Mahmud Awang
Singapore
“I would like to express my view that the progress achieved in our Republic has necessitated an increase in the membership of Parliament. We are well aware that we will have to face trials and tribulations not only from political Parties in Singapore, but also from outside political ideologies, in order to fulfil the needs of our people.”
“As one concerned with the liberty of the individual as well as the security of the Republic, and as one who is desirous of seeing that the rule of law is not defeated by its very provisions on procedure, I would not hesitate to give my wholehearted support for these changes in the law.”
“I think this is the most important recommendation of the Commission. And my friends say that we can include Indonesians in the definition of "Malays". This is very complicated indeed. Perhaps this Malay organisation considers that the Malays should be limited to citizens only. Let us take the citizens of Brunei and Sarawak. I am a Malay.”
“: (1) To use the strike weapon in good faith; (2) To use it as a threat; (3) To use it to topple the Government. We must be able to distinguish between these three factors. If we choose to use the strike weapon to raise the living standard of the workers, we can use it by all means, no matter what happens.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the vote for the Housing and Development Board should not be made disappointing by the Government. For example, applicants who wish to get one-room flats urgently have been offered two-room flats by the Board which they do not want and which they cannot afford to rent.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 10 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 101. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this vote I would like to know, firstly, why there is a delay in the payment of the uniform allowance to the People's Defence Force volunteers.”
The complete record
Every one of 103 lines we hold for Mahmud Awang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
“I would like to express my view that the progress achieved in our Republic has necessitated an increase in the membership of Parliament. We are well aware that we will have to face trials and tribulations not only from political Parties in Singapore, but also from outside political ideologies, in order to fulfil the needs of our people. We must shoulder our responsibilities to the people and not think of our own benefit. When the people go to the polls, they will be the final arbiters. They will decide whether or not this increase is justified and whether or not the elected representatives will look after their interests.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we will not compromise in our struggle. We will not budge from our stand of creating a prosperous, free, democratic and socialist Republic of Singapore. We believe that an increase in the number of Members of Parliament will better weld together our multi-racial population. This is our main aim and we will strive to the best of our ability to achieve it. Mr Speaker, Sir, as we all know, the total of 58 Members of Parliament is arrived at as follows: 51 plus 8 totals 59; 59 less 1 equals 58. The constituency which has been deleted is the Southern Islands. [Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng in the Chair] 4.05 p.m. The people of that constituency know one another very well. They live in peace and harmony and enjoy prosperity. As elected representatives, we have always striven to achieve this basic and fundamental aim. However, that particular constituency has been deleted. I share the same belief as that of the Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department, the Member for Southern Islands, that it would be better to have three Members of Parliament to cultivate a multi- racial spirit among the people of the Southern Islands. This will be the responsibility of the future Members of Parliament representing the Southern Islands. In addition to Geylang Serai, there will be another constituency, Kampong Ubi. Although the White Paper has been tabled and we will approve this Bill, I feel that Kampong Ubi is not a proper name in our progressive world and that it should be renamed, for instance, Geylang Bahru or Geylang Maju, because it is not our intension to recall the past. Sir, the increase in the number of Members of Parliament to 58 poses a question. First, the people will think that there are eight new constituencies to be won by political leaders in Singapore.”
“Is it the intention of the Ministry to use the meter system for car parking in Singapore?”
“Regarding the number mentioned by the Minister, how many of them are Singapore citizens? If we take new Kathis, is it one of the qualifications that they must be Singapore citizens?”
“Sir, will the Minister consider reemploying or taking back all the 234 applicants who have been rejected?”
“As one concerned with the liberty of the individual as well as the security of the Republic, and as one who is desirous of seeing that the rule of law is not defeated by its very provisions on procedure, I would not hesitate to give my wholehearted support for these changes in the law. In my view, these changes are necessary and appear to be a fair and proper manner of achieving what must be the desired object of a well administered country, namely, an effective means of ensuring that law and order prevails and that the well-being of its citizens is in no way impaired. 4.08 p.m.”
“These changes in the law, as far as I can see, make no radical departure from the generally recognised principles of fair trial and equal protection under the law. A man charged is still presumed innocent if he is allowed bail. There are people who have been charged and who, during the period they are on bail and before their trial, are likely to commit the same offence which will disturb public peace and destroy public property. As an example, I read in today's Straits Times an incident which occurred yesterday. Persons who were on bail damaged public property to the extent that the magistrate, who was trying them, was unable `to do anything good for the Republic so that law and order may prevail. If I were the magistrate yesterday, I would have pressed the button and called for the Reserve Unit to arrest them and charge them again. But, unfortunately, I was not the magistrate. Sir, the judicial authority must he satisfied that if bail is granted, the accused will not interfere with evidence nor with the witnesses for the prosecution, and that he will not commit a further criminal offence. The results achieved by these amendments should not in any way prejudice any of the democratic principles of the rule of law that one finds in all the declarations on human rights and criminal procedure codes. The fundamental rights of the individual under the law should be safeguarded as always. So we must not think only of those who offend the law and forget about the rest of our people who are law-abiding and who have a right to claim the protection of the law. This aspect of the matter will no doubt be taken into consideration by the court in deciding whether to grant bail or not. The court is merely given the discretion to allow or to refuse bail.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on those of us who have made the Republic of Singapore their Republic and who have no cause to come to any headlong collision with the law, this Bill, which seeks to amend the Criminal Procedure Code, will have no effect. To those who are responsible for the maintenance of law and order, and the Government in particular, these changes appear to be necessary, if only to ensure that all of us who claim the protection of the law may not he deprived of this right. The law as it now stands has not been amended for a very long time. But what has been provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code has during the course of the last few weeks been found to be quite inadequate. It would appear that the Criminal Procedure Code, as it is, lays down the general rule that there must be an offer of bail to all persons charged with any criminal offence for the period that such person is awaiting trial. The right of bail always exists, provided the court is satisfied that sufficient guarantees can be provided to ensure the appearance of the accused person in court on the day of his trial. [Mr Tang See Chim in the Chair] 4.00 p.m. In other words, any person charged with a criminal offence is given bail. In this respect, not all the provisions in the law are altered. The only changes contemplated lie in regard to the courts who can now refuse bail if they are satisfied, for example, that the accused is likely to interfere with evidence or with witnesses for the prosecution, or that he is likely to commit the same or other criminal offences during the period he is on bail. The need to amend the provisions relating to bail in respect of these offences, which after all have been devised to ensure that public peace and order is maintained, cannot be overemphasised.”
“I think this is the most important recommendation of the Commission. And my friends say that we can include Indonesians in the definition of "Malays". This is very complicated indeed. Perhaps this Malay organisation considers that the Malays should be limited to citizens only. Let us take the citizens of Brunei and Sarawak. I am a Malay. If I am not a citizen, I am not a Malay. This will be confusing and misleading. I cannot understand this definition at all. Mr Speaker, on the whole, the Report of the Constitutional Commission, 1966, as mentioned by the Minister for Law and National Development on the 21st December, 1966, is indeed good and coincides with the sentiments of the Constitution as contained in paragraph 14 of its Report. We must protect the interests of the people in future and the Commission cannot accept some recommendations. As I said, we should not be made victims. 3.25 p.m.”
“No, I cannot, Mr Speaker, because I fear that he may quote Thailand, Korea and, therefore, I am not prepared to give way. So a Malay means a person who professes the Muslim religion and habitually speaks the Malay language. I am an Arab. When I speak to my father, mother, brothers - they are Arabs - I speak Arabic and I do not speak the Malay language. Take the case of the hon. Member for Kallang. He is of Boyan origin. Possibly at home he speaks Boyanese and not Malay. In my constituency there are many Boyanese, and if I am invited to dinner there will be all kinds of delicacies - Indonesian food. Likewise the clothing of the Malays and the Boyanese. The Boyanese wears a coat, the chapal, and a cap, whereas the Malay wears a Malay baju, baju kurong, a sarong, shoes, and a cap. I fail to understand how the definition of "Malays" came into being 10 years ago. The hon. Member for Kampong Kembangan is also of Indonesian origin. If the definition of "Malays" includes Malays of Indonesian origin, then the Indonesians are Malays, and that will include the people in Thailand, the Philippines, Korea, Indo-China and the Chinese too. But when it comes to the Chinese, it stops there. According to historians, we are descendants from Yunan. From history, we can trace that we are of one stock. For instance, take the Federation of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak. There is no longer the Malay Peninsula; it is now known as the Federation of Malaysia. As from 1963 the nation is called Malaysia. This is all the creation of man. But we need not be too fanatic about racial origins. As mentioned in paragraph 14 of the Report of the Constitutional Commission, we must consider what fundamental rights we should recommend and what can be practised.”
“In paragraph 17 of the Report, the Commission recommends the creation of the office of Ombudsman (or Parliamentary Commissioner). Some of my colleagues call it Ombudsman or Omboodsman, but there is no Ombudswoman which could apply to the hon. Members for Moulmein and Delta! However, whether it is Ombudsman, Omboodsman, or Ombudswoman, I say that the establishment of this office will further complicate the situation in Singapore. We should carry on with the present organisation until such time as it is necessary to consider the pros and cons of the creation of the office of Ombudsman. Just now I have heard the hon. Member for Kampong Kembangan touching upon the definition of the word "Malays". He was thankful to the Commission for not accepting the definition as given by a neighbouring country. So I am doubtful as to his real intention. But according to the definition as contained in paragraph 35 of the Report, '"Malay means a person who professes the Muslim religion, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom", but conceded that it should be limited to citizens only.' If this definition had been accepted by the Commission, it would have given rise to a big debate. But, like the Member for Kampong Kembangan, I wish to thank the Commission for rejecting this suggestion. In my opinion, it is not easy to define the word "Malays". For instance, take the case of an Arab who was born in Indonesia. His mother is of Arab origin and his father, also of Arab origin, was born in Indonesia. In my opinion, he is an Indonesian of Arab origin. Then this Arab migrated to Malaya and became a Malay. That really surprises me. Both his father and mother are Arabs, and when he came to Malaya he became - Inche Mohd. Ariff rose -”
“We must forget the past and look to the future for good. At the same time, the Constitutional Commission's Report also recommends a Council of State. In my opinion, it can be established, but perhaps because of the political questions involved, our people have not reached that stage yet. If I am not mistaken, in today's issue of the Berita Harian, the Municipality in Kuala Lumpur asked for assistance from the Selangor State Council. The application was rejected. If the Council of State exists, it is possible that laws may be passed here and submitted to the Council of State. And then a situation may arise; or, alternatively, if Bills are first referred to the Council of State and later submitted to Parliament. If we want to expedite matters, we must have only one responsible legislative body. It is not that we cannot afford to pay the allowances of the members of the Council of State. The basic issue rests on the reasons as I have outlined earlier. Another point, Mr Speaker. In the proposed Council of State, its members are nominated by us, and although we are of the opinion that they can discharge their duties, the Opposition may say that these people are merely our tools. We must also take this into consideration. Because of the low level of political consciousness, we have not reached the stage where we can establish a Council of State. It happened in Singapore in 1958 when we had the City Council and the State Government. The City Council asked for assistance from the Minister, but the request was turned down. We do not want a recurrence of this nature. If there is, the people will be confused and will not be able to comprehend the true facts - whether the Council or the State is right.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, allow me to thank the members of the Constitutional Commission, 1966, for their services to the State. On the whole, the Constitutional Commission's Report can be accepted but, in my opinion, there are some recommendations which are superfluous. Of course, there is a fundamental issue before the members of the Constitutional Commission. It is like this: `If man cannot help his fellow beings to get the fundamental rights of men, then he cannot be protected from oppression.' The Report of the Commission shows a spirit of patriotism and a love of mankind. It shows also the hatred of men towards men for perpetuating oppression as the code of life. Mr Speaker, without consideration of race or creed, we cannot allow any form of oppression regarding the fundamental rights of man which have been our responsibility to safeguard. We are prepared to shoulder any responsibility and face any difficulties to safeguard and maintain the peace and harmony of our people. But we cannot, at all times, follow the footsteps of other countries. There is a saying, Mr Speaker, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." In the Constitutional Report, 1966, it is mentioned briefly that it is desirable - it can be practised having regard to the existing conditions and also in future - to protect the common faith of our people. There is no recommendation on fundamental rights except where they are deemed necessary. I would like to congratulate the members of the Constitutional Commission on this. My reason for saying so is that we must adapt ourselves and we must envisage our future progress. We cannot quote what happened 200 years ago as an example. Tarzan did not wear any clothes; but now we see that Tarzan puts on clothes!”
“: (1) To use the strike weapon in good faith; (2) To use it as a threat; (3) To use it to topple the Government. We must be able to distinguish between these three factors. If we choose to use the strike weapon to raise the living standard of the workers, we can use it by all means, no matter what happens. There is nothing to fear because the action we take is in line with our own principles. That is all, Mr Speaker. 3.57 p.m.”
“is not positive enough to say whether this can or cannot be done. When the N.T.U.C. receive a complaint, they must convene a general meeting or refer it to the Industrial Arbitration Court. If we allow an affiliated union to accuse us, then it follows that the other affiliated unions will take similar action. I think that is not the proper course of action to take. Before an issue is settled, we must be certain that that issue will help the workers themselves. There have been allegations that the Government is anti-Indian and that the N.T.U.C. is also anti-Indian. These are very serious allegations. The fact could be that the N.T.U.C. could not give a proper picture to its affiliates of what its struggle is. If the responsibility of the N.T.U.C. is really to guide the workers in order to uplift their living standard, I am quite sure that its struggle will be a success. I know that the problem of raising the living standard of the members of the Public Daily-Rated Employees' Union arose two years ago. Unfortunately, I am not a member of the Executive Committee of the N.T.U.C. The N.T.U.C. has not resolved this problem. It has not used its powers effectively so that the living standard of the workers in the Public Daily-Rated Employees' Union can be improved. The leaders of the N.T.U.C. and the affiliated union leaders have failed to discharge their duties to see that this issue could become a bigger issue so that whatever increase the Government has to pay would be commensurate with the work the workers perform. If I am allowed to speak on this matter, I can go on speaking for two days and two nights, Mr Speaker. Finally, in the trade union movement there are three problems as explained by the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C.”
“Mr Speaker, the object of this Bill is certainly to give an assurance that if employers want to have it out with the workers, the workers will not suffer. If it is really the intention of the Bill to protect public safety, the Government has already provided a building wherein the N.T.U.C. is housed. Firstly. I regret to say that I am obliged to mention my friends who are in the N.T.U.C. and whose responsibility is to educate the workers, to make them understand the Bill thoroughly, and to advise the Government. If the N.T.U.C. cannot give its co-operation to the management, who are the employers, and the workers, a dispute will certainly arise between them. The role of the N.T.U.C. is to educate the workers so that the strike weapon is used only against unscrupulous employers, and not to use it to cause hardship among the community or to make unfair demands on employers or the Government. This is the weapon in the hands of the workers. An example is the police officer. He is given a weapon but not to shoot at wrong-doers if his own life is not in danger. This weapon is for self-defence, and, as the hon. Member has said, the strike weapon should be similarly used. It is true that the Government is pro-labour. We have always implemented this policy. When we say "pro-labour", we must ponder awhile and look back to 1959. Since then how many labour disputes have been resolved by establishing two Industrial Arbitration Courts, in addition to the discretionary powers exercised by the Minister for Labour and also the advice of the N.T.U.C.? I do not wish to labour this point, Mr Speaker, but what I wish to say is that the leaders of the Public Daily-Rated Employees' Union, who are my own colleagues, are sincere in their struggle. But I feel that the leadership of the N.T.U.C.”
“Nude pictures, if they are in photographic art books or in paintings, are never banned if they are real works of art and are not calculated to show nudity in its vulgar form with the intention to corrupt the minds of the young. As regards the National Library and the University Library, banned books are available there and are released to academic personnel for research and other purposes subject to certain safeguards. Such books are also available in the Registry of Publications of the Ministry for the use of such people on application. On the questions raised by the Member for Bukit Merah and the Member for Tampines, we have so far not received any complaints on the subject. If more facts are available, we will, of course, look into them. As for the comments made by the Member for Kampong Kapor, my answer is, it is better late than never. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Inche Othman Wok]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 3.14 p.m. Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. 3.15 p.m. Clause 6 -”
“As you are aware, Sir, in the original Undesirable Publications Ordinance, the appeal was to the Minister and it is not our intention to change it otherwise. In other Ordinances, such as the Immigration Ordinance, the Women's Charter, the Women's and Girls' Protection Ordinance, the appeal is to the Minister and not to the court. There are, of course, Boards that make the final decision without further reference to the court, for example, the decision of the Committee of Appeal under the Cinematograph Films Ordinance. That is the final authority, after which there is no further appeal to the Minister. The Undesirable Publications Ordinance is different. As in the case of films, all the members of the Appeal Committee can view the film at the same time, but in the case of publications. Each member of the Appeal Committee must go through the book individually. This will result in long delays which are not desirable. We are setting up a Committee to advise the Minister on whether certain books should be banned, and this should serve the purpose. It is proposed that the committee should comprise five persons who are experts. When it operates, I can assure the hon. Member for Choa Chu Kang that it will look into and consider the suggestions he has made. I would also like to inform him that great literary classics are never banned, even if they are on sex. Current foreign books, if they are published by reputable firms and are acknowledged by literary critics, are also not banned. Sir, books on birth control are not banned, as the Ministry of Culture itself prints such books for the Public Health Division of the Ministry of Health and the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board for free distribution to the public.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have already given my views in Parliament on an earlier Bill on the subject of society. I am also of the opinion that this Undesirable Publications Bill is belated. The reason for my saying so is that undesirable events had already occurred in 1964. We have made this announcement so that our people can live in peace and can make progress. We know there are publications which are trying to destroy the unity of the people. I do not wish to identify these publications as we already know them. The reports in these publications are not truthful and are designed to mislead their readers. This misrepresentation may lead to the readers having no faith in them. If this Bill had been submitted before 1964, I believe the undesirable incidents which occurred in 1964 would not have taken place. Mr Speaker, I gave my views on this subject when we debated on the Budget. The reports or articles in these publications are not true. We do not wish them to be misrepresented or twisted so that the people may be misled and thus a misunderstanding can arise. It is our duty to safeguard the well-being of our people. Therefore, every article that is published must be truthful in order to bring about healthy and constructive criticisms from the people for the progress of our own country. Finally, I congratulate the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs on the introduction of this Bill. With the stringent control exercised by this Bill, our people will be able to read articles which can bring about healthy and constructive criticisms in the interests of our country. Inche Othman Bin Wok: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Member for Choa Chu Kang for his suggestions and observations on the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, I wish to know whether under clause 12 a citizen of Singapore who has become a bankrupt can hold office.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill which has just been introduced by the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs. Actually it should not have been introduced at the present moment, but it should have been introduced much earlier to amend the defects in the Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill contains 20 pages with 38 clauses which should have been compiled much earlier. If it is a fact that the events described by the Minister did take place many years ago, we should take steps not only to deal with the registration of political parties but also to deal with the registration of labour unions, welfare associations, deaf and dumb associations, and so on. May I know whether the Registrar is empowered to withhold the registration of any organisations like the old boys' associations which conduct kindergarten classes in many parts of Singapore? We have no objection to kindergarten classes run by associations with the object of moulding our children into loyal subjects. The same can be said of political parties. Some Members have said a while ago that although there are political parties which have their names in the national language, like the Barisan Sosialis, they carry out subversive activities and they owe allegiance to pro-Communist or Communist countries. This is contrary to what their names stand for in the national language. Finally, Mr Speaker, when this Bill is passed in due course, the Registrar should use his powers wisely and give due consideration before taking any action.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the vote for the Housing and Development Board should not be made disappointing by the Government. For example, applicants who wish to get one-room flats urgently have been offered two-room flats by the Board which they do not want and which they cannot afford to rent. This also applies to applicants who ask for flats in a certain area which they like, but because they want them rather urgently, they are offered flats in other areas. This development vote should also improve the situation by meeting the requirements of the applicants for flats, as I have said earlier. This vote should make the people happy, particularly the applicants for housing flats.”
“If that is the explanation by the Minister for Education, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 101. Mr Speaker, Sir, is the provision in the 1967 Development Estimates meant for the erection of a primary school at Hindoo Road? This school was not built in 1965, as was pledged by the Minister for Education, and in accordance with the letter from the URSC dated 10th August, 1964. The school was also not built in 1966, as was pledged by the Minister of State for Education in this Chamber on 30th December, 1965, in the debate on the Development Estimates for 1966.”
“I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 10 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 101. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this vote I would like to know, firstly, why there is a delay in the payment of the uniform allowance to the People's Defence Force volunteers. Secondly, why there are no proper changing rooms for N.C.O.s and officer cadets at the Beach Road Training Depot. Thirdly, why training depots often experience a shortage of stationery, as a result of which lesson notes are not provided to trainees. 2.45 p.m. Fourthly, why the Seletar Range is in a deteriorating condition. What steps are being taken to remedy the situation?”
“That being the case, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will not pursue the matter further.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I merely wish to know whether or not I can relate this matter to the pay of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the Housing and Development Board.”
“May I relate the matter I wish to speak under Head 1101 to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law and National Development?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak on housing. I feel that Head 1108 - National Development Division - has no connection with housing, and that is why my amendment appears under Head 1101. Mr Speaker, Sir, if applicants apply for one-room fiats, or if they want alternative flats, or if they want flats to be provided earlier, and these applications cannot be met, is there a directive from the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary that they should be given two-room flats instead? A number of such incidents have been reported to me. A person who needed a one-room unit was given a two-room unit instead. An applicant for an alternative flat was given a two-room unit instead. I feel that this is a wrong procedure. 6.15 p.m.”
“I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1005 he reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parks and Recreation Department has been in existence since the colonial days. Now there are parks and recreation places which still follow the former policy, but these former policies cannot be followed any more. The places I refer to are playgrounds in which many people gather to watch games or sports, or for the purpose of seeing television. At these places there are swings and seesaws, and accidents could occur. The reason I bring up this point is that the people of the Kampong Kapor Community Centre have been bringing up this matter since 1964, with a view to improving the facilities at the places and doing away with the swings and seesaws, so that accidents can be reduced and the children of these people who watch games, sports or television there will be saved from accidents when playing on the swings and seesaws. When these accidents happen, they could bring about misunderstanding between the parties concerned. So in order to avoid this, the swings and seesaws should be removed entirely.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to speak on the National Library. This Library was erected with air-conditioning supplied. I would like to know why, although the building was erected with air-conditioning facilities, the air-conditioners are not working in several places. In some places, there is no air-conditioning at all. In other places, it is not cold enough. The Library needs cool air, because when people read to acquire more knowledge, they need a cool temperature. The officers in this Library work in warm surroundings, and when they have a meeting it is held in a warm place. At times they have to open the windows and use fans. In the places where children and adults read, the air-conditioners are not as satisfactory as what we have here now. I feel that it would be better if the air-conditioning in this Library is improved, so that with improved air-conditioning, the minds of the readers in the Library will be refreshed.”
“Mr Speaker, if the explanation given by the Minister for Education, on behalf of the Minister for Labour, is correct, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $2,234,500 for Head 0901 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0902 -”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0901 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, action to strike was taken by the Singapore Traction Company workers recently in respect of which the union gave 14 days' strike notice to the employers. When the notice to strike was about to expire, the strike was not carried out. As we have learnt, not only from union members of the S.T.C., but also from leaders of the union who made a statement, the reason for not carrying out the strike was that the laws of our Republic forbid trade unions from carrying out a strike. On this matter, I am of the opinion that it is very essential to clarify the democratic policy of the Labour Ministry, i.e., what the attitude of the Labour Ministry is towards labour unions in Singapore which wish to carry out strike action after they have duly complied with the regulations of the Labour Ordinance by taking a ballot to strike. If it is true that the prohibition against the unions going on strike emanates from the Government of this Republic through the Minister for Labour, then I am of the opinion that our labour policy is not yet implemented fully. If the statements made by the leaders and members of the S.T.C. Union are not true, then it must be clarified to the public that the Government of the Republic, through the Minister for Labour, does not prevent unions from going on strike if they have a mandate for it. I say so, Mr Speaker, because we do not wish to see union leaders making mistakes and then shifting the blame on to the Government and the Ministry of Labour. This must be clarified and the matter rectified so that the attitude and policy of the Labour Ministry can be implemented properly.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will not take very long. Firstly, we have heard the Members for Kampong Kembangan and Geylang Serai speaking on the activities of Alsagoff Realty against the Government of our Republic. Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot remain indifferent to the irresponsible elements from Alsagoff Realty who are engaged in this vicious propaganda of smearing the Government, and who intend to sell the property in their own interest; otherwise our people, particularly the Malays, will be misled and confused and then there will be another chaotic state of affairs. Mr Speaker, Sir, serious attention should be given to this matter. The Special Branch should be given the responsibility of ferretting out these irresponsible elements and they should be on the alert against stooges responsible for spreading this malicious propaganda so that such stooges can be apprehended and brought to book. 8.17 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the Member for River Valley on the subject. Not only that, Mr Speaker, the Registrar of Vehicles should ensure that adequate buses be supplied for any new route granted to a bus company in Singapore. Some of these bus companies, after having been granted a new route, cannot provide adequate buses to meet the requirements of the Registrar. As an example, Mr Speaker, the Registrar issued a licence to Route Service No. 12 and Route Service No. 12A. The company which was granted the licence took away some of the buses from Route No. 12 and placed them on Route No. 12A. Naturally the bus service on Route No. 12 becomes inadequate. This will encourage members of the public to make use of pirate taxis. If a bus company has an adequate fleet of buses at its disposal, complaints by it against pirate taxis will not arise. If it cannot offer an adequate bus service there will be a long waiting interval for passengers who will naturally complain about it. So they will make use of any kind of transport. If there are pirate taxis, they will use them. I hope, Mr Speaker, that there will be ways and means to regulate the issue of bus routes to bus companies and ensure that such companies will be able to supply adequate buses.”
“I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 3.30 p.m.”
“As explained by the Minister for Health just now, I will be prepared to supply further information. I wanted to elaborate in detail, but I was pulled up by the Prime Minister. This happened to one of the voters in Kampong Kapor. The address is 27 Upper Weld Road. On the assurance of the Minister, I am prepared to report the matter fully.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I merely wish to prove how this particular head will be spent, because this is an important vote and I do not wish to see corrupt practices being perpetuated in our Republic. Nonetheless, I am prepared to shorten my speech. This is not the only instance. If we cannot improve the C.P.I.B., I believe corrupt practices will be perpetuated. I am quite sure the object of this vote is to prevent or curb any corrupt practices. In addition, Mr Speaker, I also wish to quote many other instances. There was the case of a store watchman who paid an illegal gratification of $400 for the job of mandore, and a painter who paid $300 to the same officer. A transport overseer was deprived of his overtime work simply because he refused to pay $100 to the officer concerned. That is what I want to say in Parliament so that the vote for 1967 will be fully used. Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Raj used the Ministry's driver and labourer for his own ends to paint his house for the Christmas season. I feel that we should delete this vote if it is not used properly. This will help to put an end to corrupt practices. That is all I have to say. If this vote is approved by Parliament, I hope it will be used to curb corrupt practices. As I mentioned during the debate on the 1966 Budget Speech on the subject of the Police Co-operative Society, it is at present functioning smoothly.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0105 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1051. Mr Speaker, needless to say, this vote is designed to curb corruption in our Republic. It is a cause for regret that this vote has failed to achieve its desired object. It is known that recently applications were invited for the post of a driver. The vacancy was circulated to the Transport Centre and District Offices. Amongst the applications was a casual labourer from Katong District. He was interviewed and he succeeded in getting the job. On Sunday, 27th November, 1966, he performed his normal duties as a labourer in Lorong Melayu. A mandore handed him a note requesting him to see the senior cleansing inspector, Mr B. D. Raj, to get his appointment letter as a driver. He complied with the request. On Monday, 28th November, 1966, at 6.20 am., he was informed by his mandore, Inche Sukri, to meet Mr Raj and Mr Victor Ee Ah Soo at the coffee shop next to Jalan Eunos market. Both Mr Raj and Mr Soo demanded a deposit or an advance payment of $100 in order to get his appointment as a driver confirmed.”
“I wonder if the Minister for Finance can find ways and means to exempt them from the newly increased road tax, if they are employed as drivers in a Ministry or in a commercial firm. Licence holders who are car owners should not be exempted. In the case of drivers, I ask the Minister for Finance to give due consideration as to whether the extra tax should be levied upon the employers, or to do whatever he thinks best. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the whole, the financial policy for 1967 is fair because a lot of development is being carried out at the moment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, for the Budget Speech for 1967 delivered by him on 5th December, 1966, we must shower congratulations on the Minister for Finance, although there has been an increase in road tax and driving licences too. We understand that to develop a new emergent State like ours in Singapore, we must have a balanced budget in line with the developments which we have made. We also appreciate the increased allocation for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to establish missions in 12 countries. There is a possibility that the number may increase in future. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Budget Speech we find that the road tax and licence fees have been increased. What I am referring to here is that the Minister for Finance, in preparing his Budget Speech, naturally must have taken considerable time, and due consideration must have been given to how to raise more money and increase revenue. Possibly in raising new taxes the Minister for Finance thinks that licence holders are car owners. If that is his assumption, then it is an erroneous one. There are licence holders who are not car owners but who work as drivers. When we levy the new taxes on drivers and licence holders, it is certain that, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Changi, it will be an extra burden to them as they belong to the lower income group. But it is not so with licence holders who, at the same time, are car owners. They cannot only afford to pay the increased licence fees, but they can also employ drivers. To such people, the increased rate, in my opinion, is not a burden. They can pay not only $10 but $20. But to those who become drivers by occupation, it will be a bitter pill for them to swallow.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. It is, on the whole, good for the lower strata of society. It is appropriate and in line with our new status and new name, the Republic of Singapore, and consonant with the concept of democratic socialism which is strongly opposed by the Alliance, the Barisan Sosialis and other Parties whose aim is to perpetuate bourgeois rule. Why I say so, Mr Speaker, is that lands which are acquired by Government will be fully developed for the purpose of public projects; clinics, dispensaries, hospitals, schools, cheap - I emphasise cheap - flats, not high rental flats, community centres and other projects which would be enjoyed by the lower class society, not parks like the MacRitchie Reservoir Park on which we have debated today. Our Government is not confiscating properties owned by landowners, Mr Speaker, Sir. Before such lands are acquired by Government, they will be assessed and adequate compensation will be paid, which is not the case in Communist countries. In other words, Mr Speaker, Sir, both parties benefit. As has happened, when a fire breaks out, it is the responsibility of the government of the day to rehouse the fire victims in flats and offer relief. The landowner shakes his legs and when the land is free of squatters, he is in a position to develop it for his own selfish interest. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is appropriate that this Bill, which will be approved by Parliament, will satisfy all parties concerned. 7.10 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, under subhead 013 of Head D 04, it is recorded that outpatient attendances have increased five times in the last decade while operations have increased about four times. In the improvement to existing wards and the increase in the number of wards, I regret the conversions of Wards Nos. 61 and 62 into paying-class wards. The increase in the number of outpatient attendances and operations shows that the people involved are not well-to-do people and if we increase the number of wards to paying-class wards, this will not overcome the situation.”
“Mr Speaker, when I put my question, it was a bit long-winded. Sir, Singapore traders have complete faith in the economy of Singapore which ensures our prosperity compared to that of Malaysia. My question is: is the Finance Minister of Singapore aware that the Malaysian Finance Minister has ill intentions to cause the breakdown of negotiations?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the answers given by the Minister for Finance of Singapore in which he gave reasons for the breakdown of negotiations on a common currency. Is he not aware that the Malaysian Minister of Finance does not intend to co-operate for mutual interest? The Malaysian Finance Minister has all along supplied statistics of imports and exports which have given faith to traders not only in Singapore but also in Malaysia. Therefore, the Malaysian Finance Minister's intention is to barrage the economy of Singapore with -”
“INHERITANCE (FAMILY PROVISION) BILL (As reported from Select Committee) Order for Third Reading read. 7.40 p.m.”
“proposals. It has been mentioned earlier on by the Minister for Social Affairs that, among the representations, the Select Committee has accepted some. What the Select Committee has rejected is that we do not want members of the Muslim religion in Singapore who are unqualified in matters relating to Muslim law. These members must be holders of recognised diplomas from an Islamic university. The Government want such people to be members of the Council. Mr Speaker, Sir, if there are U.M.N.O. leaders who are qualified and who have graduated from Islamic universities, and if they are anxious to sit on the Council, they are at liberty to submit their applications to the authorities concerned. If there is any member of U.M.N.O. who has been left out and who is aspiring to be the President of the Council of Muslim Religion, if he is qualified and in possession of the requisite academic qualifications, the Government will not hesitate to appoint such a person. The object of the Government is to appoint suitably qualified persons. There should be no worry from U.M.N.O. because our real aim is to protect and promote the Muslim community so that they will not be duped by persons who misuse this religion for their own political interest. Naturally, Mr Speaker, Sir, political Parties in the opposition want to hinder the passage of the Bill because it has been brought out by a Party which does not play on religion, like our opposition political Parties. Yet we are prepared to protect the interest of the people of Singapore irrespective of race, colour or creed. We are responsible for the Republic of Singapore as a whole. That is all, Mr Speaker. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Administration of Muslim Law Bill was first introduced in 1960. At that time, the Bill was in English and there was a Malay rendition, We must also remember, Mr Speaker, that in 1960 the P.A.P. was in power. Prior to that, there was an Alliance Government which included political Parties like U.M.N.O. Since the P.A.P. Government introduced the Bill in 1960, representations have been put forward by the Muslim community. Today we will be taking the Bill through its Third Reading. Over a period of six years - six years is a long period - opportunity was given to the Muslim population to consider, examine, and decide upon the Bill which affects the Muslim community. Certainly, Mr Speaker, this Bill seeks to put right the administration of Muslim law which is being administered by the Muslims themselves. By Muslims, I mean those qualified Muslims who are holders of diplomas and who are very conversant with Muslim law. They are experts in the Muslim law, and will remove persons who use the Muslim religion for their own self-interest or for their own monetary interest - like the collection of zakat fitrah - and not for the interest of the Muslim community. It follows that, from the point of view of the Muslim community, there exist persons who misuse religion, as, for instance, the collection of zakat fitrah not in accordance with the Muslim law. According to today's newspapers - the Straits Times and the Utusan Melayu - U.M.N.O, has expressed its views which, inter alia, support the Bill in principle. U.M.N.O. has emphasised on the membership of the Council of Muslim Religion. That is the worry of U.M.N.O. There is no other worry as far as they are concerned. In the Utusan Melayu today, it is mentioned that the Select Committee has rejected U.M.N.O.”