E.W. Barker
Singapore
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a simple Bill which seeks to amend section 33 of the Land Acquisition Act on the amount of compensation payable to owners of land compulsorily acquired under the Act.”
“For the five-year period from 1st July, 1981 to 30th June, 1986, the HDB demolished a total of 8,098 units. As the HDB's new accounting system was only implemented from 1st April, 1985, the Board does not have ready information on the value of flats demolished prior to 1st April, 1985. RELOCATION OF CREMATORIUMS 4.”
“The HDB did not allocate any MP's office to the previous PAP MPs for Anson and Potong Pasir constituencies. NUMBER OF H.D.B. UNITS DEMOLISHED 3.”
“I would not know. Why don't you ask them? I don't know. Sir, to put things in a nutshell, it is the legal profession amongst all the professions that help in the administration of Singapore. Doctors help to cure you of diseases.”
“I am not saying it's wrong. I am not telling you stories. I am relating. So they decided to take us on. When we went into Select Committee, the first day and the later part of the second day, there was confrontation between the Committee and the lawyers.”
“As the Member for Anson would know, the Minister for Law is not in charge of prosecutions or the conduct of any criminal proceedings in court, nor does he give any directives on these matters.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,152 lines we hold for E.W. Barker, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 42 of 44.
“All this Bill does is to give him power to exempt "The Singapore Sweepstake" - if you like to call it that - from paying 30 per cent tax that should go to the Singapore Government. And I cannot see why we cannot bring it in on a Certificate of Urgency. The tickets are, at the moment, being sold in Singapore and the first draw will be held in early December. Hence the urgency for this Bill. When the People's Action Party came to power in 1959, it was a puritanical Party. It appears to me, after hearing some of our Members today, that we are still semi-puritanical. There was a day when rock-n-roll was banned in Singapore. I myself like rock-n-roll and I saw no objections to rock-n-roll. Today, our youngsters like to do the Twist. I do it once in a while, but perhaps I am getting too old for it. But I think there is a new thinking now. We have to cater for our youths and every year there are 90,000 to 100,000 more voters, and we have to cater for their taste. And if our youths like to do the Twist, I say good luck to them. The days of the pigtailed school-girls are over, and if the Barisan Sosialis depend on them, I think they have not got a hope. I only hope that members of our Party will also move with the times. 6.19 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bras Basah has two basic objections to this Bill: (1) that it is being introduced on a Certificate of Urgency; and (2) because he says it is a betting Bill. I can assure the House that the Government is well aware that because there is no Opposition in the House - the Barisan Sosialis having resigned or attempted to resign from their seats and having been derelict in their duties - we must be very careful not to introduce Bills if we can on Certificates of Urgency. For instance, if we were to introduce the Land Acquisition Bill or any Bill on the Constitution on a Certificate of Urgency, that would be most reprehensible. But we have not done that. When important Bills come up, because there is no Opposition, we send them to Select Committee, so that members of the public will have an opportunity to present their views and the Committee an opportunity to consider them. This is what has happened to the Land Acquisition Bill which will be read a Third time today. But this Betting and Sweepstake Duties (Amendment) Bill is not a Bill to introduce betting in Singapore. If we have no horse-racing and no sweepstakes, and this is a Bill to introduce gambling for the first time in Singapore, then we will never do it this way. But if the Members who object to this Bill read it carefully, they will note that it is a Bill to give the Minister powers to exempt any sweepstake promoted, organised, administered or operated by any racing club or association from all or any of the provisions of this Ordinance. It does not give him power to start a sweepstake. We have those powers and we have had them for many a year.”
“The Minister for Finance - and I do not mean Mr Lim Kim San; that was Dr Goh Keng Swee - in his capacity as Chairman of the Development Planning Committee, disapproved of the list submitted and commented - "Better to have two or three lavish fountains than a large number of scraggy ones." As a result, the Scientific Adviser was requested to have a discussion with the Deputy Director of Public Works, the Chief Planner and the Chief Architect on the final plans regarding sites and sizes for some prestige fountains. At a meeting held on 16th October, 1964, at the Prime Minister's Office, fresh plans for bigger fountains were considered and it was decided to proceed with the three fountains at the three sites just mentioned. That was the 16th of October, 1964. I was appointed the Minister for Law on the 1st of November, 1964. I was still then Speaker of this House. I was only appointed the Minister for National Development on the 9th of August last year. So in case Members of this House think that I only build fountains in my own district, I hope that the facts I have just presented will satisfy them that I had nothing to do with the planning of the fountains and, in particular, I had nothing to do with the choosing of these sites for the fountains.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to make clear one matter which seems to be disturbing several Members of this House, and this is the question of fountains and I will come to the point. There are two fountains in my district of Tanglin. One is at Farrer Road -half that fountain is in my constituency and the other half is in Ulu Pandan. There is another fountain at Tanglin Circus, half of which is in my constituency and the other half in River Valley. Putting two halves together, I have got one fountain. Now, I would like to assure all Members of this House that when the sites for those fountains were chosen, I was not the Minister for National Development. I propose to give you the history of these fountains. The question of fountains at traffic circuses was first raised by the Prime Minister in a memorandum dated the 7th of November, 1963, to the Minister for National Development. At that moment, Mr Speaker, I was happily seated in your Chair. The Public Works Department was then requested to draw up a list of likely sites where fountains could be put up. The following sites were submitted: Orchard Road Circus, Raffles Place, King George V Park, Guillemard Circus, the roundabout at Farrer and Holland Roads, Tanglin Circus, Empress Place and Finlayson Green. 4.45 p.m. That was all in 1963. Sketch plans and estimates of costs of these fountains were approved by my predecessor, the then Minister for National Development, and submitted to the Development Planning Committee for approval on the 2nd of June, 1964. The plans were to build small fountains costing about $35,000 each at these eight sites.”
“But a fountain is a thing of beauty, and all he has to do is to visit the three fountains, the giant fountains which have been recently erected. I have not heard one word of criticism. The only words I have heard are words of praise. As for Mount Faber, he grumbles about providing lights. When we do not provide the lights, he grumbles. When we provide the lights, he grumbles too. I believe he is the only bachelor in the House. But before you pull me up for being personal, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I should not say anything further on that.”
“The Member for Choa Chu Kang argues that until every house in his district is supplied with light and water, my Ministry should not do anything about building parks or fountains. 4.30 p.m. This is an argument which I cannot accept. It will probably be 10 to 15 years before every householder in his district is supplied with light and water. I have given the reasons why up to date water and electricity supplies have not reached every remote farm in his district. Does it mean that I can do nothing to improve the urban areas until I have satisfied every basic requirement of his constituency? I can assure him that we are spending more money every year on the rural districts. And this goes for every rural district in Singapore. Urban areas receive much less; then come the semi-urban or semi-rural districts; then come the rural districts. If we were spending more money on the urban districts than on the rural districts, then I would say we are wrong. But we are not doing .that. We are spending more money in his district, which is rural, than, say, my district in Tanglin which is semi-urban. But if not every householder in his district of Choa Chu Kang has light and water, I can assure him that there are people in my constituency in Tanglin who do not have light and water too. There are many other constituencies which do not have these basic amenities. But does it mean that we cannot build a fountain? We have built so many flats in Singapore and we are building more. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars providing housing. If I were to accept his argument, it means that until we house everyone in Singapore, no fountain should be erected.”
“We will only introduce fees for parking at MacRitchie should the demand for car parking spaces exceed the amount of space available, and that, in fact, is the whole basis of car parking in Singapore. Unless we charge fees for parking, the day will come in Singapore, and it will come soon, when there is complete traffic chaos in the town. But no one has moved an amendment to the other subhead which deals with the underground car park, so I will not make any comments except to say to the Member for Choa Chu Kang that though he does not like the underground car park at Raffles Place, it serves a useful purpose and in fact a hundred per cent of the car parking places at the Raffles Car Park are now fully used. As for Mount Faber, he is entitled to his own views. But you get a lovely view from Mount Faber, and if he does not like it, I suggest he go elsewhere.”
“There is an acute shortage of lungs and open spaces as a result of our tremendous housing programmes and the idea behind the MacRitchie scheme is to enable full utilisation of one existing open space by the population. The Member for Choa Chu Kang will agree that a healthy community is a vital necessity. The provision of facilities like a tea kiosk, a bandstand and a fountain at minimal cost will attract even more people to this already popular spot. Not only will the people in the neighbouring Thomson and Sembawang areas but also those from outlying districts, including Choa Chu Kang and Kampong Kapor, will be attracted to spend a pleasant evening in the environs of this reservoir by the provision of these minimal facilities. A tea kiosk is necessary in order to keep out hawkers from the reservoir parks so as to reduce the chances of water pollution. A floating fountain in the reservoir itself should enhance the beauty of the area at little expense. In short, Mr Speaker, the project envisages the enhancement of the natural beauty of the place by the provision of additional features and not the creation of an artificial garden. I am sure that when the development is completed the Member for Choa Chu Kang will be pleased with the results. The Member for Kampong Kapor has been harping on the charges which, he says, we might introduce at the car park. He says, "Do not charge." The Member for Sembawang says, "Charge." I can assure both Members that before any fees are imposed careful consideration will have to be given. There must be a period of trial and experiment. At the moment, there are no car parking fees at MacRitchie Reservoir, though, I believe, the place is packed in the evening and at night.”
“On that road electrical mains have been laid up to the 19th milestone, two miles from the end. No doubt, in due course, supplies will be extended upon request and, on the basis of determined priorities, to extend these to the end. Despite all endeavours, there will be villages in outlying areas far from the electricity and water mains where it will be exorbitantly expensive to provide the necessary amenities. In many of these areas, for example, the Southern Islands, Changi, Tampines and Sembawang, the number of consumers is relatively so small as to make the project completely uneconomical. An example of the high cost involved can be seen from the fact that to provide one mile of water mains in Lorong Buang Kok, the cost was nearly $100,000. To provide electric supplies to 290 houses at Choa Chu Kang Road from the 13� milestone to the 14� milestone, just one mile, the cost was $163,740; while to provide one mile of street lighting from Bukit Panjang Village to Yew Tee Village, the cost was $23,000. That I hope, Mr Speaker, should dispose of the Member's arguments as to priorities. The Member for Choa Chu Kang also made the suggestion that things at MacRitchie Reservoir should be left in their natural beauty. He does not want me to disturb the birds. I can assure him that the development envisaged at MacRitchie does not involve the cutting down of trees or turning the reservoir into an artificial garden. The development envisages the minimum clearance of shrubs and undergrowth only and the provision of certain facilities, leaving the trees and the landscape and the birds as far as possible in their natural state. Mr Speaker, this town is expanding fast.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst it is desirable that development should, as far as possible, be spread throughout the island so that our population living in the various constituencies are all catered for, the hard economic facts are that it is necessary to ensure that the total quantum of funds available for development projects are utilised in the best possible manner. Although it is the aim to provide as large a number of the population as possible with basic amenities, like light and water, the deterrent factor is often the heavy capital expenditure involved in bringing electricity and water supplies to remote kampongs off the beaten track. Choa Chu Kang Constituency is one such area. The authorities concerned in deciding whether to extend supplies to specific areas have to have regard for the economics involved. A sufficient rate of return on the capital invested is necessary so that the scheme is economical and the Public Utilities Board is able to meet the requirements of the World Bank in respect of the prescribed rate of returns for loans. Nevertheless, as the Member for Choa Chu Kang will be aware, during the last six years a sum of $700,160 has been expended to provide water and electric services for Choa Chu Kang alone. This figure of over $700,000 is only for water and lights, and has nothing to do with roads or other amenities. On water supplies alone a sum of $65,230 was spent. On electric supplies a sum of $595,930. Street lighting in the Member's constituency cost $39,000. So as far as Choa Chu Kang Road is concerned - this is a road - water and electrical mains have been laid right up to the end of the road, and I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that Choa Chu Kang is a long road. The other long road in that district is Lim Chu Kang Road.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Report of the Constitutional Commission, which was presented to the President on the 27th of August this year, is under careful study by the Government. It is intended to table the Report, together with the Government's views thereon, at the next sitting of Parliament, probably in December. PARKING LOTS IN FRONT OF SHOPHOUSES (Reservation by shopkeepers) 16. Mr Ho See Beng asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will consider converting the existing parking lots in front of shop-houses into reserved lots for shopkeepers who may be willing to pay the fee for such parking lots as is charged for season parking.”
“So on that basis, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I should end now and give my colleague, the Minister for Health, a little time to say what he wants. 7.41 p.m.”
“For instance, at page 73: 'The Commission arrived at the conclusion that in neither the building and construction industry, nor in the electrical and plumbing trades, was it possible to suggest changes from contractor labour system to direct labour employment. We were all agreed, however, that a number of safeguards could be introduced to bring the terms of employment of this segment of labour in line with those of directly employed personnel.'. May I remind this House, Sir, that some of the Members of this Commission were people like Fong Swee Suan and Woodhull - purported champions of the labour class. But even they did not say, "Get rid of all contract labour," but only in some trades. May I end up, Sir, by saying that we as a Government would like, if it is possible, to get rid of all contract labour. We realise the evils of the system as pointed out by the Member for Bras Basah, but sometimes it is not possible to do away with contract labour. In the Port Authority, an example which I have mentioned, we discussed the matter and managed to find a solution which was acceptable to the Union. As a result, I am glad to say that even the Member for Bras Basah has agreed that the Port is working efficiently, and that the workers are happy with the bonus system and the shift system. If the National Trades Union Congress has any suggestions whereby contract labour can be replaced by permanent labour in any of the Departments that come under my jurisdiction, I can assure him that I will give his suggestions every consideration. But we may come up against obstacles like the tide, for instance. It is no use saying, "Get departmental labour." We will get departmental labour provided the particular labourer is willing to work at 12 midnight.”
“D. I am afraid this does not come under my jurisdiction. It comes under that of the Minister for Health who, I believe, is waiting to say something. The Member for Bras Basah has quoted from the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the System of Contract Labour in Singapore. This was a report which came out in 1960. It did point out the evils of contract labour as has been recited by the hon. Member, but it also spoke of the advantages of contract labour, and I quote paragraph 50 at page 13: 'The system of contractor labour appears to have certain advantages: (i) division of labour; (ii) decentralisation of functions; (iii) control of cost.'. It goes on to say: 'These advantages may be more general with technical labour, technical contractors and specialised principals, than in the case where unskilled and semi-skilled manual labour is in use. It is true, in fact, that elsewhere, overseas for instance, there are segments of labour employed under a contractor system. They are always technical segments highly organised associations and/or trade unions, highly paid, and covered by thoroughly policed and very wide labour legislation. This is the case for instance in the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. In none of these countries, however, is unskilled labour employed under a contractor system in any way similar to that in operation in Singapore.'. In fact, this Report did not say that all contract labour should be got rid of. It made recommendations for the removal of contract labour in certain trades, but not in all.”
“lorries going from one place to another cutting grass in various parts of the rural areas in Singapore. It is not difficult to imagine that most of the time departmental labour will be spent in assembling, mustering, and transporting labourers from the mustering points to where the grass is, working for a short period, and then collecting them again to transport them back to their quarters. Is it little wonder, Sir, that the cost of grass cutting by departmental labour on the average works out at $25 per acre, whereas by contract the cost is less than $16 per acre? The Member for Bras Basah has also referred to seawalls and signal light posts in the area. In this connection, minor works connected with repairs, maintenance and repainting of these items are done by departmental labour. Only major works of construction or major repairs are given out to contractors. In 1964, however, buoys, signal posts and beacons were taken over by the Director of Marine, and departmental labour in the P.W.D., which should have gone over to the Marine Department, would have been employed to continue maintenance and minor repairs work. The P.W.D. daily-rated labour, however, refused to be transferred to the Marine Department, and all of them are being retained in the Marine Branch of the P.W.D. It is true that in most of these marine repair works, the time when such work has to be done will be dictated by the tide. Now, our daily-rated labourers work fixed hours and none of them will wait for the time or the tide. The Union, in fact, has refused to accept the P.W.D.'s suggestion that working hours will be amended or revised to suit the conditions of the tide. Hence, contract labour. The Member for Bras Basah has also referred to carts for rubbish and nightsoil bins as coming under the P.W.”
“Again, the rate of absenteeism among departmental employees is quite high and, in some cases, has adversely affected work at the site. For example, where a plant operator or a driver is absent, then that particular plant will be left idle, unless there is a standby operator easily available. Perhaps I should cite to the House just one example, comparing the costs for work carried out by departmental labour with contract labour. Members of the House must know very well the bungalows "Brighton" and "Hove" at Changi. The repairs of the seawall carried out by departmental labour consisted of plastering the seawall 150 feet long by 6 feet high and the breakdown of the costs was as follows: wages, $685.80; cement, $81; sand, $15; and transport, $50 - total cost $831.80. This worked Out at an average cost of $5.56 per foot run. This was carried out by departmental labour. The repairs of the seawall at Tanjong Kling Police Station were carried out by contract labour. The repair work was similar and the wall was of the same height. The cost of plastering 520 feet long of seawall was $2,340, which worked out at an average of $4.50 per foot run, which is about $1 less per foot run and about 20 per cent less than the foot run done by departmental labour. The Member for Bras Basah has referred to grass cutting by the Public Works Department. The position here is that prior to 1960 the P.W.D. was responsible for grass cutting in the rural areas and employed departmental labour, whereas the City Council was responsible for grass cutting within the City and the City Council farmed out the work to contractors. This means that for most of the time P.W.D. labourers will be riding on P.W.D.”
“If they had no work, they would be paid a dollar a day, and if there was work for them, they would be paid the regular wage. At the moment, we have a casual labour pool of about 700 workmen. They are temporary, but whenever there are vacancies in the permanent establishment, these temporary labourers become permanent. But this temporary labour pool meets the situation during peak periods. There, we had a good excuse to use contract labour and, at the same time, we found a method or device whereby we got rid of contract labour. The Member for Bras Basah says that there has been no improvement for over two years. Now perhaps I should tell him why contract labour has to be used sometimes, though, as a general policy, the Government is against it. At the same time, I should point out to him the advantages sometimes of contract labour. Sometimes existing departmental labour and resources are unable to tackle some maintenance work efficiently and speedily due either to the size of the work or to the need for specialised skills ---- for instance, the maintenance of intricate and expensive equipment like pumps in sewerage pumping stations and sewage disposal plants, renovation of Government buildings, major face-lifting, etc. One outstanding example is the case of repairs to Anderson Bridge where welding work had to be done by skilled contract labour as the departmental labour lacked such skill. Experience has shown that it is sometimes more economical, efficient and speedy to employ contract labour. Departmental work costs more because of fixed hours of work and often over-time allowances must be paid for work done after normal hours or on public holidays, and departmental transport must be provided.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bras Basah has referred to a speech made by the Member for Telok Blangah in this House two years ago about the evils of contract labour. I thought then that my predecessor in the Ministry of National Development, who is now the Minister for Finance, had satisfactorily replied to the Member for Telok Blangah. However, though the Member for Bras Basah puts most of the blame on my predecessor, at the same time, he says that I am not completely blameless. But he has spoken well of the Port Authority and perhaps he has forgotten that I have been in charge of the Port Authority from the 1st of November, 1964. I remember that from the moment I was in charge, we had to introduce a temporary system of contract labour in the Port, and it was for good reason too. The reason was this. In the Port we had, and we still have, peak periods. We have a normal labour force which can look after a certain number of ships coming in every month, but the number of ships coming into Singapore is not the same every month. There are peak periods when more ships come in and the normal number of workmen cannot satisfactorily unload all the goods from the ships. That was the reason why contract labour was taken on as a temporary measure. But the immediate result of bringing in contract labour was that we met with protests from the union. At the same time, the efficiency of the workers of the new union went up. However, we settled that matter satisfactorily when we agreed to stop using contract labour within three months. We looked for a device and it was this. We formed a temporary labour pool consisting of about 600 or 700 labourers who reported every day.”
“Mr Speaker, there is, in fact, a typographical error in page 4, line 15. Instead of the word "it" in line 15, I propose to move that we insert the word "them". Mr Speaker, Sir, this clause refers to "proceedings". The plural is used in line 14 and, in my view, the plural should also be used in line 15. This is only a small amendment and I do not think notice is required. With your permission, Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 15, to leave out "it" and insert "them".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, lines 5 to 7, to leave out sub-clause (1) and insert - '(1) The Courts of Judicature Act, 1964, is hereby amended - (a) by deleting paragraph (c) of section 16 thereof and substituting therefor the following :- "(c) for regulating and prescribing the procedure to be followed on appeals from the Federal Court to the Judicial Committee of Her Britannic Majesty's Privy Council;"; and (b) by repealing sections 74 to 79 thereof.'. Amendment agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 4, after "Act", to insert "and when, in any such case, any special leave to appeal has been granted by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the President, such appeal may be proceeded with as if the special leave of the Privy Council had been granted". Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment is to avoid the Judicial Committee having to give leave formally in cases where leave has already been granted by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the President. Amendment agreed to. Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 6.45 p.m. Clause 10 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 24, after "appeals", to insert "and other proceedings". Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment is to ensure that the provisions of any enactment or rules for the time being in force regulating the proceedings of the Judicial Committee shall apply not only to appeals but also to other proceedings such as applications for special leave to appeal. Amendment agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to enable appeals and other proceedings to be brought with leave to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council without the necessity of presenting a petition to the Queen, as was the practice prior to the formation of Malaysia, or to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, as was the practice when Singapore was in Malaysia. In effect, the Bill constitutes the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the final Court of Appeal for Singapore. Appeals will only lie with the leave either of the Appellate Court in Singapore or of the Privy Council. Provision is made for the enforcement of the Orders of the Judicial Committee and for the payment of costs. All pending appeals will be deemed to be appeals to the Judicial Committee. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Barker] Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 6.40 p.m. Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 -”
“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. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL Order for Second Reading read. 6.37p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill is designed to enable the President to make arrangements with the Government of the United Kingdom for appeals from the Federal Court or other Appellate Court in Singapore to be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. A Bill to give the Judicial Committee power to hear such appeals has already been introduced into this House and will be taken through today. This Bill seeks to amend the Constitution of Malaysia in its application to Singapore to enable arrangements to be made with the United Kingdom Government to give such jurisdiction to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Complementary action has already been taken in the Parliament of the United Kingdom which has passed the Singapore Act, 1966, which provides that, and I quote: 'Her Majesty may by Order-in-Council confer on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council such jurisdiction and powers in respect of the Federal Court of Malaysia acting on appeals from the High Court of Singapore and in respect of appeals from any other Court being a Court having jurisdiction under the laws of Singapore as appear to Her Majesty to be appropriate for giving effect to any arrangements made in that behalf between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Singapore in accordance with any provisions of these laws.' When the necessary enactments have been enacted and brought into force, appeals from the Federal Court or other Appellate Court in Singapore will be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which, in effect, will be constituted a Court of Singapore. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“The Bill, therefore, provides that such causes of action which would, but for this Act, have been barred by limitation be revived and kept alive for a period of three months from the date of the coming into operation of this Act when enacted. The Singapore Bar Committee has been consulted and, in fact, the original draft of the Bill was prepared by them. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Barker] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 6.32p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." When Singapore was part of Malaysia and our High Court was a Court of Malaysia, writs were issued in the name of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the Head of State of Malaysia. Singapore ceased to be part of Malaysia on the 9th of August, 1965. But unfortunately, a number of writs of our High Court were still issued in the name of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong instead of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara or, after the 21st day of December, 1965, the President. The Courts have now decided that such writs are null and void as they were issued in the name of a foreign sovereign. In his judgment in the Federal Court, the Chief Justice of Singapore said, and I quote: 'In the light of our decision in this appeal, it may not be out of place for me to express the hope that consideration may elsewhere be given as to the desirability of validating all writs totalling several hundreds - so we have been informed from the Bar - issued in the name of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong between the 9th August, 1965, and the date when the Republic of Singapore Independence Act, 1965, was published in the Government Gazette.' Representations were also received from the Singapore Bar Committee and a number of advocates and solicitors as to the desirability of enacting validating legislation in respect of such writs. The Government, after full consideration of the matter, has decided not to enact any validating legislation in respect of the writs issued in the name of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong after the 9th day of August, 1965. However, it is felt that the persons who have issued such writs and whose causes of action have been barred by limitation should be allowed to initiate proceedings anew.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst this presumption may be considered by some to be somewhat wide, it is absolutely necessary to include it in order to strengthen the case for the prosecution as effectively as possible. It is not sufficient only to impose a heavy penalty. It is also necessary, particularly under certain circumstances, to make certain that wrong-doers do not escape through various technicalities in the law. Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill. New Clause (B) - "Cancellation of Where any licensed dealer within second-hand the meaning of the Second-hand dealer's Dealers Ordinance or any dealer in licence upon second-hand goods to whom a certificate conviction of exemption has been granted under the Cap. 200. said Ordinance is convicted under the provisions of section 411 of the Penal Code and the stolen property concerned is public property, the Court shall, in addition to any other penalty that it may impose, cancel any licence or certificate of exemption granted under the said Ordinance to such licensed dealer or such dealer in second-hand goods, as the case may be.". - [Mr Wee Toon Boon] Brought up, and read the First time.”
“Caning has accordingly been made mandatory upon conviction and the Court is required to impose such a sentence, though their acceptance prohibits the infliction of corporal punishment on a teenager, and the Court is given a further discretion not to impose corporal punishment where the prisoner is more than 50 years of age. These prohibitions have been inserted in order that the general rules governing the infliction of corporal punishment now to be found in the Criminal Procedure Code are not contradictory. Caning will also not be imposed on a first conviction where the act of vandalism comprises drawing or marking with pen, pencil, crayon, chalk or other delible substance but not with an indelible substance such as paint. Neither will a person be caned on a first conviction for affixing or displaying posters or hanging or suspending banners as it would only be fair to equate both these offences with the punishment for delible writing since posters can be torn off easily enough and banners taken down. All these detailed provisions are deemed necessary in order that this new legislation may effectively achieve its object. Among the amendments to the Bill which it is proposed to move in Committee are the introduction of two important clauses: one relating to presumptions in the law of evidence and the other to second-hand dealers who receive stolen State property. Mr Speaker, Sir, by a two-pronged move, one, dealing as severely as possible with the malefactor who is the actual perpetrator of the act of vandalism and, secondly, by cutting off his avenue for the sale of such property as well as by cancelling the licences of second-hand dealers convicted of receiving such stolen property, we hope to remove this blot on the fair name of the Republic.”
“I need hardly say that the existing punishment provided for such offences is, as the Member for Choa Chu Kang has pointed out, a fine not exceeding $50, and has in the present context proved to be wholly inadequate as a deterrent measure. This Bill provides that where any person steals, destroys or damages any public property, or without the written consent of the owner or occupier in the case of private property or without written authority in the case of public property, paints or marks any public or private property, or affixes any poster or placard or any bunting or banner with any slogan or caricature on, in or from any such property, or attempts to do the same or causes the same to be damaged, he is to be caned on conviction in addition to being fined or imprisoned. It is proposed to move amendments to the Bill in Committee whereby the number of strokes insofar as caning is concerned is to be specified and the period of imprisonment increased. But we will say more about that in Committee. The punishment of caning has been introduced advisedly and after considerable thought. It has been found in practice that while many convicted persons will accept without demur a heavy fine or even a lengthy sentence of imprisonment, they tend to view with the greatest alarm and despondency any sentence which requires the infliction of caning. This is, of course, typical of the mentality of the bully and the coward and of those who choose to perpetrate their offences under cover of darkness, which is, in fact, the case with the majority of acts of this sort.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members will have observed that this Bill seeks to provide exemplary punishment for acts of vandalism and that such punishment is to include caning which is to be made mandatory on conviction. At the outset, it must be conceded that present-day penological trends are against the infliction of caning as a punishment and that legal opinion is in general against the imposition of corporal punishment in cases not involving violence or brutality. We are, however, unfortunately, confronted with a situation which has to be met with boldly and must take effective measures to curb, indeed eradicate, completely irresponsible acts of hooliganism. Parts of fountains built at considerable expense to beautify the city have been destroyed or stolen, thus completely or partially immobilising them and making it necessary to post policemen in the vicinity of fountains. Yet others steal vital parts from electric switch-boxes and substations, supremely indifferent to the attendant risk of fire and loss of life and property. Other acts of vandalism include painting slogans on bus shelters, telephone booths, bridges and walls, affixing posters and banners on public and private property, thus defacing public property. Apart from defacement of such property, such slogans often are not of a nature calculated to keep the peace. There are yet others who scrawl on walls or deface or destroy property for sheer devilment or mischief. However, Members will, I am sure, agree that it is imperative to make provision in the law for deterrent punishment which this Bill now before the House seeks to do.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." This Bill was committed to a Select Committee at the sitting of this House on 21st April, 1966. The Report of the Select Committee has already been made available to hon. Members of the House. No representations were received and the Select Committee does not recommend any amendment to the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That this Parliament do now adjourn to the 26th day of August, 1966." - [Mr Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Forty-two minutes past Seven o'clock p.m.”
“Or is it because there has been better legislation? Or perhaps the Government can claim some credit? And what about giving some credit to the employers? Perhaps they are giving better terms to their employees? But to get down to bare facts, Mr Speaker, Sir, why is there so much opposition to this amendment Bill? Opposition has been concentrated on clause 3, in particular, new section 24A (1) and (4) . Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to be reminded that we are not in Committee but all that new section 24A (1) says is: 'A registered trade union shall not commence, promote, organise or finance any strike or lock-out or any form of industrial action without the consent of the majority of the members thereof, which consent shall be obtained by taking a secret ballot of the members of such registered trade union.' Now the N.T.U.C. claims to be - again to use the words of the Member for Bras Basah - "a democratic socialist trade union". Why then is it afraid to seek the views of its members? This particular piece of legislation does not ban all strikes, lock-outs or any form of industrial action. All it does is to say, "Before you start a strike, seek the views of your members." And I would say that this Bill protects members of trade unions from irresponsible leaders. Before you go on a strike or a go-slow or, as the Member for Kampong Kapor has said, "Lain2 perkara", what is wrong with asking your members? They do not want to rise up one morning and find flags flying, members shouting slogans, pickets all round the place - a strike is on. This has happened before and this is what we want to prevent. If the N.T.U.C. claims to be a responsible democratic socialist trade union, I cannot see any good reason why it should oppose this Bill. 6.12 p.m.”
“I can quote his figures. He said that there were 116 strikes in 1961, which were reduced to 31 in 1965. But who claims the credit for this reduction in the incidence of strikes? Is it the N.T.U.C. alone? An hon. Member: Yes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been encouraging today to hear our trade union colleagues speak with so much gusto on this Bill. The Member for Bras Basah, who reminds us that he is also the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C., has accused the Government of clobbering, knocking down the N.T.U.C. by way of opposing this Bill. But it has been reassuring to hear the Member for Telok Blangah reminding the House that the N.T.U.C. are not worms and that even worms may turn. Some Members have described this Bill as a wonderful piece of legislation which did not even exist in the colonial days. Yet the Member for Bras Basah says that the number of strikes has gone down. I do not want to repeat his figures, but he admits that -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to amend the constitution of the Pawnbrokers Licensing Board which at present consists of:- (a) a Chairman appointed by the Minister; (b) the Commissioner of Police or his representative, and (c) four other persons appointed by the Minister. It is considered undesirable for the Commissioner of Police or his representative to be a member of the Pawnbrokers Licensing Board. In the course of their duties, the Police exercise supervisory functions over pawnshops and have direct dealings with pawnbrokers. In most cases where cancellation of licences is under consideration by the Board, the decision of the Board hinges largely on Police evidence. Thus the Commissioner of Police or his representative can be considered to be an interested party where the contemplated cancellation of the licence arises out of a complaint by the Police in the first instance. This Bill proposes to delete section 7 (1) (b) of the Pawnbrokers Ordinance to exclude the Commissioner of Police or his representative from membership of the Pawnbrokers Licensing Board. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.- [Mr Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. TRADE UNIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.57 p.m.”
“The Housing and Development Board has already provided space for car parking in the Macpherson Housing Estate. Due to the delay in the provision of a proper market, hawkers have been plying in the car parks. In order to overcome this problem, the Housing and Development Board has erected covered cooked food stalls and open hawkers� pitches, and these are now ready for occupation. The hawkers will be moved into the pitches, and the car parks will then become clear for proper use for the parking of the vehicles.”
“Children born in Singapore who are Singapore Citizens by birth will be issued with the new citizenship identity card, irrespective of whether the child has been adopted by a citizen or a non-citizen of another race. A non-Malay child who has been adopted by Malays will have his Malay name written on the new identity card. In addition, however, his name on the birth certificate will also be written within brackets on the identity card. This is to relate the identity card to his birth certificate. If, however, an adopted Order of Court is produced, the non-Malay name of the adopted child will not be entered on his new identity card; only the assumed Malay name will appear thereon. A child cannot change his race by adoption but in order to avoid embarrassment it is the practice of the National Registration Office to enter the race of the adopting parents, if so desired, on the identity card of the child. NATIONAL THEATRE (Raising of funds) 6. Mr S. V. Lingam asked the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs why, even after the completion of the National Theatre, request programmes over Radio Singapura are being broadcast to raise funds for the Theatre.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Ho Cheng Choon) (for the Minister for Law and National Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The provisions of this Bill are simple. It is the intention of the Government that, with the expansion of the activities of the Housing and Development Board in the field of redevelopment and public housing, it is desirable to enlarge the composition of the Board so that more persons may be appointed and the Board may benefit from their experience and expertise. At present only three members can be appointed, but under the amendment not less than three but not more than five members may be appointed. 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 Ho Cheng Choon]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.20 p.m.”
“Provision is also made for the service of documents required to be served on the Government. Another clause relates to the appearance of legal officers in civil proceedings by or against the Government or in any such proceedings to which a public officer is a party; it is also provided that an advocate and solicitor of the High Court, retained by the Attorney-General in the case of civil proceedings by or against the Government or a public officer, may appear as advocate on behalf of the Government or the public officer in such proceedings. The provision for representation by public officers, other than legal officers, is being repealed. The High Court is empowered to order the transfer to itself of any civil proceedings in a District Court to which the Government is a party, where an application is made by the Government to the High Court that the proceedings may involve an important question of law or may be decisive of other cases arising in the same matter, or that it is otherwise desirable in the public interest or for any other reason that such proceedings should be so transferred from the District Court to the High Court, and there is also produced to the High Court a certificate of the Attorney-General to that effect. The Bill further seeks to repeal the special provisions as to limitation of actions against the Government arising from the Public Authorities Protection 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 Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.17 p.m.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." By virtue of the Malaysian Modification of Laws (Government Proceedings and Public Authorities Protection) (Extension and Modification) Order, 1965, which came into operation on 25th February, 1965, the Crown Suits Ordinance (Chapter 12) of Singapore ceased to have effect and the Malaysian Government Proceedings Ordinance, 1956, was extended to Singapore, with certain modifications. The latter Ordinance is, therefore, the law in Singapore in so far as it relates to proceedings by or against the Government, and it is this Ordinance which the Bill seeks to amend. A good part of the Bill makes merely formal amendments which are necessary in consequence of Singapore ceasing to be part of Malaysia. A number of other amendments to the Ordinance are also made. By a new subsection to section 14, which deals with proceedings against or on behalf of members of the armed forces, the Bill provides that no act or omission of a public officer shall subject him to liability in tort for death or personal injury, in so far as the death or personal injury is due to anything suffered by a member of such armed forces being a thing as to which certain specified conditions are satisfied. The Bill requires the Minister to publish in the Gazette from time to time a list of Government departments which may sue or be sued in their own names. The Attorney-General may also represent the Government, and no change in the person holding the office of Attorney-General or in the person or body of persons constituting the department is to affect any proceedings instituted by or against the Attorney-General or a Government department.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of eight Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of eight Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS (AMENDMENT) BILL 4.09 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.”
“There are other changes in the proposed legislation which widen the powers of acquisition to meet various situations envisaged with urban renewal, industrialisation, etc. A more expeditious procedure for taking possession of land in cases of extreme urgency has also been provided for. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I have stated earlier, the main alterations proposed in this Bill were embodied in a previous Bill which went to Select Committee in June 1964, and at that time only one representation -- and that too a late one -- from the Real Estate Valuers Association of Singapore, was received. However, as this is an important piece of legislation, it is proposed to refer the Bill again to Select Committee in order to give members of the public an opportunity to put forward their views and representations. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to dwell at length on the provisions of this Bill which will receive full consideration by the Select Committee. It is my hope that when representations are called for, those with positive contributions to make will come forward with their suggestions. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The provisions of this Bill should come as no surprise to Members of this House. In June 1964, the Land Acquisition (Amendment No. 2) Bill, which proposed certain changes in regard to the law relating to the acquisition of private property for public purposes, was sent to Select Committee. The passage of this Bill was, however, delayed because of constitutional difficulties. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill embodies (in the form of a revised consolidated Act) both the provisions in the existing law, that is to say, the Land Acquisition Ordinance, Chapter 248, as well as the provisions in the Land Acquisition (Amendment No. 2) Bill. The major departures from existing legislation are:- (1) the assessment of compensation provisions have been re-drafted on the basis of two principles enunciated by the Prime Minister in December 1963. Firstly, that no landowner should benefit from development which has taken place at public expense and, secondly, that the price paid on acquisition of land for public purposes should not be higher than what the land would have been worth had the Government not carried out development generally in the area, and (2) provision has been made for the hearing of appeals by an Appeals Board instead of the Court as at present. Thus, the person who is aggrieved by the Collector's award will, under the new law, have the right of appeal to the Appeals Board, consisting of a Commissioner of Appeals or a Deputy Commissioner of Appeals either sitting alone or with two assessors, depending on the quantum of the award against which an appeal is made.”
“A transitional provision is contained in the Bill to the effect that the certificate to practise issued between the 1st of January, 1966, and the 28th February, 1967, shall be in force until the latter date. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.- [Mr Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. LAND ACQUISITION BILL 4.03 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." A number of provisions in this Bill seek only to make amendments of a formal nature, some of which are consequent on Singapore ceasing to be part of Malaysia whilst others are purely changes in name, such as the substitution of the word "Government" for "Crown", "Singapore" for "Colony", "the Commonwealth" for "Her Majesty's dominions", and "the President" for "Her Majesty in Council". References to the expression "British subject or British protected person" are also deleted. Persons admitted as advocates and solicitors of the High Court are now no longer on admission required to take the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill provides that if an applicant for admission as an advocate and solicitor has obtained a certificate from the University of Singapore or the University of Malaya that he has satisfactorily completed a post graduate practical course organised by the University, the requirement as to reading in Chambers, that is to say, receiving instruction in law from a practising advocate and solicitor of not less than seven years' standing, is for a period of six months only, whereas otherwise he would have had to read in Chambers for at least twelve months. This Bill also removes the exemption hitherto granted to persons in the service of the Government from undergoing an oral examination which is conducted by the Attorney-General and two other advocates and solicitors before admission to the Bar. It is now expressly provided that the annual certificate to practise issued by the Registrar of the High Court to advocates and solicitors shall run from the 1st of March to the last day of February in the following year.”
“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. ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) BILL 3.54 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Legitimacy Ordinance was first enacted in Singapore in 1934 and, apart from a short amending Ordinance in 1940, the law relating to the legitimation of children born out of wedlock remains substantially the same. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] The principal amendment which the Bill now before the House seeks to bring about is the deletion of subsection (3) of section 3 of the Ordinance which provides that nothing in the Ordinance shall operate to legitimate a person whose father or mother was married to a third person when the illegitimate person was born. The Bill seeks to exclude the operation of this provision. By another amendment, a reference to the Women's Charter, 1961, is added at the end of subsection (2) of section 3 which now provides that the Ordinance will not operate to legitimate a person unless the marriage leading to the legitimation was solemnized and registered in accordance with the provisions of the Christian Marriage Ordinance or the Civil Marriage Ordinance. The Bill now proposes that a reference to the Women's Charter, 1961, be added here. The opportunity has been taken to make certain amendments of a formal nature: thus at subsection (1) of section 4, the expressions "natural-born British subject" and "Her Majesty" are to be deleted, and the expression "citizen of Singapore" and "the Government" respectively substituted in their place, and the term "the Colony" is to be replaced by the term "Singapore" wherever it appears in the Ordinance. The Bill also seeks to make the change in name from "State Advocate-General" to "Attorney-General". Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes past Four o'clock p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name, That this Parliament in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance (Chapter 246) approves the construction of an earth dam by Government at the mouth of Sungei Poyan and Sungei Berih to enable reclamation of adjacent swamp lands containing an area of approximately 900 acres as delineated on the plan, marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 5/65", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, this scheme is part of an overall plan to reclaim as much coastal swamp lands in our Republic as possible for development. This proposal involves the construction of an earth dam across the estuary of Sungei Poyan and Sungei Berih with tidal gates to allow the free drainage of water into the sea during low tides and to prevent the inflow of sea water during high tides. The scheme will make available an additional 900 acres, approximately 1� square miles, of land for agricultural development as shown coloured blue on the Land Office Reclamation Plan No. 5/65, a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of Members. The total cost is estimated to be about half a million dollars. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance (Chapter 246) approves the construction of an earth dam by Government at the mouth of Sungei Poyan and Sungei Berih to enable reclamation of adjacent swamp lands containing an area of approximately 900 acres as delineated on the plan, marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 5/65", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr E. W. Barker].”