible with the E.D.B. So far as the staff are concerned, they will be employed by the Corporation on the same terms and conditions as they have enjoyed with the E.D.B., and service with the E.D.B, will be deemed to be service with the Jurong Town Corporation for the purpose of determining seniority and of any pension or provident fund scheme to be established by the Corporation. The Corporation will consist of a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and 15 other members all of whom will be appointed by the Finance Minister. The object of having a large number of members is to enable more participation by members of the public, especially those who are actively involved in the development of the Jurong Industrial Estate and other industrial sites. It is necessary to establish the Jurong Town Corporation as soon as possible to enable a smooth take-over from the E.D.B. In welcoming this new institution, we should not forget the past contribution of the E.D.B, which has so ably carried out its complex tasks with much drive and imagination. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.19 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support this Bill which is far-sighted. The Minister has said just now that the main purpose of this Bill is to make plans to provide better facilities for Jurong Town so that it will not only be a new and modern town, but also a place where thousands of people can work and live. Since the P.A.P, came to power and started its industrialisation plan in 1960, Jurong has become a large industrial town. I understand that it covers about 18,000 acres and the Government has done a lot by putting all this acreage to various uses. For instance, about 1,700 acres are for heavy industries and about 7,000 acres are for light industries. The Government has made plans for residential and commercial areas, community services, facilities and amenities such as public telephones, etc. From this, we know that the Government does not intend to make Jurong only an industrial town but also a place where thousands of people can make a living. As a result of the rapid development of Jurong, various problems have arisen and have to be looked after, such as education, transport, etc, for the people living there. It would not be convenient for the Economic Development Board to do these things by itself. That is why there is need today for a Jurong Town Corporation which will take over the functions of the E.D.B, in respect of the Jurong industrial site. Sir, our achievements in the Jurong industrial site are well known throughout the world. Good progress has been made all round. In addition to industrial development, we have also set up a Fisheries Wharf in Jurong which will facilitate the distribution of fish to our markets. The harbour is good and deep with facilities for ship-repairing and ship-building in docks. This Bill also provides for various kinds of development in Jurong Town. There is a, proposal to form a Board comprising a number of members who will plan the development of Jurong Town. After this Bill becomes law, I am sure that Jurong will be a prosperous and efficient industrial area. I give my support to this Bill. 3.23 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to give my whole-hearted support to the proposal by the Minister for Finance to create and establish the Jurong Town Corporation, the objectives of which are to develop an industrial estate and to provide the amenities of life to the working people and residents of the area. The move to form the Jurong Town. Corporation is indeed a bold and imaginative move to correct the imbalance between the Jurong area and, the other parts of developed Singapore. Mr Speaker. Sir, when we speak of Jurong Town, we do so with pride because it manifests the confidence of the world in Singapore, in particular in the industry of the working people. In this connection, I am sure there will be the right incentives like good and efficient utility services provided not only to the industries but also to the residents. Therefore, in order to make the Jurong complex more attractive to investors and workers, things in Jurong will have to improve and the co-operation of not only the employers but of the workers too is necessary. Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer to clause 5 (1) (c) of the Bill and I hope the Minister will also appoint trade union representatives to be members of the Corporation. It will be appropriate for him to appoint representatives of the National Trades Union Congress or of the Pioneer Industries Employees' Union to this Corporation so that the wishes and desires of the workers working and living in that area can be heard. The People's Action Party Government has given status and recognition to the labour movement, so much so that trade union representatives are found on many statutory bodies, and I hope the Government will continue to do so, more particularly at this moment as the workers are beginning to question the intentions of the Government, which I do not doubt are good.

Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, Sir, Jurong Town should be a place of joy in which to work and live. But it is sad to say that although it is a thriving industrial estate, it is quite a desert for social life. I say this with experience because I live not far off -in fact, a stone's throw - from the Jurong complex. Every morning for about l« or 2 hours, you can see streams of cars, motor-cycles and scooters going in one direction and in the evening for about 2 hours, they go the other way. Throughout the morning and even in the night, Jurong is quite a dead town. Life is dull and gloomy, and except for the occasional Christmas or New Year parties thrown by some Father Christmas of an employer, Jurong is quite a dead town. From my experience, most of the people after work go to the city to enjoy themselves and it is very difficult sometimes to find friends at home in Jurong, because most of them live in the city. I have said just now that Jurong should be a pleasant place in which to work, and I hope that the Corporation to be set up will endeavour to improve things in the Jurong complex and provide all the modem amenities to the workers and residents. Things in Jurong are not so good, even the daily food. This is to be wondered at, that although Jurong is a landing point for the fishing fleet, the fish one gets in Jurong is not so fresh as one gets in, say, the Kandang Kerbau Market. This is a complaint of the workers, that Jurong has not been taken care of in the past. I speak not only from experience but also as a result of the complaints made by workers working in Jurong, that Jurong is not a very pleasant place in which to work, because not only are the wages there low, but there are also no social amenities at all. However, as the Bill intends to improve things in Jurong, I give it my whole-hearted support. 3.30 p.m.

I thank the Member for Sembawang for his very kind words on the efforts of the Economic Development Board. As regards the Member for Kallang, he has made a number of constructive suggestions and criticisms and I would like to comment on some of them. He has asked for an assurance that trade union representatives should be appointed to the Board of the Jurong Town Corporation. Actually it is my intention to appoint equal numbers of trade union representatives and employer representatives. In fact, we have written to the N.T.U.C. for nominations, but so far we have not received any reply. So if the hon. Member can exert some pressure on his colleagues in the N.T.U.C., I would be most grateful. He made the observation that there is an immense amount of commuting between Jurong and the city. He said that the reason for this was that the amenities in Jurong were not as good as in the city. Actually the vast amount of commuting is not because amenities are inadequate. Amenities are inadequate because there is this amount of commuting. In other words, so long as small numbers of workers live in Jurong, you will not get the amenities coming up. For instance, there must be a certain minimum population before anybody thinks it worth while to set up, say, a cinema. This problem has been exercising our minds for some time. We wonder why workers prefer to spend nearly one and a half hours to two hours a day riding on buses or lorries or private taxis, or whatever method of transport it is they use, to go to Jurong and come back to work. We did a social survey of this problem some years ago. We found that the vast majority of workers employed in Jurong are people getting their first jobs. They are mostly youngsters living with their parents. They find it is more economical to live off their parents than to move on to Jurong and set up their own homes. But no doubt as these young workers advance in age and mature, they will get married and then they will want to find their own homes. When this happens, we shall find more and more workers living in the flats that we have built in Jurong. As regards complaints of fish and vegetables not being fresh, I do not know to what extent these complaints are justified. No doubt there may be some justification.

I live there. I know.

I beg your pardon. Yes, but I find it difficult to believe that it is consistently worse than in other places. It may not be the freshest you can get in Singapore simply because the demand is rather small compared with, say, the bigger markets in town where stallholders will find it worth while to bring first quality goods because people are prepared to pay good prices for them.

Chickens are cheap and eggs are fresh.

These amenities will no doubt develop in course of time. In fact, it will be one of the principal objectives of the Corporation to improve social amenities in Jurong.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill now before the House seeks to introduce certain changes in the Constitution. The first of these is the provision of a new Article 1A empowering this House to elect a Vice-President of the Republic of Singapore. The need for the creation of a Vice-Presidency has been felt for some time now - in fact, ever since Singapore became an independent Republic. Consequential upon Singapore becoming an independent Republic, the duties that have devolved upon the President as Head of State have increased, as hon. Members know full well. The occasions which have necessitated the actual participation of the President himself in purely ceremonial functions have also increased. Furthermore, each time the President leaves the Republic, an Acting Head of State has to he appointed in order to carry on his duties. The Government has for some time in the past considered this matter and has reached the conclusion that it would be advantageous that a Vice-President be appointed who could not only assist the President but also act as Head of State during his absence. As with the Head of State, so also in regard to the Vice-President, the proper method of appointment should be by election in this Chamber, so that Parliament may exercise its choice in regard to whoever may be so appointed to perform the functions of the President of the Republic. Hence this new Article which will enable the House to elect such a person. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Vice-President, as hon. Members will see in the Bill, must first possess certain qualifications in order to be eligible for election. In this regard, his qualifications are to be similar to those conditions set out in the Constitution regarding the office of President. The term of office for the Vice-President, however, would only be for a maximum of three years. He may, of course, as in the case of the President, resign his office and there is a further provision in the Bill for the removal of the Vice-President from office by Parliament. The Vice-President is also enabled by this new amendment in the Constitution to exercise all such duties and functions as may be delegated to him by the President, who, of course, would be required to act in accordance with the wishes of the Government of the day. The Vice-President would further assist the President in the exercise of such duties and functions as any constitutional Head of State in a modern democracy would be required to perform. One important provision which I would like to emphasise is that this Bill would also enable the Cabinet to empower the Vice-President to exercise all the functions of the President, as an alternative to appointing a person to exercise such functions of the President and thus act as Head of State. I hope that hon. Members will agree with me when I say that the need for the creation of the office of Vice-President is obvious enough, if only to relieve the President of some of his manifold duties. The Vice-President, under the provisions of the Constitution, need not necessarily be appointed full-time, although there is no prohibition for a full-time appointment to be made. The Government, however, envisages the situation where whoever is appointed Vice-President should also be allowed to carry on whatever functions or work he may have been performing before his appointment as such. Another amendment to the Constitution, purely a financial one, seeks to amend Article 86 of the Constitution which, as it now stands, requires the Government to introduce a Supply or a Supplementary Supply Bill in Parliament before appropriating funds from the Consolidated Fund, save in regard to such sums as are by law already charged to the Consolidated Fund. Furthermore, under the present constitutional provisions relating to financial expenditure, as it now stands, the Minister for Finance would be required to authorise, subject to the prior approval of the Cabinet, expenditure from the Consolidated Fund or other Government funds as he may consider essential for the continuance of the public services. There is also a further limitation on the expenditure so authorised for any service to the effect that the expenditure so authorised must not exceed one-quarter of the amount voted for that particular service in the Supply law for the preceding year. Hon. Members will agree that such restrictions may at times prove too restrictive and indeed work to the disadvantage of the Government of the day in certain circumstances, as, for example, where an unusual emergency arises which necessitates spending of an exceptionally large amount of money. In order therefore to remove these fetters, the Government now seeks the approval of the House to this proposed amendment to Article 86. I would like to point out that the proposed amendment is not an exceptional provision as it follows the financial practice in many countries, the United Kingdom and India amongst them. Further, it is purely to enable the Government a freer hand in authorising expenditure - expenditure that can be regarded as required for unusual circumstances and to meet exigencies that we may be faced with during the crucial years ahead of us and which may be in excess of the annual Supply law - that it has been thought necessary to introduce this amendment. These enlarged powers would only be used on the occasions which require the appropriation of amounts over and above normal expenditure that are sometimes of such magnitude or of such indefinite character as would be extremely complex and therefore difficult to explain without technical knowledge and which may at any rate prove undesirable in the public interest to disclose in detail. Nevertheless, as it is and has always been the law that expenditure should be approved by Parliament, the amendment would still require the Government of the day to authorise such expenditure. While clause (6) of Article 86 of the Constitution removes such fetters as may appear superfluous in such exigencies as I have referred to, the canons of prudence and careful husbandry will not be abandoned as the normal procedures will still have to be observed. Lastly, Sir, clause 4 of this Bill seeks to amend the definition of the term "office of profit", as defined in Article 91 (1) of the Constitution. This article has again been found to be restrictive to such an extent as to prohibit one who is employed in the public service full-time, from holding appointment at any of the Missions Singapore maintains in countries abroad. It is to enable persons who would now by reason of this technical definition "office of profit" to be appointed to public offices abroad at the country's various Missions, that it has been decided to bring about this change with the introduction of this amendment to Article 91. Persons who would otherwise be debarred from such appointments abroad would thus be enabled to serve the public and the nation both within the Republic and elsewhere. Article 91 of the Constitution, when drafted, did not have in mind the status of Singapore as an independent nation, but rather as a component State within the Federation of Malaysia. One can really say, therefore, that the present amendment to Article 91 is necessary as a natural consequence of Singapore having become an independent Republic. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Question proposed. 3.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill and I would like to say a few words on the new Article IA. Singapore is an independent country and, as such, has acquired a lot of pomp and ceremony. And with this, naturally, a lot of protocol. In the past two years or more, it has become apparent to even the least alert of our citizens that the duties of our President have been more than one man can shoulder, no matter how fit he may be. A Vice-President will therefore be a useful person to have to share or undertake some or all of the presidential duties. I am glad to hear from the Minister that the proposed office of Vice-President will not necessarily be a full-time appointment. This provision will therefore allow a wider choice of a suitable person. However, I cannot see how the Cabinet can come to the conclusion that the appointment should be for a maximum period of three years. I think three years is rather too short a time. It is so short that before the new Vice-President can get to know his job and its finer points, he will relinquish his job and a new person could be appointed.. I feel that a five-year term will be a more reasonable appointment. 3.58 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. Its main purpose is to make provision for Parliament to elect a Vice-President in order to assist the President in such of his functions as the President may care to hand over to him. Also when the President is abroad or is absent for any other reason, he may act as President. As the Head of State of a newly emergent country, the President has a lot of duties and functions to carry out. Our present President, Inche Yusof bin Ishak, has been the Head of State since 1960. After 1965, when Singapore became independent, he has been the President of our Republic. We know that he seldom went abroad, but recently he went to Australia for a holiday. So in the absence of a Vice-President, we requested the Speaker of the House to be the Acting President. With the passage of the Bill, we will be in a better position and we will find it more convenient to have a Vice-President to act as President. However, I have a few points to raise. Firstly, when will a Vice-President be elected? The second point is similar to what the Member for Joo Chat has raised. Why should we limit his term of office to three years? As the President's term of office is for four years, I feel that the Vice-President's term of office should also be for four years. Otherwise we will have to elect again a Vice-President while the President is still in office. So I would like the Minister to explain why there should be the stipulation of three years of office for the Vice-President. 4.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first I would like to thank the Member for Joo Chiat and the Member for Sembawang for their support. They have asked one question, "Why three years for the Vice-President and four years for the President?" Why not? It does not follow that because you appoint the President for four years you must appoint a Vice-President for four years. After all, the Vice-President is second to the President. The Member for Sembawang wants to know when the Vice-President will be appointed. All I can say here is, "Very soon." But assuming we appoint the Vice-President tomorrow, surely we cannot appoint him for four years. I think that should answer the two Members' question as to how long the Vice-President should hold office. Our President was appointed in December last for a period of four years. A few months have passed. We cannot appoint a Vice-President starting from tomorrow for another four years. Hence three years, which we think should be a suitable period.

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. 4.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Financial Procedure Act, as it now stands, does not enable Parliament to approve expenditure for extraordinary or unspecified purposes. In Britain and a number of Commonwealth countries including India, Pakistan and Malaysia, there is provision for the approval of expenditure which on account of the magnitude or indefinite character of the service cannot be stated with the details given, as in ordinary estimates of expenditure. In the United Kingdom, such needs for expenditure are brought before Parliament by an application based on the estimate of the total sum required for a vote of credit. The form of a vote of credit is a demand for a lump sum with the objects stated in very general terms. It is accounted for by the Treasury which issues monies to the departments in accordance with their requirements. Recourse to these procedures takes place only in exceptional times. Nevertheless, no one can say that they will never be necessary, and it is prudent that we make provision for all eventualities as other Commonwealth countries have done. The necessary amendments to the Constitution have been brought to the House under the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. The proposed amendment to the Financial Procedure Act is complementary to the amendments to the Constitution to enable Parliament to approve expenditure for extraordinary or unspecified purposes. 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 Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Nine minutes past Four o'clock p.m.