Toh Chin Chye
Singapore
“--- And meet their friends. I do not know. How do we go about it? Supposing we have an impasse. We cannot find anyone who is willing to take on the job of the President. It is a lonely job, yes. I have no ambitions to be called "His Excellency".”
“28 also provides that if the Government is going to change the Constitution in order to modify the powers of the President, he must go and seek a mandate from the people twice (not once, but twice) - first,in a general election and win a two-thirds majority, come back to this House, change the Constitution, and then take the amendment bac…”
“The Minister has not made it quite clear what is tax avoidance, what are the examples of tax avoidance that he would like to close. The Comptroller of Income Tax no doubt has many cases on his hand. If the public, who are paying taxes, are given to know what is legitimate and what is illegitimate, then I think they would be more at ease.”
“It will be invidious for special legislation to be passed for companies that provide essential services so that Government control over them can be maintained.”
“For a whole family to lose their property just because of the act of one is unjust. It is similar to what happened during the days of the Emergency in Malaya when whole villages were resettled because a few were deemed to have collaborated with the Malayan Communist Party. It is exactly the same principle.”
“And, of course, on the HDB side, its accounts will show a deficit because it has to pay high interest, or vast amounts of money in terms of interest, back to the Government. Yesterday the Member for Rochore pointed out to this House the sum of $8.8 billion which was loaned by the Government to the HDB.”
The complete record
Every one of 563 lines we hold for Toh Chin Chye, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 12.
“The postage rate on inland letters in Malaysia was raised from 10 cents to 15 cents as from 16th November, 1964 by the Government of Malaysia for the following reasons: - (a) To meet increased operating and staff costs. (b) To eliminate the varying levels of surface postage rates in the States of Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak. (c) To despatch letters by air whenever earlier delivery is possible by that means. Although Singapore is no longer a constituent state of Malaysia, it is still necessary to maintain the current inland postage rates as since 1949 when the previous inland postage rates were fixed, staff and operating costs have increased considerably. PRIMARY SCHOOL AT KAKI BUKIT 2. Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi asked the Minister for Education whether and when another primary school will be built at Kaki Bukit.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, In page 15, line 36, after "and", to insert "any". Amendment agreed to. Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 20 to 25 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 26 -”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, In page 14, line 18, after "a", to insert "licence granted to the said person by the". Amendment agreed to. Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 19 -”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, In page 12, lines 25 and 26, to leave out "or ending at the same point". Amendment agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, In page 9, line 42, to leave out "additional" and insert "addition". Amendment agreed to. Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 11 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 16 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, line 45, to leave out "or" where - it secondly occurs and insert "of". Amendment agreed to. The Chairman: The House will also note that - In page 7, line 5, to leave out "(1) " and insert "(l) ". 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, In page 2, line 2, to leave out "20" and insert "21". Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The present Air Navigation Ordinance (Cap. 109) is obsolete and inadequate for present-day needs in the field of civil aviation. The Bill repeals the Colonial Air Navigation Order, 1949, and the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, as well as certain sections of the Air Navigation Ordinance, 1952, of Malaysia, which were extended to Singapore after Malaysia Day. The Bill will provide the necessary legislation for the control and regulation of air navigation as laid down at the International Civil Aviation Conference held in Chicago in 1944. The ninety-six Articles of the Chicago Convention relate to privileges and restrictions of all Contracting States. The Convention provides for the adoption of international standards and recommended practices relating to air navigation, such as the installation of navigation facilities and the reduction of customs and immigration formalities to facilitate air transport. The enactment of this Ordinance is also a preliminary to our application for membership of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 3.36 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -”
“It is, of course, within the province of the Malaysian Government to erect whatever barriers they wish at their end of the Causeway and impose any checks that they think are desirable, and we cannot interfere. Naturally we ourselves would like to alleviate any difficulties which Singapore citizens may face when they cross over the Causeway, and I have no doubt that when the Minister for Foreign Affairs duly receives an Official Note from the Malaysian Government, he will take steps to ask for clarification on what checks will be required of Singapore citizens and how such checks and restrictions can be alleviated. BILLS INTRODUCED LEGITIMACY (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Legitimacy Ordinance (Chapter 42 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Health (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin) (for the Minister for Law and National Development); read the First time, to be read a Second time at the first available sitting day after 30th April, 1966, and to be printed. ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance (Chapter 188 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Yong Nyuk Lin (for the Minister for Law and National Development); read the First time, to be read a Second time at the first available sitting day after 30th April, 1966, and to be printed. LAND ACQUISITION BILL First Reading”
“The Minister for Foreign Affairs tells me that he has not received any official notification from the Government of Malaysia of the police checks and other immigration restrictions which they propose to impose at their end of the Causeway.”
“We have not received any official contact from the Government of Indonesia.”
“It is our hope that our good intentions towards the people of Malaysia and the Malaysian Government will be clear by our acceptance of the invitation by the Malaysian Government to attend a meeting on mutual defence interests and economic co-operation between the officials of the two Governments which will be held on May the 9th.”
“It has come to us as a great disappointment indeed that, in spite of this, such a precipitate step has been taken by the Malaysian Government. I would like to repeat that recognition of a country's independence is a unilateral act, but it does not necessarily follow that there will be diplomatic representation simply because of recognition. In any case, according to a Straits Times report on Friday, the 15th of April, 1966, despatched from Bangkok by a special correspondent, an Indonesian official who is very close to Lieut.-Gen. Suharto and Dr Adam Malik has described the question of re-establishing an Indonesian mission in Singapore as of secondary importance. The Indonesian official was further reported to have said that Indonesia had diplomatic relations with many countries where they had no diplomatic missions. We assure the Malaysian Government that the question of Indonesia setting up a diplomatic mission in Singapore will not be decided except after discussion with the Malaysian Government. No one denies that our experience in the last war is that Malaya is indefensible without Singapore, and so also Singapore is indefensible without Malaya, i.e. Malaysia today. It is common sense that it would be folly for Singapore to permit itself to be used to confront Malaysia. I would like to reiterate to the people of Malaysia and the Malaysian Government that we will not allow Singapore to be used as a base by anybody to threaten the security of Malaysia. It is indeed a pity that the Malaysian Government has taken this precipitate action by imposing Causeway travel restrictions in anticipation of what it thinks Singapore may do.”
“We do not think that anyone who has intentions to subvert Singapore or to jeopardise the internal security of the State will want to report himself at a police station and announce his intentions to the sergeant-in-charge. We do not treat Malaysian citizens in Singapore either as undesirable aliens, subversives or criminals. Malaysians who are visitors or residents in Singapore are not required to report at our police stations. On August the 9th, the day of Singapore's separation from Malaysia last year, I had announced that the Singapore end of the Causeway would always be open to Malaysians. We do not intend to impose any restrictions unless and until the Malaysian Government initiated them, because we consider the people across the Causeway our fellow brethren. It is with sorrow indeed that we hear of the Malaysian Government's intention to impose a border pass or visa requirement for visitors from Singapore in six months' time. I do not know whether the consequences of such a policy have been carefully studied, what impact it would create in the minds of those who, for business or other reasons, travel very regularly between Singapore and Malaya. I do not know whether this scheme of immigration control is to be a permanent feature. Meanwhile, we have to be patient and hope that it is not so. On the other hand, if such immigration restrictions become a permanent feature of Malaysian policy, then obviously Singapore must re-examine the position. Until the picture becomes clearer, we intend to keep our end of the Causeway open. I had hoped that the assurance which I had given on the night of Friday, the 15th of April, that Singapore will not be used as an instrument to injure Malaysia would have been accepted in good faith.”
“The machinery by which Malaysia could exercise immigration control at the Causeway was, therefore, already in existence, and if there were persons whom the Malaysian Government considered undesirable elements, or persona non-grata, or who were held to have subversive intentions, these could have easily been stopped by the Singapore immigration authorities or the Singapore Police from travelling into Malaya via the Causeway. It has, therefore, come as a surprise to us that this official machinery was brushed aside, and the facility offered by Singapore Immigration to assist has been ignored. For the many Singapore citizens who travel across the Causeway to Johore Bahru to patronise Johore satay, mee stalls and other establishments more esoteric, for those who take weekends off to Mersing and Kota Tinggi, and for international tourists who wish to see the odd pineapple or rubber plantation in Johore, these restrictions certainly must make them think twice whether it will be worth their while to endure custom, immigration and police checks, in order that they can pursue the little pleasures which nearby Johore may offer. Mr Speaker, this is too serious a matter for us to treat as a game of ping-pong. It will be childish to answer every Malaysian ping with a pong. The Singapore Government will not retaliate by requiring Malaysian citizens in Singapore to report at police stations. We do not consider Malaysian citizens as aliens even though legally they are distinguished from us by citizenship and, in any case, even aliens in Singapore do not have to report at police stations. It is only criminal law supervisees who are required to report at police stations in Singapore.”
“Soon after the break of Singapore from Malaysia on the 23rd August, 1965, I wrote to the Malaysian Minister for Home Affairs suggesting that the two Governments co-ordinate policies on immigration, particularly with regard to travel across the Causeway. The Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister replied on 16th September, 1965, agreeing to the proposal and suggested that the immigration officials of the two Governments should meet to examine the problem. This meeting of officials was held on 11th October, 1965. The Malaysian and Singapore sides were led by their respective Heads of Immigration. The meeting agreed that it was desirable that the existing free movement across the Causeway should be maintained. There should be a co-ordinated policy of immigration control between the two territories. It was also agreed that the present practice of common visas for Malaysia and Singapore should continue, i.e, visas for Malaysia will be valid for Singapore and vice-versa, except where special conditions are applied. It was also agreed that in order to preserve the existing free movement across the Causeway, both Governments would issue Exemption Orders to provide for entry of persons from the States of Malaya into Singapore and vice-versa without a permit or a pass. Under the Exemption Orders, provision would be made to prohibit undesirables from either territory from entering the other territory.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the House and all people of goodwill will share our regrets and deep disappointment that today the Causeway has failed to bridge the gulf between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. The Causeway has seen historical moments since it was built 42 years ago. There was a brief period of a month or so when the Causeway was blown up during the war and traffic between the mainland and Singapore ceased, but this was a physical damage which was quickly repaired so that communication by road and rail between the two territories was resumed. Now for the second time in its history the Causeway's economic and strategic importance is once more brought to the fore. The political separation of Singapore and Malaysia has today reached a climax in the announcement by the Malaysian Minister for Home Affairs of the intentions of the Malaysian Government to impose restrictions on the entry of Singapore citizens into Malaya, particularly restrictions on those who travel by the Causeway. There are on the average 20,000 persons a day who move across the Causeway from Singapore to Malaya and about the same number of persons travel from Johore into Singapore. The number of persons who will suffer any inconvenience caused by the proposed restrictions is therefore not small, but I am sure that Singapore citizens are patient and they will no doubt bear up with it. I had hoped that any decisions on immigration control at the Causeway would have received first the consideration of the joint Singapore/Malaysian Immigration Committee, so that the problem can be considered from all angles, but it was unfortunate indeed that a decision has been taken unilaterally by the Malaysian Government.”
“-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 4.01 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Immigration (Amendment) Bill, 1965, seeks to amend certain provisions of the Malaysian Immigration Ordinance (No. 12 of 1959) to provide for the control of immigration with power to declare the presence of a person in Singapore to be unlawful when such a person fails to comply with the conditions stipulated in the entry permit issued to him. This power is sought mainly to enable the Controller of Immigration to rescind the permission to reside permanently in Singapore granted to persons who have obtained entry permits on grounds of economic interest to the country if they fail to carry out the purposes for which their stay in Singapore has been approved. At present, there is no provision for conditions to be imposed in entry permits under the Immigration Ordinance nor do the Immigration Regulations provide for this. It is, therefore, necessary to amend the Immigration Ordinance to provide for such powers, as there have been a few cases where persons have taken advantage of this omission in the law. The opportunity is also taken to amend the Ordinance to enable the Controller of Immigration to require masters of vessels and captains of aircraft to furnish, and not merely to produce, particulars of passengers on board all vessels or aircraft arriving in Singapore and also to put captains of aircraft on the same footing as masters of vessels with regard to the furnishing of particulars of members of the crew of the aircraft. These particulars are required for record and statistical purposes. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.”
“The first available sitting day after 6th of March.”
“Mr Speaker, I have the President's assent to proceed with the Bill. I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to provide for the control and regulation of aviation and to repeal the Air Navigation Ordinance (Chapter 109 of the Revised Edition)". Bill read the First time. Second Reading”
“Mr Speaker, I propose that Mr P. Coomaraswamy be elected as Deputy Speaker of this Parliament.”
“Lee Mr Ho Cheng Choon Mr Chan Chee Seng Mr Kow Kee Seng Mr Chia Thye Poh. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order read for resumption of debate on Question [30th December, 1965], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 2.43 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to Standing Order 92 (1) (b): `(b) The Committee of Selection shall consist of the Speaker as Chairman, and seven Members of the Assembly to be appointed by the Assembly, in such manner as shall ensure that, so far as is possible, the balance between the Government benches and the Opposition benches in the Assembly is reflected in the Committee.' It is for this reason provided for in the Standing Order that I have included two names, Mr Kow Kee Seng and Mr Chia Thye Poh, from the Opposition benches in the Committee of Selection, although the Opposition Members have absented themselves from this House. I have also written to both Mr Kow Kee Seng and Mr Chia Thye Poh asking them whether they would want to serve in the Committee of Selection in keeping with the requirements of Standing Order 92 (1) (b). However, neither of them has had the courtesy to reply. There has been dead silence from both of them. But I feel that the functions and the workings of this Legislature should not be paralysed by the unco-operative attitude of Members of the Opposition. Neither should it be held to ransom simply because Members of the Opposition take it into their heads that they have their own reasons for absenting themselves from the House. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the Opposition has not made an appearance in this Chamber, I have, in accordance with the requirements of Standing Order 92 (1) (b), included the names of Mr Kow Kee Seng and Mr Chia Thye Poh. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House appoints a Committee of Selection with Mr.Speaker in the chair and the following members:- Dr Toh Chin Chye Inche A. Rahim Ishak Mr K. C.”
“And if there is a fuss to be kicked up by the public, I would say that it be aimed at the airline company on whose tickets they are travelling. Certainly, I would advise all airline operators, including Malaysian Airways, that they should pull up their socks and see that their staff get down to work in a prim and proper way so that they will maintain a good image and their passengers will be satisfied. 3.50 p.m.”
“When I urged them to apply for space in the present airline ticketing area, their reply to me was that it was not necessary, they were not going to do so, they were going to use the town office which was quite adequate, and furthermore they were not going to use the new passenger terminal building and they were going to disembark their passengers and operate from the old terminal building in Paya Lebar. It was only after all available space had been allocated to other airline operators and the new terminal building was proving to be a hive of activity that Malaysian Airways finally regretted its shortsightedness and hastily applied for space in the ticketing area and also elsewhere in the new terminal building. Frankly, if there are any complaints which any airline operator wishes to raise on this matter, then I must say that they have hardly any cause to do so, because they cannot deny that they were consulted on this matter. In fact, sometimes I regret indeed that Malaysian Airways is our national carrier. If it were a foreign carrier and it does this sort of thing to the Civil Aviation Department, I would have just put it out. But preferential treatment has been given to Malaysian Airways. We have bent backwards in order to meet their needs. And I think they are sometimes unappreciative of these efforts. And if there are passengers who complain that they have to wait for a long time to get their tickets checked and collect their baggage, then I will again point my finger squarely at those members of the staff of commercial airline companies which have been slow in doing their job. I do not see how the Civil Aviation Department officials come into the picture at all.”
“I will answer the Member for River Valley first. I must inform the House that the Development Estimates for Civil Aviation were worked out when the department was under the charge of the Central Government of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, and they were submitted to the Treasury at the beginning of this year. So when we became independent in August, these were automatically included in the Development Estimates for next year. I have not had the opportunity to study all of them in detail. However, it would appear to me that the intention is the same, that is, to extend the Ticketing Offices into the area now occupied by the V.I.P. garage. As to why there are two separate sums asked for, I would not know, unless the sum of money asked for in the Supplementary Estimates is to be spent on work that is already in progress or has been completed and that the sum of money in the Development Estimates is to be spent next year. Nevertheless, I promise the Member that I shall look into this matter. I will only say that when the new Airport Terminal Building was designed, all commercial airline operators were consulted on their requirements and, in fact, a long series of meetings were held with them in order to draw up a plan which would satisfy their needs. In fact, if there has been any shortsightedness at all on the planning of the ticketing area, then it must also be partly the responsibility of the airline operators themselves. In fact, I would say the worst offender is Malaysian Airways.”
“Mr Speaker, I am surprised to learn that Hangar No. 4 has a very varied history - that it has been used in the past as a badminton stadium, an arena for parties and get-togethers, and last but not least, as a car park! Nevertheless, I think we would like to leave the history of Hangar No. 4 in history. I would like to inform the House, however, that the reason why it is intended to convert this hangar into a cargo complex is simply that it has been found that the present facilities for storing air cargo elsewhere are not adequate. However, the demand for cargo space at the Airport is not as great as the Member for Serangoon Gardens or the Member for River Valley would suggest. In fact, I am told that in the first year of operation of the Airport at Paya Lebar, which was opened in 1955, a total of 5 million kilograms of air freight was handled. Barely nine years later, in 1964, this figure had increased to only 6 million kilograms. Well, an increase of one million kilograms in the space of nine years is pretty slow. So we would not anticipate that in the next five years the volume of cargo would increase so rapidly that a completely new cargo handling complex would be needed. Nevertheless, it would be necessary at this stage to put Hangar No. 4 to better use than it was in the past; hence this request that a sum of $100,000 be allocated to convert this hangar into a cargo complex. This will be quite adequate for the cargo that would be envisaged for probably the next five years. I have no knowledge how many airlines have applied for cargo space in the proposed new cargo complex, but presumably airline operators will put forward their request to the Department of Civil Aviation when they feel that there is a necessity to increase the space for air cargo.”
“Mr Speaker, I will bear in mind what the Member for Kampong Kembangan has said about appointing a workers' representative on the Singapore Telephone Board. In fact, in the past it was my practice to see that there was a member from one of the unions, or at least somebody who was a worker who was also a member of the Board. In fact, this Bill by providing for an increase in the membership of the Board will enable me to so appoint. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. PEOPLE'S DEFENCE FORCE BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.52 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the Singapore Telephone Board Ordinance. In consequence of the independence of Singapore and its ceasing to be a part of Malaysia, the powers of the Federal Minister are transferred to the Singapore Minister under this Bill. The Bill also provides for an increase in the number of members of the Telephone Board, other than the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman, from three persons to five. It is considered that the business of the Board warrants an enlarged membership and this will enable more persons to participate in the activities of statutory bodies. The limit of six per cent interest on stocks and shares issued by the Board has been removed, and the Board is now given discretion to pay such rate of interest as the state of the undertakings and the financial position of the Board warrants. Of course, it is the hope of the Government that this clause will enable the Board to pay a rate of interest higher than six per cent. The opportunity has also been taken to put back in the Ordinance the general power to the Board to acquire land. This provision was deleted from the Ordinance by the Modification of Laws Telecommunications (Extension and Modification) Order, 1964, dated 9th December, 1964, because a substantially similar provision existed in Chapter 4 of Part VI of the Federal Constitution to enable the Board to acquire land. There are a number of other consequential amendments in the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.45 p.m.”
“The Member's question is if the child was born before 1949.”
“With regard to the issuing of visas or entry permits to those who wish to visit Singapore, I am afraid as far as overseas applications are concerned, we are very much dependent on the Malaysian Embassy and the British Embassy to help us out, for the simple reason that, at the moment, we just do not have a single embassy abroad. However, I have made arrangements to allow the Trade Commissioner in London to issue visas and passports, and subsequently when we have appointed a permanent representative to the United Nations in New York, he also will be empowered to perform this function. When our Ministry of Foreign Affairs has established our embassies in those capitals - this has already been indicated - then this problem will no longer arise. However, I shall look into the matter of taking immediate steps to find an agency or an agent in Hongkong who will be given the power of issuing visas to those who wish to visit Singapore. However, it must be remembered that the issuing of visas is not as simple as just chopping the stamp of an immigration passport on to a piece of paper, because many of these applications have to be sent back to Singapore for examination, and it may turn out that some of the applicants are undesirables whom we do not wish to allow entry into Singapore. So if there is some inconvenience due to the delay, I am afraid it cannot be helped because we have to consider the security aspect of such applications also. Nevertheless, I will look into the matter of expediting the issuing of visas and entry permits at Bangkok and Hongkong to places which the Member for River Valley has just now mentioned.”
“Mr Speaker, at the moment, we are issuing provisional Singapore passports, Any person who holds a Malaysian passport or any other type of passport, provided he is a citizen of Singapore, and he wishes to change over to the Singapore passport, can do so. The main reason why we have not urged every Singapore citizen to acquire a Singapore passport is simply because of the suddenness of Singapore being independent. We were caught flat-footed with regard to passport facilities, and we, therefore, arrived at an agreement with the Central Government of Malaysia that Singapore citizens who hold Malaysian passports could continue to use these passports until they expire or until the holder of the passport wishes to exchange it for a Singapore passport. I have indicated just now that new passports are being ordered from abroad, and we have been informed that it would take about six months or so for them to reach us. So we should be in a position probably some time in the early part of next year to issue normal Singapore passports. In answer to the second point raised by the Member for River Valley on immigration clearance at Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, I agree with him that this is an established procedure. I would not say that all procedures initiated by ex-colonial masters are bad. Whether it will be in the interest of both Singapore and Malaysia to have different arrangements with regard to clearing passengers by air at Kuala Lumpur and Singapore has to be discussed, but if it appears that it is necessary that we should review this question, then, of course, it shall be done.”
“I will only say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that before a passenger in an aeroplane lands anywhere, he will know that he is landing somewhere. There are announcements coming over the intercom, "Tighten your seat belts. We are landing in such and such a place." I am quite sure that everybody who lands at Singapore knows that he is in Singapore and not in Timbuktu. However, I would like to inform the Member for River Valley that the Department is considering putting up a neon-sign with the name "Singapore Airport" at Paya Lebar and that this project is now being pursued. 4.45 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, the provision of $5,600 for 1965 covers the cost of laundering of hand and bath towels used by passengers in transit and in the V.I.P. lounge daily, the laundering of cushion covers, and the mending and dry-cleaning of curtains periodically. On the average, a sum of $330 has been expended monthly this year. As more and more passenger traffic lands at Paya Lebar Airport, this expenditure is expected to rise. The sum of $5,000 estimated for 1966 shows a reduction of $600 on the provision for 1965. This is due to the purchase of hand-drying equipment which will lessen laundry charges.”
“So it is very necessary indeed that the Airport, as a gateway to Singapore, should give all travellers a good impression of our integrity and honesty, and if there are any shortcomings, I will be only too happy to hear from any Member of the House, or for that matter any member of the public. I will only add now that the Member for River Valley has very usefully raised these points in this debate, and I shall certainly look into all the allegations that he has made this afternoon.”
“Just as much as a licence is given to a coffee shop in town to operate an eating shop, I do not think there is any law to say that the owner must sell his soft drinks at 25 cents a bottle or 20 cents a bottle. The price of drinks must, of course, be related to the cost of production and the number of customers who patronise it. To be fair to the Director of Civil Aviation, the Member for River Valley ought not to blame him as being the evil man who has granted concessions to Neo Tai Kim and others, because he himself has admitted that a Committee studies all applications and it is the Committee which makes the decision, although no doubt the Director of Civil Aviation is the Chairman of this Committee. But I was rather curious indeed when I listened to the Member for River Valley saying that he has on occasions met officials of my Civil Aviation Department patronising the Shamrock Bar which is also owned by Neo Tai Kim who also operates the concession at the Singapore Airport Restaurant. This is an important point, and if there is reason to believe that there are undesirable dealings under the table or under the counter, then I have no hesitation in referring this matter to the C.P.I.B. which will be qualified to investigate any innuendoes or allegations of corruption. I can assure the House that it is the intention of the Government to ensure that everybody who makes use of the Airport and the terminal building will be given all facilities and all courtesy, because we do realise that more people pass through the Airport in Singapore than in any other part of the State.”
“He sent his transistor radio to he examined and it was found that the insides were all rusty although the brand was a very famous brand. The man was evidently very much cut up and I am afraid that such oneupsmanship on transit passengers by shopkeepers in Singapore is going to do themselves no good and do a considerable amount of harm to our reputation as honest traders and dealers. This is not the only story I have heard. In fact, it was heard somewhere else in Africa too. Somebody had bought a watch with a reputable name on the face of tile watch. But after one week the watch refused to work. He opened up the watch and found that its mechanism was not what it was supposed to be; it came from a cheap company. All in all, I must say that this fraud, which is perpetrated on tourists and on people who pass through Singapore, is damaging our reputation. This fraud, if it exists, must certainly he stopped, and I will make it a point to see what is going on in the transit lounge. Certainly if it is discovered that shopkeepers in the transit lounge are trying to defraud transit passengers who are in a hurry to do their purchases, then the licence which has been given to them for opening shops in the transit lounge will be cancelled. In so far as the Airport restaurant is concerned, I find it very difficult indeed to see what can be done with regard to the prices which are charged by the Airport restaurant for drinks, Coca Cola and other foodstuffs. The restaurant is allowed to operate on a tender fee, and there is no condition imposed to say that the operator must fix a certain price for the sales of drinks.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank the Member for River Valley for drawing my attention to all the deficiencies in the administration of the Airport. I must say that the responsibility for Civil Aviation left my charge for the last two years when Singapore was part of Malaysia. It became the responsibility of the Central Government of Malaysia and it was only recently that the responsibility for administering the Airport has reverted back to me. Being occupied with other more urgent matters. I have been unable to look into the complaints which have been registered against the administration at the Airport. But the allegations the Member has made are quite serious and I will certainly look into them and rectify whatever maladministration has taken place. I would like to clarify, not only to the Member but also to the House, that in so far as the granting of traffic rights to airline operators is concerned, ultimately it is the Minister who has the responsibility of signing the agreement and looking into the clauses of the agreement. It is not quite correct to say that officials at the Airport are responsible for negotiating traffic rights. They have no such responsibility at all. It is the responsibility of my officials, who are in my Headquarters, and the Minister. I do admit that I have also heard from other transit passengers, who have passed through Singapore, that shops in the transit lounge leave much to be desired. In fact, when I was in Moscow, my interpreter, a young Russian, was on his way back to Moscow from Jakarta - he was transiting in Singapore - and he visited the shops in the transit lounge and bought a radio, and when he went back to Moscow he found that he could not even receive Radio Moscow.”
“Mr Speaker, possibly I think the Member wants to reduce $10 from the salary of the "Assistant Secretary (Registrar of Citizens)", if I follow what he has been saying just now. Under subhead 1015 there is "Assistant Secretary", a man who is posted in my Headquarters. I think that is the reason why it is very confusing. Perhaps the Member will confirm.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Section 7 (1) of the Singapore Asian Seamen's Club Incorporation Ordinance requires that members of the Asian Seamen's Club Committee be appointed for nominations by seafarers' trade unions and by the Singapore Shipowners' Association. As there are only two registered seafarers' trade unions in Singapore, some difficulty has been experienced in obtaining the necessary representation. The proposed amendment to section 7 (1) of the Ordinance will bring it in line with the Seamen's Registry Board Ordinance and the Seafarers Welfare Board Ordinance in that seamen representation need not be confined to seafarers' trade unions only, but appointments can be made by the Minister of persons representing seafarers. The amendment will also enable the Minister to appoint persons from shipowners' associations other than the Singapore Shipowners' Association as there is more than one ship-owners' association in Singapore. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.- [Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. PEOPLE'S ASSOCIATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.51 p.m.”
“We would also want to make this reassurance, that Singapore, in keeping with the spirit of friendship and co-operation accompanying the establishment of the independent and sovereign State of Singapore, will want to extend all facilities provided by the Telecommunications Department (External) to the Malaysian Government. I would only like to inform the House that Malaysia today also has its own external communications station in Penang when it took over Cable & Wireless assets in Penang and ran it as a Government department after it became a sovereign and independent country. We have communicated with the Central Government of Malaysia of our intentions to move the Second and Third Readings of the Telecommunications Bill today and that, on the Bill becoming law, the Singapore Government would take over all responsibility for the operation of external communications in Singapore. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-{Dr Toh Chin Chye}. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. SINGAPORE ASIAN SEAMEN'S CLUB INCORPORATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.47 p.m.”
“This right comes within the terms "Property, Rights, Liabilities, and Obligations" which, before Malaysia Day, belonged to and were the responsibility of the Government of Singapore and must, under Article 9 of the Constitution and Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act revert to Singapore. It is the intention of the Singapore Government on the Telecommunications Bill becoming law to take action to operate external telecommunications services which had previously been carried out by Cable & Wireless Ltd. The Singapore Government understands that the Central Government of Malaysia had not finalised an agreement with Cable & Wireless Ltd, on the quantum which had to be paid to the company as a result of the take-over of the assets of the company. However, we believe that so far only a sum of $5 million has been paid by the Central Government of Malaysia to Cable & Wireless Ltd. in respect of the take-over of movable assets of the company. It is the intention of the Singapore Government that, on our taking over the assets of the previous Cable & Wireless Ltd., we would reimburse the Central Government of Malaysia whatever sums they have paid to the company. I would like to emphasise that the takeover of external telecommunications in Singapore will not in any way endanger the defence or the security or the external communications of Malaysia. The armed services defending Malaysia already have their own circuits at Jurong for external communications. Furthermore, Malaysia could use the Seacom circuits for external communications as Malaysia herself is a partner to the Seacom project and a member of the Commonwealth Cable Committee. And as such, Singapore could not deny Malaysia the facilities of Seacom, of which Singapore is also a partner.”
“However, action on the Ordinance was deferred because of a written request by the Minister for Works and Telecommunications and Posts of the Federation of Malaya, that the subject of telecommunications should be discussed at meetings of a Government Committee set up to deal with the details on the transfer of subjects to the future Central Government of Malaysia. Arising out of this request by the Kuala Lumpur Government, the Singapore Government agreed to extend the licences of Cable & Wireless to operate for another period of two years from the 1st of January, 1963, to the 31st December, 1964. Subsequently with Singapore joining Malaysia, telecommunications became the responsibility of the Central Government of Malaysia, and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by Order repealed the Telegraphs Ordinance of Singapore, repealed the Singapore Overseas Telecommunications Board Ordinance, 1962, and extended the Telecommunications Ordinance, 1950, of Malaysia to Singapore. On the 1st January, 1965, the licences of Cable & Wireless Ltd., having expired, the Government of Malaysia decided to take over the assets of the company and to operate the service with effect from 1st January, 1965. The legal position appears to be that the Federal Government acted under the provisions of the Telecommunications Ordinance, 1950, under which the Government has the exclusive privilege of establishing radio communications stations, and on the expiry of the licence of Cable & Wireless Ltd., took over the running of the services. Now, if Singapore had not joined Malaysia, Singapore would similarly have terminated the licence of Cable & Wireless Ltd, and taken over the services.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Following the formation of Malaysia, the Telegraphs Ordinance, Chapter 108, of Singapore was repealed and the Telecommunications Ordinance, 1950, of Malaya, was extended to Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak. With the separation of Singapore from Malaysia, it is necessary to promulgate our own Telecommunications legislation. The Telecommunications Bill seeks to enact the provisions of the Telecommunications Ordinance, 1950, of Malaysia with the necessary amendments consequent on the attainment of independence by Singapore and its ceasing to be a part of Malaysia. The penalties in the Bill have been equated to the penalties set out in the repealed Telegraphs Ordinance, Chapter 108, of Singapore. These are higher than those in the Telecommunications Ordinance, 1950, of Malaysia. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to take this opportunity to say a few words about external telecommunications which had previously been operated by the company of Cable & Wireless Ltd. The legal position with respect to the operation of external telecommunication services in Singapore is as follows. Licences were granted to Cable & Wireless Ltd, as follows - Cable Lending Licence by Deed dated 9th November, 1939, Licence for Underground Lending by Deed dated 22nd November, 1940, and the Wireless Telegraph Licence by Deed dated 1953. These Licences appear to be licences for definite periods and were due to expire on 31st December, 1962. On the expiry of these licences, it was the intention of the Singapore Government to take over the services under the provisions of the Singapore Overseas Telecommunications Board Ordinance, 1962, which was passed in the last Singapore Legislative Assembly early in 1962.”
“Nevertheless, in spite of all these rules which we have drafted to guide the Controller of Immigration, I must say that we have always considered these applications from a sympathetic light, and while we admit that they will not be a competitive factor in our task to look for jobs for Singapore citizens, nevertheless there are also other problems, like housing, which have to be considered as well. Sir, I would like to assure the Member for Bras Basah that we have not been very strict or severe in the consideration of entry permits for aged parents, provided certain requirements can be met by the sponsors - that they are our citizens, that they are in a position to support their parents, and that the parents solely depend upon them for sustenance. Otherwise, there has been no real difficulty in considering this problem of admitting aged parents.”
“I must say that these applications will, of course, be considered only if they come from Singapore citizens. Non-citizens do not have the right either under our citizenship laws or under immigration laws to sponsor the admission of their parents. In recent years, the number of admissions has considerably reduced. In 1960 it was just slightly over 400. In 1961, it was down to 260. In 1964, when immigration was not under my control but had moved over to the Central Government of Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur, it was just about 100 odd. All this goes to prove that all those citizens who would have their aged parents come into Singapore had already taken the opportunity in 1958 and 1959, and that many more Singaporeans today are born in Singapore. There was a time when a substantial number of our citizens were born overseas. Their parents were overseas. Consequently, they had their ties overseas, but many of these ties have now been broken because, as time goes by, their parents pass away. Therefore, it is not quite true that we now have as large a stream of remittances sent abroad to sustain aged parents. But there is one other point which we have to make, and that is, Singapore citizens who wish to seek the admission of their parents must also satisfy the Controller that their parents depend upon them solely for support and sustenance. If they have other relatives, brothers, sisters or other members of the family overseas, who are also supporting their parents, then, of course, there is no logical reason at all why entry permits should be given to such people.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully sympathise with what has been said by the Member for Bras Basah concerning the admission of aged parents of Singapore citizens. We have laid down certain rules on which the Controller of Immigration would be able to arrive at a decision as to whether applications will be permitted or not. I agree with him that persons of. 60 years of age and over will not in any way compete with Singapore citizens for jobs or other forms of employment. But, at the same time, it must also he remembered that it has been our experience that persons who have sought the admission of their aged parents, either from India or China, have eventually found themselves unable to support their growing families. The Ministry of Social Affairs thus finds its list of supplicants for public assistance has been growing longer and longer. 2.45 p.m. I believe - I am quite sure that all Members subscribe to this belief - that the concept of filial piety is very strong among us, particularly among the Chinese. Therefore, cases have always been dealt with sympathetically whenever we receive applications for the admission of aged parents. In fact, I would inform the House that the number of applications for aged parents to be permitted to enter Singapore was most during the years 1958, 1959 and 1960. But since then there has been a gradual decline. In a way, this reflects the greater stability of the population of Singapore, that fewer people now look towards the origins of their birth-place, and many more have more or less regarded Singapore as their homeland and their loyalties are to this country. Hence an inward-looking attitude has developed. In 1958, there were about 800 odd applications. In 1959, there were slightly over 950 applications for admission of aged parents.”
“" The following motion* stood in the names of Mr Poh Ber Liak, Mr Ong Liang Teng and Mr Kow Kee Seng - COMPENSATION FOR EVICTED DWELLERS *That in view of the hardships suffered by the dwellers who were forced to move out from their homes without reasonable compensation and proper care by the People's Action Party Government this House strongly condemns the People's Action Party Government for its unjust acts and urges the Government to pay attention and give reasonable compensation and proper care to the dwellers who are affected, and to help settle their means of livelihood.”
“Mr Speaker, is that in the three months since Singapore left Malaysia, we have been having an exciting and a busy time trying to normalise public life. I would only add that Singapore will never be allowed, either by our neighbours or by the rest of the world, to remain a backwater for the rest of our lives. It just cannot be. I personally for one, Sir, do not mind very much if Singapore were to be but a `sleepy hollow', like Malacca. In fact, I sometimes wonder why it is that my colleague, the Minister of Defence, had ever left the sleepy hollow of Malacca! It is a sort of little paradise, where you are free from all the world's - [Interruption]. Yes, I have just found the answer. He is not Mr Tan Siew Sin! However, I would like to say that we occupy an important and a central position in the hub of political events in this area of the world, it is our hope that many of us will imbibe the morality of the history of the Three Kingdoms, that we strive to ensure that we do not suffer their fate. That is our purpose. I will only add that the people of Singapore - two million of them - plus 10.000 yearly from Malaya, together will, with energy and industry, understand the meaning of survival of Singapore. I think with this spirit we can build a national consciousness which will in the end ensure that Singapore maintains its integrity and independence. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the following Address in reply to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara he agreed to:- "We, the Legislative Assembly of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present Session of this Assembly.”